UN Summit Tones Down Open-Source Stance

akb writes "CBR is reporting that the latest draft of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plan of Action has considerably removed language that promoted open source awareness, the creation of intellectual property mechanisms supporting open source and the creation of a UN 'Programmers Without Frontiers' body to support open source software in developing nations. This language was removed from earlier versions to make the document more palatable for business and commercial interests. In recent years commercial software interests, notably Microsoft, have lobbied hard to keep governments from openly preferring open source over proprietary software. Other issues to be debated include the archiving of and access to government information, access to wireless spectrum, government subsidies of Internet access, Internet taxes and international cooperation on information security."

Comments

Just like George Bush told us...

[Distan]

The UN is increasingly making itself irrelevant in the modern world. This is just one more sign of the trend.

Re:Just like George Bush told us...

[Comatose51]

Because we all know that Bush tells the truth...

Re:Just like George Bush told us...

[Anonymous Coward]

Somebody mod this fucking guy down!

This is riddiculus

[Anonymous Coward]

What do they mean, they are refusing to establish a bureaucracy to promote open source, even though this is clearly an essential mission for the UN! This cannot be tolerated, not any longer at alll!!

Re:This is riddiculus

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck can nobody spell ridiculous?

Re:This is riddiculus

[0x0d0a]

I know. It's redouculus, isn't it?

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Daniel Dvorkin]

The new wording is a masterpiece of fake balance. (Do they have Fox News writing their drafts for them?)

In the new draft, these are replaced with a more general description of how governments should "promote awareness among all stakeholders of the possibilities offered by different software models... including proprietary, open-source and free software".

Um, no. Proprietary software vendors do just fine "promoting awareness" of their products on their own. If governments give equal weight to proprietary and free/OSS, in practice that means that governments will be shilling for M$ just as hard as M$'s own PR dept., and free/OSS providers will be out in the cold. I suspect this will be especially true in poor countries -- the ones who would benefit most from a push for free/OSS -- because, let's face it, that's where government workers are most susceptible to outright bribery.

Too bad. It was a nice idea while it lasted.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[IAR80]

Fortunately some countries rich/poor are starting to implement the free/OSS model. Some are doing it for political reasons, other for economical reasons, but by doing so it will put more "pressure" on the poor countries's corrupt decision makers when they will have to account for the zillions spent on purchassing crrapy software when they could just opt for the free/OSS model like the "civilized" world.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Anonymous Coward]

The unique advantage to open source is that it's much more difficult to squash out than an existing vendor, who may be destroyed by 'cutting the air supply'. Propably the only way to remove OSS from the landscape is changing laws, locking out using legal means (patents) etc., which is hard. So, OSS product, if viable will propably last until commercial competitors will be squashed -- pretty much like Microsoft, who gained many markets by constantly pushing competitors over many years. Is MS able to lobby forever in so many places ? Let's see who will be more persistent ;)

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Anonymous Coward]

poor countries -- the ones who would benefit most from a push for free/OSS

Poor countries need paying jobs created. It's relatively easy to pay the bills writing proprietary software. It's relatively hard to pay the bills writing Open Source software.

First thing's first. Paying jobs. Americans/Canadians/Europeans have the luxury of taking a chance and coding up Open Source for the morality of it. But in other places, food on the table comes first. Closed software puts food on the table -easier-. I personally hope it won't always be that way, but today it seems to be the case. So let's create some jobs and help some people not die first. Then we can talk about development philosophies and what wasteful toy to buy from ThinkGeek.com this week.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[budgenator]

I suspect this will be especially true in poor countries

These poor countries, are these the same countries where people actualy believe that Microsoft's Windows XP costs $5.00 and $199.00 is twice the meadian anual per capita income?

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[egarland]

The problem here is not just one of marketing. They have spread the idea that the BSA and Microsoft have been cramming down everyone's throats, that software should be evaluated on the merits of the product, ignoring the merits of the system involved in crating the product. This is like a construction company insisting that when a building project goes out to bid the only thing evaluated are price and the size of the building created with no constraints on the construction methods used, safety, environmental impact, or maintainability. They want eliminate concideration of evaluation criteria where they inevitably lose. The software companies are doing the equivalent of building the building in such a way that only they can repair it when it fails and ensuring that it will fail over time and when it does, they insist that it can't be repaired, it needs to be torn down and rebuilt. This is not the right model for infrastructure.

Software companies are afraid that governments are going to start to realize they have done the equivalent of paying a company to build their roads while giving them the rights to put tollbooths wherever they want. It's ridiculous. There is a lot of infrastructure software out there (operating systems, relational databases, office suites, etc.) that have been paid for 100 times over by governments and they still don't own them.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[_Sprocket_]

First thing's first. Paying jobs. Americans/Canadians/Europeans have the luxury of taking a chance and coding up Open Source for the morality of it. But in other places, food on the table comes first. Closed software puts food on the table -easier-.

Exactly. Because all the jobs for writing that proprietary code are created in the developing country in question. By using a proprietary software package, you are esentially paying coders in your own developing tech job market.

Oh. Wait. No. Most of this development happens off-shore. If your countrymen are being hired to code for these projects, they had to emegrate first to do it - further weaking your own tech market.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Chibi Merrow]

I think your analogy doesn't quite work... The point is Governments should evaluate a software on its merit... Were they evaluating a building on its merit they'd include things like safety and environmental impact in the evaluation.

It shouldn't matter whether the building was built by volunteers or by a private construction firm, all that matters is which building is better. The same applies to software. When looking at software, Governments should evaluate based on TCO, reliability, maintainability, and usability. Usability unfortunately is the most important for most users and unfortunately is not the most important goal for most OSS software I've used.

Writing the Plan of Action to insist that they automatically prefer OSS over Proprietary software is as silly as writing it to automatically prefer proprietary over OSS. Use whichever one is better, regardless of its development methods. When it comes to server software, chances are the winner will be Linux. When it comes to Desktop software, the winner may be Windows or Solaris or Linux or whatever... Whichever fits the needs of their users best.

Choosing the best software package for the job fosters competition and makes the market healthier by causing lousy software to die out and encouraging further development of good software. If you truly want to beat out proprietary software... Then beat them with merit, not by some claim of moral superiority. As a previous poster pointed out... Proprietary software development employs people, which leads to people being fed... There's no moral deficit in that.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two things wrong with your statements:
1. There is nothing that says you cannot write proprietary software to run under an OSS OS (was that confusing?). As a matter of fact, there are proprietary products here in the US that run under Linux.
2. You are completely neglecting software as a tool, rather than as a an end in itself. The vast majority of software, proprietary OR OSS, is not used to generate MORE proprietary software, but is used as a tool in businesses that have nothing to do with software; rather the software is used as a tool to make those businesses more efficient, manage complexity that otherwise could not be managed well or at all and to streamline systems that functioned quite well by hand long before computers were ever thought of.

Honest to God, many of the arguments that I see against OSS sound as though computer software is the only marketable good and that to give it away would completely destroy every economy in the world. Grow up, people, you can't eat software, you can't wear it and it certainly doesn't provide any shelter. In fact, in its most usable form, you can't even touch software; it exists only as mythical bits that are represented by varying levels of charge.

In fact, the OSS model of software development would make a hell of a lot of sense in developing (read, poor) countries in this world beacuse it would allow them to develop real wealth in the form of food, clothing and shelter much more efficiently, rather than wasting a lot of resources on intangibles like software.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[villoks]

Hmp,

I was there and was able to follow the process very closely.. The text is a compromize, which was negotiated between US, EU and Canada (and some African countries). It was actually first intented only for the action line section but was later used for the draft declaration because a compromize was needed. Even this was a hard fight because certain big country wanted first to remove all references to open source and free software based on "technological neutrality princeple" (a very hot buzzword at WSIS.)

Another thing: it is good to remember that the biggest Open Source companies are nowadays IBM, HP Oracle etc. which really have enough marketing muscle to fight against Microsoft in all fronts (expect in the US Department of Trade..)and in thus govermental intervetions are no longer needed.

Ville

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[cowscows]

Interestingly enough, contractors get chosen based only on price, not on quality. In New Orleans, there is one particular contractor notorious for putting in an impossibly low bid for public projects, and then making up the difference by engaging in as many lawsuits as they can possibly weasel up. Not to mention that their construction quality sucks, and their lack of skill combined with all the lawsuits invariably puts projects way behind schedule. But the backwards ass policies of this city say the lowest bid has to be taken. I do realize how slow a state like Louisiana can be compared to most of the nation, but buildings have been around as long as human civilization. If some people still haven't figured them out, what chance does software, a brand new field, have of getting proper thought and consideration.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Sloppy]

Poor countries need paying jobs created.

No. Poor countries need increased production of things that have value. In the industrial age, there was a strong correspondence between production and labor, so you could get away with that type of sloppy thinking. But nowdays, you can recycle someone else's labor (reuse a software product that someone else already paid to create, e.g. Apache, Linux, Python, etc).

This is efficient and good.

Closed software puts food on the table -easier-.

Free Software means you can put food on the table by doing something else of value (which will create more usable capital) instead of wasting effort reinventing wheels and doing other economically unproductive tasks.

Quit advocating the creation of jobs, and instead advocate the creation of value. Waste is always bad, even when some poor slob got paid to do it.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Alsee]

The point is Governments should evaluate a software on its merit

Yes. The point here is that they are fighting laws that do direct the consideration of merits.

