Peru Passes Free Software Law

wlan0 writes "Peru has passed a law favoring Open Source in the Government (translated using Google translator) after some time and some fights thanks to the help of Peruvian Congressman Villanueva and APESOL(Peruvian Free Software Association). OpenSource.org also provides the full text of the Bill."

Comments

Excellent.

[Orrin Bloquy]

Free software In peRu; outSTanding PrOmiSe for The open source movement.

Re:Excellent.

[pixelpusher220]

dear Lord...an original FP and they flame you....sigh welcome to oblivion I suppose

Re:Excellent.

[Victor Antolini]

Yes

Re:Excellent.

[Universal Indicator]

How much free time do you have?

Re:Excellent.

[C0llegeSTUDent]

With all the drug money, I don't see why not.

Re:Excellent.

[Orrin Bloquy]

Are you labeling me some silly moron abusing his internet cable access? Exactly the kind of sniping around here debasing every last original exchange of thoughts I deplore so.

Voting

[karvind]

From the translated article: With 61 votes to favor 0 in against and 5 abstentions from a total of 66 congressmen, ...

I say, GO PERU !! No against at all.

Re:Voting

[BrainSurgeon]

Law to use OSS/Freeware = Ploy to get discounts from MS

Law to use OSS/Freeware != to actual full blown adoption of OSS/Freeware

Re:Voting

[Vitriol Angst]

Good point "Voting". Actions and goals are not always the same thing. MS has shown in the past that they will cut dirt cheap deals to keep a country using Microsoft.

But perhaps manipulating Microsoft into a dirt cheap deal or going OSS results in the same thing. Because if it is successful, other countries will do the same thing for leverage.

If People reading the Wall Street Journal, always masters of the obvious, buy the stated reason, then the "Common Knowledge Fact At the Water Cooler" (CKFAWC) will believe that countries are moving to Open Source. So sometimes, the truth is less important than the propaganda. Enough deceit and it becomes true.

Funny how, what the CEO believes becomes the "Common Knowledge".

Real-world effect, or empty words?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, so the law makes free software a "high priority option". Will this actually lead to higher adoption of free software within the Peruvian government?

Re:Real-world effect, or empty words?

[HermanAB]

Absolutely, they don't have money to waste on expensive imported buggy software. The US gov doesn't care what software it wastes its money on, since most of it stays in the country. To other countries, it makes a huge difference whether they spend money in their country or outside their country. If Microsoft was based in Russia, you can bet your bottom Dollar that the US gov would pass a similar law. The only thing that surprises me is that it took other countries so long to start doing this.

Re:Real-world effect, or empty words?

[crazybit]

The original law objective was to "enforce" the use of OSS. The bill that has been approved is has many differences from the original one, but it still "favors" the use of Free Software. In my opinion this law will not benefit much, personally I think this law will do more harm than good... why? 1. Corporations interested in selling software and hardware to Peruvian government are going to start lobbying and pressing the authorities to convince them not to enforce the law. 2. A battle that should have stayed as a technical confrontation now goes to the (GASP!) legal battleground. 3. Anything that is somehow imposed to the people normally causes reactions against it.

WOW

[zappepcs]

I'm continually amazed that MS has such traction that F/OSS has to fight to get anywhere. If MS and Linux were cars (never mind old jokes) people would be buying magazines to compare, taking test drives, and asking their buddies which one to buy... but with an OS, OMG, if you don't use MS, you must be one of those Linux geek nutjobs... and surely FREE software can't be as good as stuff you pay an arm and leg for... righ?

Why do we have to pass laws to compete with MS? That is the real story! I bet its an interesting read too... Shame that weather is the only thing that gets full coverage these days.

Re:WOW

[rovingeyes]

Shame that weather is the only thing that gets full coverage these days.

There is a reason, thousands probably died and billions of dollars worth of damage. Can linux or MS match that level of damage?

Re:WOW

[Prof. Pi]

If MS and Linux were cars (never mind old jokes) people would be buying magazines to compare

And the mags would be totally worthless, as their editors would just praise the cars mindlessly, especially those produced by major advertisers. Better cars made by small companies would hardly ever be mentioned. And PHBs would decide which cars to use for their corporate fleets based on the magazines rather than their own mechanics, who actually understand cars.

