Slashdot Mirror
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."
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!!
Too bad. It was a nice idea while it lasted.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
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).
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
Most of the world has the best politicians money can buy.
Trolling is a art,
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
I guess if it were a resolution USA would just veto it like all those that told Isreal to respect international law (around 30).
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
MoFscker
There's gotta be something else going on...
Bush: He's Liberal in all the wrong ways.
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".
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
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.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
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.
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.
"These people look deep within my soul and assign me a number based on the order in which I joined" --Homer re:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
cogito ergo sig...
"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.
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.
- Evan