The laws and draft laws that they are opposing generally say to give prefference to a products that comes with the ability for the government to modify it. This means the government is able to fix it themselves, they can improve it themselves, the data never get lost in an unreadable format, and there is no danger if the seller goes out of business or End-Of-Life's the product. These laws also say to give prefference when the government is free to make more copies and give those copies / use those anywhere they please.

These laws do not direct the use of any specific licence. These laws list the merits that happen to coincide with with licences like the GPL, and say those merits deserve concideration.

The PR releases paint thes laws as unfair and they claim they want software considered "on the merits", but if you read the text of the laws you'll see they are merit based laws. These laws only apply to software that the government buys for itself. It is certainly reasonable for the government to direct its own buyers to consider certain important considerations and merits that often get overlooked in the government procurement process.

-

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[Alsee]

First of all, if there is already existing opensorce software to do what they need to do then why should they spend a single cent on anything? So the only thing to consider is when they want something not already available in open source.

So the situation is that they HAVE to pay to get software, one way or another.

Poor countries need paying jobs created.

How does buying foriegn closed source software help them create jobs? Or are you suggesting that 100 poor coutries pay 100 different local companies to write 100 different proprietary operating systems from scratch?

hard to pay the bills writing Open Source software

Your logic is circular. They shouldn't pay people to write opensource because it's hard to get paid to write opensource, LOL.

They have to pay someone for what they need. Why shouldn't they create local jobs by paying people to extend an existing opensourse project?

-

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[egarland]

Writing the Plan of Action to insist that they automatically prefer OSS over Proprietary software is as silly as writing it to automatically prefer proprietary over OSS.

This is not true. From the customer's standpoint maintainability of closed source software is necessarily worse than that of open source software because only the company that owns the source is allowed to modify it. Also the software owners aren't required to make modifications you want if they don't want to. For example, if my organization wanted to modify the Windows authentication system I was using to be Kerberos compatible to integrate with a new system and were willing to pay for the development time, I couldn't do it, no matter what my budget.

It shouldn't matter whether the building was built by volunteers or by a private construction firm, all that matters is which building is better.

OSS is not about volunteers (many OSS developers are salaried employees.) What makes something OSS is that the source is available and that the customer can make and use changes to it. I equate close source software to a plumbing system that does not allow you to make any modifications to it. It would be against the building code to install such a system. It's not inappropriate to require a minimum set of requirements on your infrastructure one of which might be the ability to modify it to accommodate situations outside of it's original design. It's like requiring buildings to be able to survive an earthquake, it's not free and I'm sure many companies would rather not do it but it's not unprecedented and not even a bad idea. It wouldn't even be unprecedented for a state or federal government to say that it was illegal to setup new systems using software that didn't meet the current "IT code" which could include requirements that the source be available for necessary modifications just like we require that plumbing drains that are installed are modifiable and expandable.

all that matters is which building is better

That doesn't mean it's not appropriate to issue minimum standards. Tents were efficient and useful to earlier civilizations but over time we learned that long-term there were better options and most places building codes don't allow you to use tents as residences anymore. Defining minimum standards to insure an infrastructure that is stable, maintainable, and scalable is part of what governments do. Continuing the building analogy: If a contractor offers to put up a tent in their plan to build a building, it will be rejected as unqualified no matter if it is the cheapest and prettiest solution to the problem. Similarly, they could deem closed source software unqualified because of it's fundamental issues. (I'm not saying they should, just that if it were the right thing to do it would be appropriate for government bodies to do it.)

Closed source software has fundamental issues, especially in infrastructure software. The problem is that in infrastructure software like operating systems, the closer the product is to 100% market share, the more expensive it gets (monopoly pricing) while in open source software, the closer it gets to 100% market share, the less expensive it gets (work is spread over more people.) Closed source is more economical efficient for small scale "niche" software and for medium scale "specialty" software but when it reaches the level of large scale "infrastructure" software, the closed source model becomes economically inefficient.

Proprietary software development employs people, which leads to people being fed... There's no moral deficit in that.

Open Source software employs people also. Granted there are fewer marketing, legal, middle management and sales people employed but that helps economic efficiency and is generally good for the economy. Since governments are in the business of providing infrastructure when it is economically efficient to do so and they are in the business of defining minim

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[mpe]

The problem here is not just one of marketing. They have spread the idea that the BSA and Microsoft have been cramming down everyone's throats, that software should be evaluated on the merits of the product, ignoring the merits of the system involved in crating the product.

Except that if software was evaluated on its merits then in plenty of cases open source software would be chosen over proprietary software. Also involved here is the idea that a "name" gives some sort of support. Even though proprietary licences disclaim anything they possibly can.

This is like a construction company insisting that when a building project goes out to bid the only thing evaluated are price and the size of the building created with no constraints on the construction methods used, safety, environmental impact, or maintainability.

But there might restrictions on who can bid in the first place, regardless of what costs they can offer. A bit like it being very unlikely that any Arab construction company could get work in Iraq.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[mpe]

When looking at software, Governments should evaluate based on TCO, reliability, maintainability, and usability.

For several of these the difference between OSS and proprietary software is relevent.

Usability unfortunately is the most important for most users and unfortunately is not the most important goal for most OSS software I've used.

Plenty of software is poor when it comes to usability. Difference is that OSS can be fixed, with proprietary software you are dependent of the original supplier for any fixes. Who might instead spend lots of money in advertising campaigns to try and persuade people that a poor UI is the best thing since sliced bread or play "it's a feature, not a bug".

Writing the Plan of Action to insist that they automatically prefer OSS over Proprietary software is as silly as writing it to automatically prefer proprietary over OSS.

The latter is apparently quite close to the status quo.

As a previous poster pointed out... Proprietary software development employs people, which leads to people being fed... There's no moral deficit in that.

Software development employs people. It's somewhat irrelevent if the result is OSS or proprietary. The only obvious difference is that an OSS project can use any piece of OSS (or PD) code which already exists. Whereas a proprietary project might have to either duplicate the fuction of software which has already been written or pay lawyers to negotiate licencing issues.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[mpe]

Exactly. Because all the jobs for writing that proprietary code are created in the developing country in question. By using a proprietary software package, you are esentially paying coders in your own developing tech job market.

If someone is being paid to code (or to modify existing code) it really dosn't matter if they are dealing with proprietary or OSS software.

Oh. Wait. No. Most of this development happens off-shore. If your countrymen are being hired to code for these projects, they had to emegrate first to do it - further weaking your own tech market.

Whereas with OSS they don't need to go anywhere. Anyway someone in Suva is likely to have a far better idea about the requirments of the Fijian Government than someone in Redmond or Bombay.

Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss

[mpe]

First of all, if there is already existing opensorce software to do what they need to do then why should they spend a single cent on anything? So the only thing to consider is when they want something not already available in open source.

In which case you only need to write/alter the bits which don't already exist. The most obvious would be translating into local language/dialect. Which is something best done by natives anyway.

They have to pay someone for what they need. Why shouldn't they create local jobs by paying people to extend an existing opensourse project?

Also to maintain it. To cope with such things as new statutes and changes to taxation.
Someone sitting in the North West US attempting to write software for the Jordanian government, using an Arabic phrase book, would be rather silly.

it's possible they have a point

[Illissius]

Open source software is a means and not an end, so if better/more cost-effective software can be created through commercial means, then it doesn't at all matter whether or not a competing, inferior product was created through open source. That said, the way things currently stand, there are precious few areas where commercial software has the advantage (off the top of my head, these are games, Mac OS X, and Opera).

Re:it's possible they have a point

[domninus.DDR]

It is interesting to note that of the few things you named you included OS X. Interesting because it is BSD based.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[Anonymous Coward]

MAC OS X IS LOOOOOOOSELY based on BSD. More accurately it's based on NeXTStep/Darwin. Crawl back into the hole you crawled out of plese.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[Anonymous Coward]

Its also interesting to note a recurring theme in open source. Implement a system and get it basically operational. Then hope a vendor comes in and polishes it to make it palatable for a mainstream audience.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[Hatta]

The point is that openness and freedom are essential to properly running a government. Free software is the only means that provides that end. If you have your data tied up in proprietary formats that you can only access with proprietary software you are controlled by your vendor. This is not acceptable for governments.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[merdark]

Yes, but FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD are not OS X. The value added is proprietary. Not to mention, even the core of the OS is very much similar to Next as well as BSD.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[ddimas]

I used to work in a cGMP compliant lab. One of the big issues was the verification of all software tools used for data analysis. The best method of verification is of course, to audit the source code. This was not possible when applied to spreadsheet and other closed source software. As a result we had to WASTE YEARS OF OUR TIME CALCULATING THAT SHIT BY HAND!

Once we had verified that we had a large enough data sample that showed the software performed accuratly, then we could trust it.

Open source tools would have allowed us to signifigantly speed up the verification time.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[Florian Weimer]

It is interesting to note that of the few things you named you included OS X. Interesting because it is BSD based.

It doesn't have /etc/fstab and socklen_t, and other misfeatures cause endless troubles for developers. If I want my software to compile out of the box on MacOS X, I'd have to add special compatibility hacks using autoconf (for problems like lack of socklen_t). This is ridiculous for a system which is so young.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[bockman]

Open source software is a means and not an end .