Re:WOW

[clueless123]

The law is not to compete with MSoft , the law is to have an open format. Something that will allow Peruvians free access to documents *we* (I am Peruvian) are entrusting our goverment to saveguard for us. If Msoft or any other company wishes to offer their products/services in Peru, all they need is to suport open formats. By your comments you demonstrate that Msoft FUD machinery is working, as only they present this subject as a competition between Open Vs Msoft. Hope this clears it for you.

Re:WOW

[chphilli]

Well, MS has viruses/bugs/etc that have probably caused billions of dollars of damage...

...and I know that at least thousands of people have wanted to shoot themselves after working with Windows!

(Good thing for me there's not actually a "-1 insensitive clod" modifier! (I'm really not that heartless!))

Re:WOW

[dada21]

But the bugs that cost billions of dollars to fix also have some interesting "unintended consequences:"

1. More IT consultants find more work
2. More F/OSS developers create more solutions to the Microsoft issues
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

If MS and Linux were cars (never mind old jokes) people would be buying magazines to compare, taking test drives, and asking their buddies which one to buy... but with an OS, OMG, if you don't use MS, you must be one of those Linux geek nutjobs... and surely FREE software can't be as good as stuff you pay an arm and leg for... righ?

To be honest, if one of the cars was free, some people might be a little suspicious. I got a free car from my uncle once, though it had it's share of problems. Of course, if I was a mechanic, that wouldn't have been so bad. But since I wasn't, I had to pay someone else to service it. In the end it cost more to run and service than a reasonable second-hand car would have cost.
So perhaps that analogy works both ways?

Re:WOW

[soft_guy]

Are you implying there are better cars made by small companies that we have all overlooked because of the car-industrial complex has manipulated the media into not telling us about it?

Which cars in your opinion should we all be taking another look at?

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

You just dont get how things work in Latin America. There is a lot of corruption, so Microsoft can easily buy a lot of people and pretend they are the best option just because we are used to using Windows. Microsoft is the richest corporation in the world? WTF is going on in your mind?

Re:WOW

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

I'm continually amazed that MS has such traction that F/OSS has to fight to get anywhere. If MS and Linux were cars (never mind old jokes) people would be buying magazines to compare, taking test drives, and asking their buddies which one to buy.

If Ford made an exclusive deal with every home builder and renter in the country so that whenever anyone bought a home or rented a apartment they were given a free Ford car rental (included in the price of the dwelling and with no option to opt out) people would probably all drive Ford cars. They would also consider anyone who went out and bought or built another car to be some sort of weirdo. Most home manufacturers would not be able to escape from this deal either since not getting a "free" car with your house would be a deal breaker, and no one would want a chevy since it could not use ford parts (the only kind sold in parts stores), could not get repaired anywhere (since 95% of repair places only worked on fords), and since there is a huge PR campaign spreading rumors that Ford brand gasoline (the only kind easily available) may not work properly in Chevy engines (even though it does).

Once a company, like MS or Ford, has that kind of monopoly or monopolies it is very easy for them to maintain that position, especially given how corrupt our legal system is. They can buy out, price out, or lock out any new competitors. It is illegal, but politicians listen to campaign contributions more than laws. Luckily we are not in that position with cars and hopefully we will not stay in that position with OS's and office applications. I don't care who is making the money, but I do care about the cost and quality of products and without competition one goes way up while the other goes way down. I'll leave it to you to guess which is which.

Re:WOW

[LWATCDR]

Well the honest answer is free software is NOT always the best solution for every problem. I know that people are going to flame me but sometimes the best current solution is a closed source program.
CAD is a good example. I have heard a lot of good things about a new open source cad program but what if you have a lot of vendors that use Solidworks or Autodesk?
Office is another good example. Our local government used applix or Star office on Sun systems for a few years. The day that they got rid of it and went to office the county workers where over joyed. They had a terrible time with sending files to and getting files in Office format. I tried to tell them that it would improve and they they shouldn't sign away their life but they needed something that would just work. For them Windows and office just worked.
If you look at a lot of the studies of who uses and gets the most benefit out of open source it tends to fall into two categories.
1. REALLY BIG TECH COMPANIES.
They have their own support and development staff and can contribute back to open source projects.
2. Really tiny startups with a good techie or two.
They are not big enough for the big vendors to care about. So the support they get for a lot of open source tools is as good or better than what they get from big closed source vendors.
In the middle you have a lot of medium companies that really don't want to manage software developers or handle support in house.