I might agree on that: software (open or proprietary) is a means, not an end.
But, free software is an end: it means an enrichment of the body of public and freely available knowledge by adding to it valuable software packages(which are basically detailed knowledge formalised in a computer language).
And the existence of a rich body of freely available knowledge is vital for any modern society (what if math and physics were IP-protected? ).

Therefore, choosing between proprietary software and free software is a matter to weighting between the short-term benefits that the first may still offer (a more refined product, a easier learning curve) and the long-term benefits of the second (no lock-in or artificial obsolescence, more control, but mainly an enrichment of the know-how inside the organisation that adopt the free software package).
Private citizens and short-budget business may have to focus on the short-term advantages, but large companies and government organisation should also (or mainly) be concerned with the long-term ones.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[mpe]

Open source software is a means and not an end, so if better/more cost-effective software can be created through commercial means, then it doesn't at all matter whether or not a competing, inferior product was created through open source. That said, the way things currently stand, there are precious few areas where commercial software has the advantage (off the top of my head, these are games, Mac OS X, and Opera).

Open source does not equate to non/anti-commercial. It works best within a tertiary business model.
Nor does proprietary software equate to commercial, there is plenty of proprietary software which is in no way commercial. Most notably drivers made available for download by anyone.
Actually a lot of proprietary software exists within tertiary business models too. The "off-the-shelf" secondary model software is in the minority when it comes to pieces of software written anually.

Re:it's possible they have a point

[mpe]

The point is that openness and freedom are essential to properly running a government. Free software is the only means that provides that end. If you have your data tied up in proprietary formats that you can only access with proprietary software you are controlled by your vendor. This is not acceptable for governments.

If this is a foreign owned proprietary software vendor and the alarm labelled "National Security" isn't going off, then something is seriously wrong.

Goes to show..

[grub]

Most of the world has the best politicians money can buy.

Re:Goes to show..

[Anonymous Coward]

(Score:+5, True Dat)

the future...

[sirb4c0n]

China
Fueld by Windows Small Buisness Server 2005

bleh.

Re:the future...

[Vikki_R.]

China
Fueld by Windows Small Buisness Server 2005

Not likely, IMHO. They seem to be *really* into Linux, from what I've heard.

Open Source is not the only source

[Davak]

This, of course, is due to lobbying from Microsoft. Lobbying works.

However, I am not sure that we all believe that open source software is perfect for every single situation. Even if you do believe this, I am not sure that it should be the stance of the UN.

"Business has consistently stated that it is essential for governments to ensure technologically neutral policy towards different software models," said the delegate from the business lobby, during the conference debate.

I just don't see how you can't agree with this. Open source deserves the freedom to grow and expand for its benefits. However, closed source software should not be punished in the market.

Closed and opened source software provides jobs and services for an ass load of people. The UN should treat them equally and fairly.

Davak

Re: Open Source is not the only source

[Black Parrot]

> Closed and opened source software provides jobs and services for an ass load of people. The UN should treat them equally and fairly.

For commonly used software this provision of jobs increasingly depends on artificial barriers to the acceptance of free alternatives. Now that millions of people are programmers with supercomputers on their desks and an itch to scratch, and now that the cost of software distribution is approximately zero, the unconstrained market value of a line of code for a commonly used application is rapidly converging to zero.

The anti-FOSS lobbying is merely an example of the artificial barriers that prop of the prices and keep all those people employed. (Though I doubt that there are actually that many people earning their living by programming operating systems, Web browsers, and word processors these days. In the future the way to make money as a programmer will be to implement special-purpose applications that only scratch the itch of some company's shareholders.)

Re:Open Source is not the only source

[pirhana]

> The UN should treat them equally and fairly.
No! UN is supposed to be a democratic institution and any democratic institution should promote transperancy and openness in all levels including governance. Proprietory softwares are exactly against this philosophy. They are not transperant and hence there is no point in UN treating them equal with open source.

Re:Open Source is not the only source

[fitten]

The UN shouldn't be a soapbox about markets, imo. Would the UN talk about sale and distribution of bread, milk, or CocaCola? (not talking about humanitarian aid)

Re:Open Source is not the only source

[budgenator]

Actualy a lot of organisations prefer a fuedal system where a samll group is given authority over the masses and can work their whims in a closed and opaque manner; big bussiness and dictatorships are good examples.

Re:Open Source is not the only source

[danila]

Business has consistently stated that it is essential for governments to ensure technologically neutral policy towards different software models.

Do you honestly think that Redhat said that? Or may be Microsoft and alike said that the governments should be technologicallt neutral (i.e. preserve the status quo)? Open source doesn't involve spending a lot of marketing and PR, that's why the competition with closed-source is not fair. And that is why governments should do something to raise the awareness of the open-source.

Re:Open Source is not the only source

[fitten]

So you want government funded advertising for open source? How would you rationalize that? You want to raise taxes on everyone to fund these advertising campaigns?

Sorry, it is not the government's (at least the USA government) job to advertise products of any type, nor would I want it to be.

And yes, raising awareness of a product is advertising.

OSS typically advertises by word of mouth. If that's not enough to keep it going and other methods that the projects employ do not work either, it should die as per its own rules (survival of the fittest). Otherwise, it is WelfareOSS.

Re:Open Source is not the only source

[NickFortune]

Closed and opened source software provides jobs and services for an ass load of people. The UN should treat them equally and fairly.

So are you calling for a level playing field? If so, maybe they'd be better off drawing up giudelines based upon criteria other than licencing terms.

Price, or example, would seem a valid consideration. Corporations make descisions based on price internally all the time. That's not just cost of software - there's forced hardware upgrades, subscription based licences, all valid as criteria to decide

The there's security. How easy is it to verify that the softwear doesn't have any nasty backdoors in it? Can you look at it yourself, or do you have to take the vendor's word? Do you have to sign an NDA - and if so and you find a big are you allowed to tell anyone? How easy it is to get it patched if exploits are discovered?

Which brings us to maintainability: What has to happen if it doesn't do quite what you need? Do you have pay the vendor? Wait for the next release. Put up with it as it is? Or can they get local talent to fix it?

Then there's interoperability - by which I mean with more than one vendor. Do you want to lock your taxpayers/users/whatever into using a the same vedor as you use, or are you going to choose a solution that has no vested interest in lock-in?

It's issues like these, and the frustration they engender, that are, IMHO, turning the free software/open source movement from a minority hobby into a movement that can challenge the mighty microsoft. So from that viewpoint I agree with you. We don't need mandated free software - just some specific, verifiable criteria for guidelines. I expect there'd be some vigorous debate as to what those criteria should be - but the debate itself would be welcome.

Instead we get some carefully meaningless drivel that allows corporate software to push as hard as they like and gives them a basis to cry "foul!" whenever anyone chooses linux.

Re:Open Source is not the only source

[drinkypoo]

What I cannot imagine is why a government would opt for closed source software. Since we know that obscurity is not security, especially not in the case of mainstream commercial software (witness Half-Life 2) and the government generally has the means to define standards. If they say they'll only do it one way, then everyone else will do it their way. Tax forms, for example... So they don't even ened to support proprietary file formats if they don't want to. And wouldn't you like to have all the source? Between proper partitioning of services, use of jails or virtual machines, and good network security, open source operating systems deliver a significantly higher level of overall security than Windows, and most other commercial operating systems. So I just don't get why they aren't dropping proprietary systems left and right. Certainly hiring a number of programmers to make in-house customizations which presumably will not be shared with the rest of us in any form and thus do not conflict with any of the major open source licenses would be cheaper than buying and supporting all the closed stuff, considering the sizes of the installations involved. But more to the point, closed source commercial software gives a commercial entity some limited but real control over your economy, which is seldom a good thing.

Re: Open Source is not the only source

[sheldon]

Now that millions of people are programmers with supercomputers on their desks and an itch to scratch, and now that the cost of software distribution is approximately zero, the unconstrained market value of a line of code for a commonly used application is rapidly converging to zero.

If this is true, then the market will prevail. But we've had personal computers on our desks for 20 years now, and software development has just gotten more expensive due to complexity, not less. At some point reality has to come into play here.

Why then do you feel the need to enforce your desire of market direction shift through government intervention? Why do OSS zealots want to establish artificial barriers to entry into the market for commercial software?

I have a real problem with your hypocrisy.

Re:Open Source is not the only source

[danila]

Markets are not the solution for everything. Governments should intervene when they spot a deficiency. To me raising awareness of FOSS clearly is a such case, especially because a significant part of the closed-source industry is dominated by the monopolistic moster, whose name should not be said. :) If we had a very free and open market, it might work without government or UN involvement. But there are no chances that open source (Linux in particular) can spend as much as MS on advertising. MS is a monopoly, that why governments should either hinder MS or help its competitors, especially OSS. To encourage competition, not simply to protect selected companies, like in case of agriculture subsidies.

Lobbying

[simgod]

I guess if it were a resolution USA would just veto it like all those that told Isreal to respect international law (around 30).

Re:Lobbying

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel is in violation of several actual security council resolutions, so the US can't really have vetoed all of them...

Re:Lobbying

[rruvin]

Yeah, because the Security Council has nothing better to do than vote on resolutions mandating open source. And if you insist on one-sided country bashing, at least learn to spell to country's name.

Re:Lobbying

[Anonymous Coward]

Israel is in violation of several actual security council resolutions,

So many it would take a lot for any other country to overtake it

so the US can't really have vetoed all of them...

Only those which would actually result in action being taken are sure to get a US veto.

Massachusetts makes a related statement

[segment]

Also note that a Massachusetts official makes mention of 'Open Source Overstatements' too. Could be people don't want to be hassled by the thought on instability due to SCO's antics regarding their lawsuits. Maybe people are starting to wonder whether it's going to cost them more in the long run or something...

A senior state official said Friday that reports about a planned shift to open source software platforms by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were inaccurate and that the state has no "Freeware Initiative," as stated by a number of software industry lobbying groups opposed to the

Eric Kriss, the state's secretary for administration and finance, said that statements released by groups like the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), based in Washington D.C., were "very inaccurate." The state is simply considering ways to integrate disparate systems using open standards such as HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), XML (Extensible Markup Language) and Java, he said.

Reports about a plan to favor open source platforms like Linux over proprietary software platforms surfaced in the media last week and claimed that state Chief Information Officer Peter Quinn was instituting a "Freeware Initiative" to invest in open source software such as Linux whenever possible. Those reports followed a leaked memo from Kriss to Quinn, Kriss said.

etc... etc... etc... ful article

Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement

[BWJones]

Could be people don't want to be hassled by the thought on instability due to SCO's antics regarding their lawsuits. Maybe people are starting to wonder whether it's going to cost them more in the long run or something...

Oh, hell.....Here's a scary thought. What if Microsoft is underwriting, supporting or even directing SCO in their attacks on Linux and other *NIX? SCO stance plays right into the Microsoft playbook of the past few years.

Probably not the case, but......what if.......?

Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement

[glitch!]

Here's a scary thought. What if Microsoft is underwriting, supporting or even directing SCO in their attacks on Linux and other *NIX?

Okay, I'll play the "straight man" :-)

So how would Microsoft channel all that money into SCO to keep them going? And it's not like some mystery people are bidding up the price of SCO stock just so the SCO executives can sell their shares for much more than they are really worth...

Okay, your turn :-)

Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement

[_Sprocket_]

Maybe people are starting to wonder whether it's going to cost them more in the long run or something...

Or maybe officials have better things to do than get hastled by lobyists pushing the existing status quo (namely the so-called CCAGW and Initiative for Software Choice).

Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement

[BWJones]

Okay, I'll play the "straight man" :-)

I was really only joking......well, perhaps partially. :-) But I will be happy to field your questions.

So how would Microsoft channel all that money into SCO to keep them going?

Microsoft is worth how many Billions? It would take perhaps 5-6 million to prop up SCO to this point, much of that would be returnable. That much money in terms of investments for a company the size of Microsoft is nothing.

And it's not like some mystery people are bidding up the price of SCO stock just so the SCO executives can sell their shares for much more than they are really worth...

No, we know exactly who is bidding up SCO stock, and who is profiting from it.

Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement

[Anonymous Coward]

What if Microsoft is underwriting, supporting or even directing SCO in their attacks on Linux and other *NIX?

Is this really the first time that thought has crossed your mind? Where have you been for the past six months? Right after SCO filed its lawsuit, Microsoft bought an $8 million license for UNIX software they have no use for. They have already announce plans to expand that license at some point in the future.

Bruce Perens and others have published articles speculating the same thing.

Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement

[mpaque]

> So how would Microsoft channel all that money into SCO
> to keep them going?

Buy a UNIX software licence, in spite of not shipping a UNIX or Linux product. License some patent for an 'undisclosed fee'. (One leaked report put this at an initial payment of 10 million US dollars.) Done as of May 19. 2003.

The hand in the sock puppet:

http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailyar ch ives.asp?ArticleID=43532

Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement

[Sphere1952]

"So how would Microsoft channel all that money into SCO to keep them going?"

Well, what they've done so far is buy overpriced short term licences from SCO. This was a significant portion of SCO's revenue last quarter.

Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement

[Alsee]

So how would Microsoft channel all that money into SCO

That sould be in the past tense. How DID Microsoft channel all that money into SCO. It is all spelled out in legally required stock filings by SCO. There's a PDF of it online somewhere.

Microsoft paid SCO (roughly) $8 million upfront, plus an another $5 million to be paid over the next 3 or 4 quarters. The deal also includes an option for Microsoft to simply hand SCO more money at will (an undisclosed amout) if Microsoft decides they "need" additional rights.

The deal is suspicious for several reasons. First there is the timing, I think it was 2 days before the SCO/Linux situation started. Microsoft also appears to have absolutely no use for the licence they bought. Even if they did and a need for it, Microsoft never willingly buys a licence to anything unless they are forced into it. Not only could they have gone ahead without a licence and fought it later, but SCO was about to file for bankruptcy. Microsoft could have simply waited and SCO would no longer have existed. Which brings up the fact that SCO has been losing money every single quarter of it's history. The Microsoft deal allowed them to report a profitable quarter for the first time in history. The continuing quarterly Microsoft payments should keep them in the black for the rest of the year. Then there's the fact that SCO has been issuing press releases that hurth their own future business prospects even if they win the case. They appear to be self destructive statements. They undermine Linux AND SCO. The only one who appears to benefit would be Microsoft.

I can't say for a fact that Microsoft made a deal with SCO to undermine Linux, but the circumstancial evidence is tremendous.

-

I don't get it...

[JayBlalock]

Even Microsoft doesn't have the resources to buy off entire world governments. (they spend too much keeping the US bought.) Why would presumably rational delegates and senators pay much heed to a single company advocating change in treaty\declaration language which obviously has no purpose EXCEPT to benefit that single company? Especially one whose lack of product security and general badness have become world reknown even in non-techie circles.

There's gotta be something else going on...

Re:I don't get it...

[Mr Smidge]

Why would presumably rational delegates and senators pay much heed to a single company ... which obviously has no purpose EXCEPT to benefit that single company?

Oh, I'm quite sure it's money money money, or promise of. Human and corporate greed is one of the biggest sources of irrational decisions here, it seems.

Re:I don't get it...

[akb]

Buying world governments is probably cheaper than buying the US government. And sometimes not even necessary because if you buy the USG you often get the rest of the world thrown in for free. What a bargain!

Seriously, the office of the US Trade Rep is exceedingly efficient at throwing weight around to get developing countries to toe the line on trade issues.

Microsoft has been doing this for a long time, like back in '98 when they got Sri Lanka to change their IP laws to be more friendly. Ballmer and Gates have been globe trotting lately

Re:I don't get it...

[Bunji X]

Well, politicians are not that aware of differences in the software market. They might have heard bad things about proprietary software (ms security), but also bad things about OSS (sco might own linux). Then they base their decisions on what their advisors tell them is the reasonable thing to do, combined with what they have heard/researched for themselves.

Enter, lobbyists. These guys actively hands out information that support their case. Corporations, having lots of money, can hire professional lobbyists (people who know how to get the message through) to do this full time, while OSS projects might have a few people (not professional lobbyists) doing this in their own spare time. Wonder whose words of wisdom the politicians and their advisors will be hearing the most?

You don't need to buy off anyone. It's enough making sure that your side is the one "shouting loudest" to get things going your way in politics, as long as the subject isn't something with which politicians or their associates are very familiar with themselves.

Re:I don't get it...

[CaptainFrito]

Commercial companies don't 'buy off governments.' They cut them in. There's a profound difference between these two concepts.

Re:I don't get it...

[sheldon]

One of the biggest problems facing OSS advocacy is that the people advocating don't seem to understand that there are a great many people who don't buy their arguments.

It's not just a single company, there are millions of developers like myself who do not believe in Linux and do not wish to see the software industry corrupted by open source. I don't know, maybe I just like having a job too much, apparently that's the wrong attitude to have in this world.

Especially one whose lack of product security and general badness have become world reknown even in non-techie circles.

If only OSS weren't worse than Windows in these categories, you might have had a valid point.

It's good that the UN is not buying the OSS bullshit.

Re:I don't get it...

[Tony]

Commercial companies don't 'buy off governments.' They cut them in. There's a profound difference between these two concepts.

And that difference would be... what, exactly?

Seriously, it's like the tax breaks the US government gives major corporations. If a corporation doesn't pay $1M in taxes, that's like the government giving them $1M. It's corporate welfare. And if a company gives the US Government money, and expects something in return (like, being represented as a special interest in international treaties), how is that diffent from "buying them off?"

Call it what you want, but the end result is the same: the individual (or "consumer," as they are called in the industry) is the one getting fucked.

Re:I don't get it...

[CaptainFrito]

'Buying them off' in the context of the parent post's reference to Microsoft was referring to the idea that goverment officials get paid for doing Microsoft a favor so that Microsoft can do as it pleases. This is corruption. 'Cutting them in' means that they (the government in question) gets a share of the ongoing economic activity created by the monopoly protection or other unfair competitive advantage. 'Buying them off' also suggests that there is a direct financial benefit to the individual lawmakers for the legislation itself. 'Cutting them in' (again, them=the gov'ts, not the officials) allows the "state" to "benefit" not only the lawmakers, hence encouraging some amount of public approval -- jobs, tax breaks, whatever -- there is "public benefit", the Robin Hood concept. The financial reward to the lawmakers is in the future, not the present, and generally only indirectly, not directly. Sure, they manipulate trust-fund investments ahead of law change announcements, get cushy private-sector jobs in their afterlife, etc., but the public does get some share in the wealth redistribution. It's about sharing in the upside, not getting paid for "a favor done." Buying them off is "bad" in the public's eye, "cutting in" allows the public to share in the booty, so is seen as "good", at least by the [public] beneficiaries.