I am all for open source but their are a lot of issues yet to be solved.
1. Education. I can not take a course on Linux at my local Community College. I can get my MSCE or Cisco cert there.
2. Support. Yea I can make Linux work for me and my company but not every company can. Where is the Linux Geek Squad? Yea all those scan-disk, defrag, run adaware and scan for virus "techies" give me the creeps but they seem to fill a need. Where can the mythical grandmother go to get a DVD installed in her Linux box or find out how to fix Thunderbird if the mail folder blows up? I will not even go into the poor state of some documentation for open source programs.
3. Teaching. If you are going to send people out in to the real world as sysadmins and or programmers they will have a better chance to find a job if they know Windows and Linux. Heck they should know as many different systems like Z/OS and OS/400.

Re:WOW

[Xarius]

Thousands die every day. Just because these people happened to die in a more spectacular fashion than anyone else doesn't make them more newsworthy. And the unfortunate weather incident will affect a lot less people than Operating Systems that make the entire modern world go round.

*waves goodbye to his karma*

Re:WOW

[BeanThere]

Bottom line, the free market only works properly when the market is informed and educated. 99% of people have virtually no knowledge or understanding whatsoever of how computers work, and thus have little way of properly evaluating the products they use. Worse, consumers today literally don't WANT to be informed, the emerging cultural trends compel one to not think but rather to just buy whatever is splashed in front of you --- thinking and being informed are nerdy and outdated concepts.

In the old days there were things like 'independent consumer review publications', but nowadays anything mascarading as such is just a marketing rag for the advertisers with the most money.

Re:WOW

[at_slashdot]

if parking spaces and roads (read closed standards) were made only for one type of car (or had "only MS cars" signs), if all the major car saleseller would have made contract with the same car manufacturer and were not allowed to sell other car models (and they didn't want either since the other car would not find parking space and road to drive on -- nor the public would desire such a car) that would be a closer analogy.

Fortunatelly MS monopoly starts to crumble.

Re:WOW

[Anakron]

Did you miss this?

If MS and Linux were cars

Re:WOW

[grcumb]

"Are you implying there are better cars made by small companies that we have all overlooked because of the car-industrial complex has manipulated the media into not telling us about it?"

Yes. Does that surprise you?

"Which cars in your opinion should we all be taking another look at?"

Well, how about the Bricklin, for one? I mean, sheesh, that little beauty could travel in time!

Re:WOW

[tabo_peru]

Actually this is not a "law to compete against MS". The law that was approved (this one not the one that was posted) says that if somebody wants to spend our money in overpriced buggy software, they must document WHY THEY DO IT.
I've seen government agencies buying oracle for low volume non-critical tasks that can be easily performed by postgresql. So why not use it?

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd say MS probably does, even without assigning a value to a life. The financial argument is easy - the MS tax costs us billions each and every year - they turn over something like $28bn annually so it's just a case of working out what % of that is reasonable and what's extortionate. It's working out how many people have died as a result of bugs that's more difficult. Remember it doesn't have to be driving a plane to cause a death - altering or destroying medical records is enough.

Re:WOW

[soft_guy]

Well, how about the Bricklin, for one? I mean, sheesh, that little beauty could travel in time!

There's just no way I would drive a 20+ year old car. I like to actually arrive at my destination. The second sentance in your post seems to refer to the De Lorean which is a different car (though similar looking).

Now, if I could get a Peel 50, that would be cool.

Re:WOW

[Jason Earl]

Yes, and eventually the market would do what the market is slowing doing to Microsoft. Someone would come out with a line of houses that were considerably less expensive than the houses that came with a car rental. They would probably also come out with a line of inexpensive cars. In more affluent areas people might still buy houses that came with car rentals (especially if there weren't quality control problems with the Ford cars), but more frugal types (and car fiends) would gravitate to the option that allowed for more choice or a lower price.