Papa knows best.....

[BWJones]

In recent years commercial software interests, notably Microsoft, have lobbied hard to keep governments from openly preferring open source over proprietary software.

But Microsoft knows what's best for us right? :-)

Seriously though, a little lobbying is just fine in my book as long as that lobbying is truly an education of lawmakers on the issues and solutions to problems. The problem becomes when individual companies have such power and control as to dominate the lobbying process with money and resources so as to eclipse all other concerns.

So, when the article states "Business has consistently stated that it is essential for governments to ensure technologically neutral policy towards different software models," said the delegate from the business lobby, during the conference debate." I find it disturbing that removal of open source materials is allowed from the "business lobby". This argument is then followed by this statement "Governments cannot know, case-by-case, what software solution is best for every user," she said, urging the deletion of the open-source provisions. "Each user should be allowed to make a choice that meets their individual needs." which makes absolutely no sense and again argues that Microsoft knows what's best for me and my government.

Microsoft does not have governments best interest in mind when they say this. Rather they have their own best interest in mind by making these illogical arguments, and I suppose that these arguments could be interpreted and taken at face value, but then backfire upon Microsoft when governments say "enough of the security problems, virii and worms and associated costs associated with Microsoft, we're going with Apple computer".

Re:Papa knows best.....

[r.future]

Seriously though, a little lobbying is just fine in my book as long as that lobbying is truly an education of lawmakers on the issues and solutions to problems. The problem becomes when individual companies have such power and control as to dominate the lobbying process with money and resources so as to eclipse all other concerns.

I agree with you, if lobbying was just people attempting to talk to, inform, and educate etc lawmakers about whatever than I would have no problem with lobbying. However, I believe that now almost all lobbying is they type that you describe as a problem; the type where people are simply...lets be frank... buying decisions of law makers.

A "democracy" where money = votes (where he/she who can make the highest bid or has the most money gets what he/she wants) is not a true democracy at all, it's an oligarchy.

I personally feel, that until there is some sort of law that completely outlaws giving money by individuals (corporations counting as individuals) to elected officials the oligarchy will continue; real democracy will only be talked about in intellectual circles, and money = votes "democracy" will continue to be a placebo of the masses.

Just FYI here is some figures to show just what elected officials in the US make each year, I have no idea what UN officials make, so I think they could get by with out taking more money form the wealthy.

President of the US (Clinton was the last to make 200,000 Bush is the first to get this much.) $400,000

Rank and File Senators and Rep's $154,700

Senate Leadership Majority Leader - $171,900 Minority Leader - $171,900

House Leadership Speaker of the House - $198,600 Majority Leader - $171,900 Minority Leader - $171,900

Above info from usgovinfo and how stuff works

Re:Papa knows best.....

[doodleboy]

Seriously though, a little lobbying is just fine in my book as long as that lobbying is truly an education of lawmakers on the issues and solutions to problems. The problem becomes when individual companies have such power and control as to dominate the lobbying process with money and resources so as to eclipse all other concerns.

Lobbying is just one facet of the plutocracy that is modern America, where everyone is equally entitled to all the democracy money can buy. Any semblance of truth or justice is long since dead, replaced by product placement, focus groups, and other such means of manipulating public opinion. So as a result, we have a near total lack of accountability for big business, a corrupt, power-grabbing government that convinces us to go to war by filling the air with stupid, obvious lies, and by an equally corrupt media which uncritically parrots everything handed to it.

So uh, yeah, lobbying is a problem. Here we have Microsoft, manipulating the UN into pulling back from a policy that would be hugely beneficial to dozens of poorer member states. This sort of thing happens everywhere these days, so it's not particularly surprising. Although when they do happen, I can't help but wonder about the machinations that must go on behind the scenes...

Re:Papa knows best.....

[r.future]

I agree what your saying (as I believe my post above will indicate) but I wanted to know if you thought the mass emailing/faxing/phone calls etc that are organized online by places like moveon.org, commoncause.org, hrw.org, etc. Are those actions (the mass emails faxes and what not) a form of lobbying?

Reason I ask is because I'm still not sure if this is lobbying or something different, and I just wanted to see what other people though.

One thing I am sure about however, is that if movements online that create masses of people communicating to elected public officials is lobbying, (And even if it is something completely different) it is not nearly as powerful as the kind of lobbying that wealthy (in this case Microsoft) can do with money.

-r.future

Re:Papa knows best.....

[Alsee]

enough of the security problems, virii and worms and associated costs associated with Microsoft, we're going with Apple computer

What's worse than finding a worm in an Apple?

Finding half a worm in an Apple.

-

Good

[illuminata]

The government really needs to stay out of promoting things one way or the other. Let things handle themselves. The U.N. shouldn't be forcing people to be aware of open source nor should they be trying to write mechanisms supporting it, they should be trying to solve real problems at hand (albeit I don't like a massive government body like the U.N.).

Like it or not, open source software isn't always the best choice. Why not try using the best software for the job, open sourced or not? Purchasing software isn't evil.

With that said, please refrain with "but Microsoft does evil things" posts. Millions make money from software, not just Microsoft.

Re:Good

[Anonymous Coward]

Um...you can make money and not be evil. The two are not linked. Your logic is flawed, and rather silly. Go back to your X-Box.

Re:Good

[illuminata]

Did I imply that it is evil? It isn't and I never said it was. You probably should be agreeing with me yet you're saying that my logic is flawed and rather silly? Interesting.

Re:Good

[danila]

The government really needs to stay out of promoting things one way or the other. Let things handle themselves. The U.N. shouldn't be forcing people to be aware of AIDS nor should they be trying to write mechanisms fighting it, they should be trying to solve real problems at hand (any ideas what these might be?).

Like it or not, anti-AIDS drugs aren't always the best choice. Why not try doing something else, like asking people to abstain from sex while we put our heads in the sand? Chastity isn't evil.

Re:Good

[panurge]

The government really needs to stay out of promoting things one way or the other.
However, while the government is being bought by commercial interests, and while the government does so much spending (on the military, infrastructure and bureaucracy), that isn't going to happen. Just by buying a huge system from one vendor, it promotes that vendor. Part of checks and balances is that the government should review the effects of such policies and purchasing, and inform its own procurement and policy staff where these may be having an adverse effect. If that's promoting, I am all for it.

Re:Good

[illuminata]

Wow, you really are trying to twist a statement into something extreme aren't you? It should be apparent that what I wrote wasn't intended for every single thing under the sun. I really wish that people would see things as they are obviously meant rather than being miserable pricks and contorting what people say.

If you ask me, AIDS education is far more important. They should learn that sleeping with virgins won't cure the disease (and please, don't try to imply that message is intended for all people, but there are some who really do believe it). More often than not, people just don't care and continue to sleep with others despite the fact that they have HIV or AIDS, otherwise how would it spread? The only other possibility would be because they didn't know. If they were educated, they'd use contraceptives and regularly test themselves. Educating them should be top priorty. And yes, let's make the education process privately funded, as well as testing and treatment. I don't want to hear any bitching about how that would be terrible. I'd allow a private institution funding it before a government anyday. I want to help a cause out of the goodness of my heart, not because of a league of nations or bureaucracy taxing me to do so.

Last but not least, if you're trying to equate capitalism to the AIDS epidemic, fuck off, you ignorant son of a bitch. In fact, you should be fucking off already.

Re:Good

[illuminata]

But by promoting open sourced software from the get-go, any other types of software are at a huge disadvantage. What my statement intended to imply is that the government should give all other options a fair shake first, not showing favoritism one option before you've looked at them all. Any sort of promotion thereafter would be an adverse effect. The government choosing what works best for them doesn't mean that the particular company they chose is the best one out of them all, it just means that they had the proper solution.

And, if what you say is true about the government caving in to commercial interests (in my opinion, politicians cave in to their own interests to keep their positions, whether they be commercial or not), what makes you think that open source software has a fighting chance anyways? It would already be dead in the water and the potential U.N. promotion would all be for show anyways. These politicians all of the sudden become "good" in your opinion, would they?

Re:Good

[danila]

I have nothing against private sector. :) Of course, while the FOSS communication policy should have been be designed in the UN, actual communicating should have been done by private marketing and PR firms. No doubt about this. As for funding, markets are very far from perfect in this regard, because of how fundrasing works. People are irrational, that's why they will give their money to the charity with the best promotional campaign, not to the charity with the rightest cause. Ergo free market is not very efficient here and should be augmented (if not replaced) by public efforts.

I don't want to sound like twisting your statements, but I couldn't resist.

More often than not, people just don't care and continue to buy MS softwaredespite the fact that it's riddent with bugs and vulnerability, otherwise how would MS get money? The only other possibility would be because they didn't know. If they were educated, they'd install open-source software and use sound security practices. Educating them should be top priorty.

Really, I don't see much difference between these two issues. I am not equating capitalism to the AIDS epidemic, but I think AIDS epidemic and Blaster/SoBig epidemic both have lack of information as their root cause. The markets have shown that they cannot solve the problem by themselves, that why some government assistance is in order.

Re:Good

[illuminata]

I don't think it's a matter of whether or not the markets can fix the problem, but they've chosen not to, and until they do, I doubt that the government can fix the problems without creating a slew of new ones.

Re:Good

[mpe]

But by promoting open sourced software from the get-go, any other types of software are at a huge disadvantage. What my statement intended to imply is that the government should give all other options a fair shake first, not showing favoritism one option before you've looked at them all.

This is rather hard when the status quo, for many years, has been to favour a certain type of proprietary software. As for the "huge disadvantage" anyone can use or distribute OSS. If OSS were to be mandated a free open market would be an automatic side effect.

Re:Good

[illuminata]

Whether or not everybody can use or distribute OSS is one thing, whether or not it's the best for the job is another. Open source can be a perk, but if the software isn't the best tool, it shouldn't be used, regardless of whether or not it's open source. They shouldn't show favoritism either way because of how the source is handled.

I also wouldn't want the government creating a market for open source software. Is it really their place to do so? I say let the consumers choose whether or not a particular market is created based on their needs, not based on what somebody thinks they could use. People might consider open source software more if they felt that they had a compelling reason to use it. As of now, your average person doesn't see why they should switch. It shouldn't be up to the government to say who uses what, but instead, advocates of open source software should think of creative ways to make them want to switch.

Please note that I shouldn't be considered an open source advocate, moreso of a person who accepts it, but also accepts proprietary software and doesn't mind when somebody wants to sell their product.

Doesn't really matter does it?

[Interruach]

They want to promote OSS and non-free software equally. Fair enough. The most important thing is open standards, at the end of the day if people want to spend money on something that they can't change that's up to them.
I don't see how this will make a difference anyway. People have heard of linux, bsd, apache, mozilla, openoffice and so on. And once the word is out they'll give it a try. And once other people have tried and found success it becomes a viable option. No-body likes policies dictated from the top down: And even in places where they have a windows-only policy you can still find the occasional linux/*bsd box or mac.

Sad state of affairs?

[MattGWU]

When business interests have such a large influance on a major international governance (policy? diplomacy?) body. It's clear enough that business has a great deal of pull in US domestic policy, and I'm sure the same is true to some extent in other countries, but now they can tell the *United Nations* what to do (alright...strongly suggest what to do)? Hope they don't get inflated heads over this.

And no, this isn't the end of the world. This isn't the most important issue the UN is dealing with right now, and it certainly isn't time to 'welcome our new proprietary commercial software product masters'. However, it seems pretty clear that they had a plan going when they were going to look favorably on Open Source solutions for governments and developing nations, a position that was likely hatched internally. A position that was changed by outside pressure. Bet they thought it was a pretty good idea they had going!.

This probably isn't one of those "Who is REALLY in charge" issues, but it makes one think. Then again, maybe it doesn't.

I could not fail to disagree with you less.

[jefu]

Of course.

But closed source software is not punished in the market. Closed sourse software is substantially favored. In the US it occurs in part because some closed source vendors have what amounts to monopolies that close out other alternatives (not just Microsoft). In part it occurs because the vendors who make money advertise heavily, subsidize use of their software in education and otherwise make their products almost impossible to ignore. In part its because vendors indulge in FUD campaigns. In part it occurs because users, once committed to a software solution, are too lazy (or stupid) to change.

To indluge in a multi-purpose analogy, evenhandedness in such an environment is like being a fair referee in a boxing match between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Georgy Russell.

If your goal is to have the biggest win, evenhanded is good. If your goal is to have the best person win evenhanded is probably a very bad thing. If you r goal is even to have a good fight, evenhanded is not going to do it. If your goal is to have the best person for governor win, evenhanded is probably very, very wrong.

U.N. Irrelevant, Governments Irrelevant

[Crashmarik]

This is really a non issue. Keith Laumer got the right of the matter, Diplomats exist mainly to consume excess hors d'oeuvres. Programmers exist to turn cafeinated beverages into code.

I love hearing that Munich or Massachussets, or Brazil has adopted open standadrs or open source but if they didn't that wouldn't matter either.

Open source succeeds when and where it is better. The way for OSS to get better is for the people involved to concentrate on making it better.

The Open Source movemnet existed long before the first Government Organization realized it was a good idea. If another government never decides to recogniza or adopt it, it won't miss a beat.

What will hurt Open Source is corruption by organizations that don't get it and never will. The UN is inherently about compromise. The GPL is about take it or leave it. Theres not alot room for agreement there.

Re:U.N. Irrelevant, Governments Irrelevant

[Florian Weimer]

Open source succeeds when and where it is better.

This is part of the problem. I don't want eternal lock-in with a monopoly, even if the products delivered by that monopoly are "better", and free software is "worse" (according to some arbitrary metric).

Freedom is more important than advance of technology, and freedom requires choice.

Re:U.N. Irrelevant, Governments Irrelevant

[kavau]

Open source succeeds when and where it is better. The way for OSS to get better is for the people involved to concentrate on making it better.

That's, of course, assuming that Open Standards are enforced. If 90% of Government documents are distributed in a closed, proprietary data format, and only a single company has the capability to write software that displays these document without glitches, then a better, more cost-effective solution still doesn't stand a chance. Closed standards distort the market and allow the monopolies controlling the standard to keep a strangle-hold on the market. Open standards would alleviate the playing field.

In addition, Closed Standards also eliminate choice for Government customers, forcing them to buy certain products from certain companies. Another form of the "M$ tax".

So, I will agree with your comment as soon as Open Standards are enforced. But we aren't there yet.

Doesn't really matter, until...

[lenski]

...I cannot participate in my society unless I've paid some particular profit-motivated vendor for the privilege. I accept responsibilities like paying taxes, obeying laws, behaving in a civil way, etc. I do not accept for one second the idea that, after paying big big bucks in taxes, I get to pay yet more for high cost software to participate.

My favorite example is government web sites that "work better with particular browsers associated with expensive desktop operating systems" and have subtle problems that interfere with my attempts to access them using the tools available on my engineering workstation.

A message from Stallman:

[Anonymous Coward]

"This summit places itself in danger of irrelevance"

Re:A message from Stallman:

[stwrtpj]

"This summit places itself in danger of irrelevance"

Like the UN itself?

WSIS? - WE SEIZE!

[mykawhite]

[This is circulating in the movement.]

WSIS? WE SEIZE!

Over the past months, activists and artists with different backgrounds ranging from indymedia centers to the noborder-networks, from the Free Software movement to community media, from grassroots campaigns to hacker collectives, have been discussing how to intervene in, outside of, counter to, or as an alternative to the agenda and organisation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) from December 10th to 12th in Geneva, Switzerland.

WHAT IS WSIS?

WSIS is the first of two global summits dealing with information and communications to be held by the United Nations in Geneva. But the Summit is a smokescreen. Although it talks about the digital divide, knowledge dissemination, social interaction, political engagement, media, education, and health, this language is used to mystify the continuing use of information to protect and advance the interests of global capital.

GENEVA-03

Geneva-03 is an open, loose and temporary association of groups and individuals who are currently preparing a series of events around the WSIS. Its common goal is to create autonomous physical and network spaces for diverse tactical, grassroots, activist and community media actions and discussions in and around the WSIS meetings.

The issues at hand are many:

* Shaping and subverting the information technologies that are now part of everyday life.

* Refusing both war and infowar.

* Countering the exploitation of immaterial work and informalized labor.

* Resisting border management and digital rights management.

* Defending our commons of ideas, including indigenous knowledge, scientific data, free software, educational systems and creative expression against the immense pressures of privatization.

* Fighting for freedom of movement and freedom of communication for all people, not just those who promote and benefit from capital. The actions taking place at WSIS? WE SEIZE! will seek to promote new ways of communicating, what is communicated, by who and for whom: to create new social formations that can address the systems of domination that surround and inform our world.

The struggle takes place from the local, regional and global infrastructure (radio and TV spectrum, wireless frequencies, cable rights of way, satellite orbital paths) to the content that traverses those structures. These networks should be for the benefit of and use by all the world's people, organised to nurture and sustain social cooperation.

WSIS? WE SEIZE!

The event will work around these areas:

* A strategic convention before the UN summit in Geneva, comprising discussions, panels and presentations.

* A polymedia lab to share tools, skills, experiences, and knowledge.

* A three day netcast which will follow the revolution of the earth, streaming independent media activism and community media projects from across the globe.

Geneva-03 is asking all interested people to get involved with this initiative. We are working to establish venues and schedules, as well as options for accomodation and general survival in the expensive city of Geneva.

There will be a further preparation meeting at the European Social Forum in Paris in November. For all people interested in the Geneva-03 project, this is the open working list: http://lists.emdash.org/mailman/listinfo/prep-l and the website: http://www.geneva03.org/. The Geneva03.org website is an open publishing forum where you can post your proposals, ideas and contributions.

Re:WSIS? - WE SEIZE!

[Mike Hawk]

Wow, if you are really THAT paranoid, you should probably just kill yourself.

Programmeur Sans Frontieres

[fermion]

This could have really helped our image alot. Just like the plastic surgeons who spend 10 months out of the year curing small breast disease and then two weeks helping deformed infants in some place no American has ever heard of, the US programmer can spend their days creating the means of world domination for MS and then go home and write the 1,361st GUI for GNU/Linux!

Re:Programmeur Sans Frontieres

[SeniorDingDong]

...This could have really helped our image alot...

Could have? Can you mean. What's so hard about becoming accreditted, raising the money, and sending a "delegation" there anyway?

I'd bet the Free software foundation, and/or some combination of apache/gnome/kernel coodinators or some high profile collage or higher education group would be accepted.

As far as raising enough money to send some guys to Geneva for a week. How much is that anyway? $20000? That's only $20 from 1000 people.

It might be that unnamed members of the military-industrial complex are conspiring aginst us, but we're still rich -- all of us -- by world standards. Twenty dollars, that's nothing,

Re:Programmeur Sans Frontieres

[Anonymous Coward]

This is of course meant to be silly

When on lives in a city that has a large percentage of very rich people, excessive numbers of doctors, and almost no collective sense, the media loves to report on doctors who spend most of their time profiting off the insecurities of others and then try to justify their existence by invoking the name of some worthwhile organization.

Medecins Sans Frontier is wonderful organization, often being the only ones to go in and help people in desperate need, often at great risk to themselves. The world would be a much worse place without them.

Doctors in general are saints.

Thank You

[bogie]

"But closed source software is not punished in the market. Closed source software is substantially favored."

I keep reading these posts where people keep saying "let's be fair" and "it's not right to exclude commercial software". Well guess what. That's exactly what has been happening to OpenSource Software for years now. Inferior closed source commercial software has dominated the scene to too long and its time we get to take a shot. What so some "inferior" opensource software gets promoted just because its opensource. Too bad. Welcome to the other side of the fence. At least with opensource you can fix it yourself or hire someone to fix it for you.

The world could do a lot worse then to lock out closed source software where an opensource equivalent is available. Once opensource is entrenched and has become de-facto then talk to me about the "rights" of commercial providers.

Need

[WTFmonkey]

Is the action of nature not unlike drawing a bow?
What is higher is pulled down, and what is lower is raised up;
What is taller is shortened, and what is thinner is broadened;
Nature's motion decreases those who have more than they need
And increases those who need more than they have.

It is not so with Man.
Man decreases those who need more than they have
And increases those who have more than they need.

To give away what you do not need is to follow the Way.
So the sage gives without expectation,
Accomplishes without claiming credit,
And has no desire for ostentation.

~Lao Tsu, Tao Te Ching chapter 77

Re:Need

[illuminata]

So, I take it that you're trying to imply that "man" is capitalistic software companies, and the sage is open source movement, correct? So Linus would thus "accomplish without taking credit" but the term Linux comes from his own first name? If that was the case, why wouldn't every open source project leader go without a name and just give? They have no desire for ostentation but yet they try to tell anybody who's willing to listen about how great their cause is and how it's the best choice?

And how do all capitalistic software makers take from the poor and give to the rich when they have to produce a product to stay alive and people buy it? They had an alternative, right? But they still chose to buy their product.

Your attempt in trying to apply this passage to the subject at hand seems overly broad and wrong. Enough of the socialistic preaching, please.

By the way, nature is a capitalist. Evolution is a survival of the fittest.

Re:Need

[WTFmonkey]

Um, sort of. You read a bit too deep, though (I was actually agreeing with you).

Basically, one of the gists of that passage (maybe this translation is a bit too poetic) is that the best choice is chosen, naturally, because that's the way. Things equalize. The part about Man is just an analogy to help point out the way of nature: that needs are met, and no gratuity is required.

Re:Need

[illuminata]

Glad that you agree, WTFmonkey. Yet another case of different interpretations. I'm so used to my libertarian beliefs being attacked by leftists that I figured that was the perspective it was coming from. You'll find that I'm very analytical.

Re:Need

[WTFmonkey]

Yeah, it's a bit hard to analyze one particular passage of the Tao without getting a feel for the rest of that particular translation (not to mention the general idea behind the philosophy) because it's so radically out of touch (but applicable, more often than not) to our world. But that's one of the reasons I like to post them so much: it's cool seeing how people read it.

MS: Your customers want OSS

[Katravax]

Microsoft spends so much time fighting OSS and badmouthing it, but I haven't heard them get a hint on the obvious: Their customers want it. I personally use Windows and have been employed for a decade as a Windows programmer. However, with every passing season, I trust MS less and use OSS more on my own. At some point I will break away from them for one reason: MS has not responded to me as a customer.

MS adds features that their large clients want, so why can't they respond with the source as well? Rather than fighting OSS so much, they should realize they're not losing so much based on the price of the product, but on the license and the source. As a customer that has spent thousands on MS software, I have lately done it grudgingly because I do not yet know enough to migrate everything I do to an open-source OS.

At my office, many new machines go up as Linux or BSD boxes because we fear the recent Windows licensing terms. Rather than making us, their customers, nervous about MS and the impact their licenses have on our business, MS should respond with a soft hand rather than the iron gauntlet. Some licenses we've read even make us nervous to have our own source code on a Windows box. I know I haven't said anything that hasn't been said a million times before, but if my OS vendor of choice -- Microsoft -- would get a clue and be responsive to me and the business I work for, I'd consider the alternatives much less than I do now.

Re:MS: Your customers want OSS

[spectecjr]

Microsoft spends so much time fighting OSS and badmouthing it, but I haven't heard them get a hint on the obvious: Their customers want it. I personally use Windows and have been employed for a decade as a Windows programmer. However, with every passing season, I trust MS less and use OSS more on my own. At some point I will break away from them for one reason: MS has not responded to me as a customer.

MS adds features that their large clients want, so why can't they respond with the source as well? Rather than fighting OSS so much, they should realize they're not losing so much based on the price of the product, but on the license and the source. As a customer that has spent thousands on MS software, I have lately done it grudgingly because I do not yet know enough to migrate everything I do to an open-source OS.


Most customers don't give a damn whether the source is available. The reason they're switching is because Open Source Software is FREE in the FINANCIAL sense, and has to be so by definition for it to be considered OSS.

But nice try. Because then, after MS releases the source to all its customers, the OSS crowd can come in and copy *more* functionality.

Re:MS: Your customers want OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Be very careful about just whom you condemn for copying 'functionality' (hate that markettingschpeke word). In any case copying features doesn't really require source code now, does it?

Re:MS: Your customers want OSS

[Anonymous Coward]

Be very careful about just whom you condemn for copying 'functionality' (hate that markettingschpeke word). In any case copying features doesn't really require source code now, does it?

Are you seriously claiming that if Windows *wasn't* open source, Linux wouldn't walk in and co-opt all of its features in one fell swoop?

Outstanding!

[Theatetus]

I've worked on UN ops before. Let me assure you: the biggest barrier ANY goal can ever have is having the UN supporting it. Now that that's out of the way, Open Source software should have no trouble flourishing.

Re:Outstanding!

[stwrtpj]

I've worked on UN ops before. Let me assure you: the biggest barrier ANY goal can ever have is having the UN supporting it. Now that that's out of the way, Open Source software should have no trouble flourishing.

Why the hell was this modded flamebait? He has a valid point.

The UN is a joke. Why should we care whether or not it supposed open source software? Things get done despite the UN, not because of it. The UN is a nice concept that has a horrid implementation.

OSS will spread no matter how much FUD is flung at it or how much money the big corporations spend to oppose it. The fact that the big companies feel compelled to lobby this hard shows that they have seen the writing on the wall.

Here you go.

[Lochin Rabbar]

It's spelt p-a-l-i-s-t-i-n-e.

World Forum on Communication Rights

[ChunKing]

There is an alternative Summit to the WSIS taking place in Geneva at the same time called the World Forum on Communication Rights (http://www.communicationrights.org/index.html)- an independent civil-society led initiative, open to all seeking democratic, just and participative media and communication.

Its goals are:

- To demonstrate and document the importance of communication rights for people and communities in an emerging information society
- To contribute to the emergence and understanding of a coherent concept of communication rights
- To generate cooperation in promoting the concept, recognition and realisation of such rights.

The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is a full UN Summit that will be held in December 2003 in Geneva with a second meeting in Tunis in 2005. Early hopes that the WSIS would tackle a broad range of information and communication issues have been dashed and the agenda that has emerged is concerned mainly with telecommunication and internet related issues, viewed from a technical perspective and a narrowly construed development agenda. Broader communication and media issues, an essential feature of any information society, and human and communication rights that must animate its core, have been largely sidelined.

The World Forum on Communication Rights brings together civil society organisations, NGOs, governments and others in a civil society-driven event to be held alongside the Summit, not in opposition to it but to highlight and make practical progress in spheres the Summit fails to cover. It welcomes all stakeholders committed to ensuring such rights are integral to an information society.

The Forum focuses on four themes:

- Communication and Poverty
- Communication, Conflict and Peace
- Communication, Copyright, Patents and Trade
- Communication and Human Rights

FBS clause

[t0ny]

I lobbied them to leave in the clause forcing users of Open Source Software to give up their first-born son to Linus Torvalds.

Unfortunately, I dont think it will be left in. Sigh...

Because they are extremely stupid

[konmaskisin]

Believe me ... I follow WSIS closely ... watch the streaming video of the latest preparation meetings at the WSIS website http://www.itu.int/wsis/

You have no idea how idiotic these people are when it comes to technology. They are all diplomacy bureaucrats (i.e. incompetent).

Given the utter incompetence of everyone involved

[konmaskisin]

We should hope that the UN and ITU openly favour Microsoft and commercial software. If utter idiots advocate and support MS that makes MS look bad.

Besides, who wants the world's worst bureacracy, least effective and least meritocratic band of inept fools "endorsing" your work or "taking over" Internet governance and "recommending" your product or service?

Any effort expended on WSIS shuld be expended to mock and ridicule its irrelevance ...

dirty Lobbying in the EU

[Elektroschock]

Well, it is a fact that Government is bad in promoting technological change. however, they may cause harm. Just think of software patents as an example. In the EU Microsoft affiliated groups created the "European Internet Foundation". The EIF is a club of MEPs with "breakfast dirtector jobs" financed by BSA and other industry groups.

"Board of Govenors 12 political members Board of Management 12 "Board of Governors" 6 "Business Steering Committee" 4 Observers(Associate Members)2 Note: all of these are MEP's jobs

An organisation which does nothing except organising lobby discussions behind closed doors with industry leaders and its 50 key politicians.

For the second year in a row some of the MEP governors of the European Internet Foundation went on a successful fact-finding mission to Washington DC, kindly organised by the Internet Caucus Advisory Committee. Highlights included meetings with Senator Patrick Leahy, and Congressmen Bob Goodlatte and Rick Boucher.
The mission kicked off with a site visit by some of our MEPs to Microsoft and Boeing in Seattle.
Monica Ridruejo MEP, Arlene McCarthy MEP, Elly-Plooij-van Gorsel MEP and Roy Perry MEp about to embark on a visit of Boeing's construction facilities.

Not to mention that Arlene McCarthy and Plooj Van Gorsel are responsible for the IP extremism in the EU. US companies are the EUROpayens... ;-)

Policy can cause harm.

A government body that promotes the idea of open source may be not bad at all. It means we institutionalise our interest as a counter balance institution.

If it was teethless, why is there so much resistance?

Congressman Bob Goodlatte

[Elektroschock]

Bob Goodlatte ------------- Top Contributors 1 Intel Corp $10,000 1 National Auto Dealers Assn $10,000 3 BellSouth Corp $8,000 3 Microsoft Corp $8,000 5 Siebel Systems $7,500 6 National Assn of Realtors $7,000 6 SBC Communications $7,000 8 Walt Disney Co $6,000 9 Wal-Mart Stores $5,250 10 Echostar Communications $5,000 10 Limited Inc $5,000 10 Northrop Grumman $5,000 13 Pilgrim's Pride Corp $4,700 14 Verizon Communications $4,500 15 Smithfield Foods $4,000 16 Adams Construction $3,000 16 ASCAP $3,000 16 Bank of America $3,000 16 Cargill Inc $3,000 16 Credit Union National Assn $3,000 16 eBay Inc $3,000 16 Management Concepts $3,000 16 National Assn of Broadcasters $3,000 16 National Hardwood Lumber Assn $3,000 16 National Venture Capital Assn $3,000 16 Outback Steakhouse $3,000 16 Philip Morris $3,000 16 Taylor-Ramsey Corp $3,000 16 Telepath Industries $3,000 16 Viacom Inc $3,000 16 Vivendi Universal $3,000

I was a UN Programmer

[CowboyRobot]

I worked at the UN in New York for a few years, developing sites for their education, peacekeeping, and oil-for-food departments. (that last one is still up, although the program is defunct, obviously).

The UN now is a completely Microsoft-dominated organization. The Web sites are exclusively ASP/VB MS SQL Server, etc. There was some interest by a few of us to move toward PHP while I was there, but the bureaucracy is so thick, that once a standard becomes adopted, it's impossible to change.

The UN still has serious problems with corruption (although it's better than it used to be). It is very easy for a company to bribe its way into a position of influence. It seems very likely that Microsoft might, say, offer free software to the UN in exchange for favors.

That said, there is no reason to be concerned about pro-MS bias at the UN. The UN cannot pass laws! The implication in the article is that the UN drafts have weight and meaning, and that they will result in policy changes in the member states. But they have no significance whatsoever. The UN cannot legislate. The most they can do is pass guidelines. They also have a list of human rights 'mandates', and environmental suggestions, and everyone ignores those as well.

The UN is the most non-technical organization I've ever seen. In some offices they still use manual typewriters and rotary telephones. It is a nearly entirely paper-based operation. So the idea that they would even have an opinion about what developing countries should do regarding technology makes me laugh. 'Programmers without Borders' is just a name that will have political value, but I seriously doubt anything will ever come of it.

Re:I was a UN Programmer

[Anonymous Coward]

Same thing with REMPEC - a UN branch in Malta...

Still, we live mentally in the Stone Age

[Anonymous Coward]

People want a change. They don't want to work for their entire lives. They want to fulfill their own interests and pursue their own happiness without being enslaved to the Corporation. In a sentence: they want to do what they like to do most; and while doing so, they become good at it.

So, someone who has interests in carpentry should pursue just that. Someone who has interest in medicine should pursue just that. The point in these examples being that the persons who have strong motivation for something also achieve many, many times better results than others with little motivation. What better to motivate one than one's favorite hobby?

And what about the menial jobs? The jobs nobody wants to do? Jobs like cleaning toilets? That's what we have TECHNOLOGY for. Make a robot which cleans the toilet. Design a toilet which can be cleaned automatically. Something, anything. The world need not be a place of utter stupidity and money making the rules.

If human societies had skipped mutual cut-throat competition and focused on how to best achieve that which they can be, if such socities had known that ones own existence does not need to depend on spending 1/3 of one's life as a slave to another man's ideals, we would have colonies in Moon, Mars, the bottom of the oceans. There would be cultural and technological progress unforeseen.

The UN is a small baby step in the right direction. But we're still behind of about 5000 years of development to reach the conclusion which is known by all those who now rule. It is a self-evident truth and the only logical way to exist. But these people destroy the truth by ignoring it and twisting it to benefit them.

So, before you bash the UN, think really hard if the world HAS to be a nine-to-five, mortgage, job insecurity, slavery or perish, or could it be enlightenment instead.

Mumble mumble...

[Anonymous Coward]

I have only some word for you silly boys who think that commercial-closed-proprietary software is, sometimes, a good thing.

Ok, you may be right.

However, you don't agree that if we can't use always open source software, we HAVE to pretend to use closed and proprietary software with OPEN SPECIFICATION and OPEN FILE FORMAT, to prevent stupid lock in ???

Thanks and... another word...

using open source maybe wrong, but we can improve what we dislike... locking in proprietary solutions maybe a way without exit...

Some Sorces, Material ...

[alvar-f]

You can read more about WSIS here:

• civil society news center
• Communications Rights in the Information Society
• german civil society
• Press Release to Free Software from German Civil Society (german only, sorry).
• UNO Documents: Draft Declaration (in english, arabic, russion, chinese, spanish, french...)

Open Source & Free Software Advocacy @ WSIS

[evan_leibovitch]

Two groups, in their own ways, are working to ensure that WSIS encourages the promotion of open source amongst its participating countries. The Linux Professional Institute and the Free Software Foundation are two of the many hundreds of non-governmental organizations which have received official status at the Summit. (Here is Part 1 and Part 2 of the complete list.)

LPI will tentatively be holding a number of events at the WSIS conference in December, including an open source workshop and a certification exam lab; it is also our intention to put a Linux "live" CD in the hands of every WSIS delegate. We will have at least six people at the conference, working to ensure that the delegations are capable of overcoming the anti-open-source FUD which is no doubt going on.

To that end, LPI has submitted a commentary on the WSIS activities, now part of the official WSIS documentation, that is stirring some interest. Anyone who is interested in helping LPI's efforts at WSIS is invited to subscribe to the LPI@WSIS mailing list.

The FSF is participating through the WSIS Working Group on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks; RMS is on the group's steering committee and Georg Greve of FSF Europe is one of the co-ordinators.

um, perhaps

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the UN is a communist plot to take over the world.

And Linux is a communist plot to take over the world.

Shouldn't the communists unite their world domination efforts?

(hopefully this was the flamebait you were looking for)

The USA has become a BANANA REPUBLIC!

[nietsch]

Send Some peace forces over there to oust the regime of banana-Bush. After all, this drydrunk does not deny he has weapons of mass destruction and is willing to use them.
After that we can put Bill Gates to a real trial, not one that he can buy.

Don't believe everything your govt tells you

[Quizo69]

"Besides, who wants the world's worst bureacracy, least effective and least meritocratic band of inept fools "endorsing" your work or "taking over" Internet governance and "recommending" your product or service?"

You're an American, aren't you?

Re:Don't believe everything your govt tells you

[konmaskisin]

"You're an American, aren't you?"

No, I'm someone who pays attention to the UN.

Geneva, OSHCA

[midgley]

Around the same time the Open SOurce Healthcare Alliance will meet in Geneva.

We are probably all rather conservative and establishement in comparision with some of the activists above, but the broad movement toward FLOSS is present and growing.

Meeting details at http://67.69.12.117:9191/oshca/2003

HQ at
http://www.oshca.org/

Totalitarians for Freedom (??!!)

[spamhog]

I find it sadly bizarre that OS's hopes are supported by the likes of China. Luckily China is not alone. Mr. Gates probably can't bribe THE WHOLE WORLD into doing his bidding. And once again, as in the Cold War, an outside stimulus may yet spur that strange beast, democratic capitalism, to do better than it would have done otherwise.

United Nations

[Hard_Code]

"This language was removed from earlier versions to make the document more palatable for business and commercial interests."

Hmm, business and commercial interest bloc in the UN? It's still called the United Nations not United Businesses right?