Re:WOW

[Petrushka]

The law is not to compete with MSoft , the law is to have an open format.

That's very interesting, and not at all what TFA says: TFA mentions software constantly, and file formats aren't mentioned even once. Come to that, the text of the bill doesn't mention file formats either, and does mention free software as opposed to proprietary software rather a lot. See for example article 1:

La presente Ley tiene por objeto establecer las medidas que permitan a la administración pública la contratación de licencias de software y servicios informáticos en condiciones de neutralidad, vigencia tecnológica, libre concurrencia y trato justo e igualitario de proveedores.

Translation (adapted from apesol.org's version, which is incomplete):

This law has as its aim to establish the measures which permit the purchase of software licences and IT services by the public administration under conditions of neutrality, technological use(?), free concurrence, and just and equal treatment of suppliers.

Or, less closely related, the start of article 4:

Ninguna entidad de la administración pública adquirirá soportes físicos (hardware) que la obliguen a utilizar sólo determinado tipo de software o que de alguna manera limiten su autonomía informática.

Translation:

No public entity will adquire hardware which forces it to use only a determined type of software or in any way limits its IT autonomy.

So, not that I'd doubt your word, but, er ... there really isn't any mention anywhere of file formats; it does indeed seem to be precisely about free/proprietary software. This situation really looks very different from the recent Massachusetts decision. So, unless someone can provide some more information to clarify the present post, I'd suggest modding the parent down.

Re:WOW

[clueless123]

The law just passed is the latest adjustment to a series of laws with the objectives that I mention (Open-nes of the software and fiscal responsability)

If you look at the last paragraph of TFA , you can read:

"El proyecto aprobado resume las iniciativas legislativas 1609, 2344, 3030, 7389, 8251 y 9026 que tienen el mismo propósito a favor del software libre."

Nowhere in the law it says that you may not use a propietary software. (As long as they are willing to give you the source code for examination, your document formats are "open" and you dont force us to buy special hardware to make the software work )

Why is this so hard to understand ?

Re:WOW

[Petrushka]

Now this summary does appear to be accurate. A reading of the law as a whole seems to me to encourage consideration of free software strongly (the careful definitions of what free software is and how its should be approved suggest that to me); but as you say, the law certainly does not require it. But where did this business about file formats come from?

Re:WOW

[xlsior]

I'm continually amazed that MS has such traction that F/OSS has to fight to get anywhere. If MS and Linux were cars (never mind old jokes) people would be buying magazines to compare, taking test drives, and asking their buddies which one to buy...

The problem with this analogy is that with cars, there are no real 'interoperability' issues: Your car doesn't have to be 'compatible' with your neighbor's or co-workers cars for it to be 'productive'. Driving a different brand car than your coworkers has exactly 0 impact on your productivity, which is not the case with computer systems were interoperability/compatibility are major factors.

Re:WOW

[LinuxLuver]

The US department responsible for trade has been very active in discouraging the adoption of open source software. There are several examples. One was the convention in Japan a year or so ago of Asia-Pacific countries - and Japan, Korea and China wanted a positive statement about open source software included in the final communique. The United States specificially objected to this and instead the final document spoke only about choice. That didn't stop those other nations from advancing their own open source aims on their own, but it did preclude regional co-ordination and a consistent approach by all concerned. That consistency is important in harmonising regluatory and governmental approaches with a view to trade liberalisation further down the line. The US today is attempting to construct an intellectual property and software cartel and misses no opportunity to see other nations sign up to protect US interests. For exmaple, the right-wing government in Australia was SO keen to get a free trade agreement with the United States, they not only helped invade Iraq.......but worse - they signed away their own interests in pledging to implement US-like laws on intellectual property protection - extending copyright to life plus 75 years, adopting a local equivalent of the American DMCA and similar nonsense.

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

1) CAD files are sort of a defined format, so interchange is eminently possible. UI differences can be made in changing to any program, even an upgrade.
2) You are supposed to be sending around documents, not word files. Even so, compatability is fair to excellent. Ask for rtf.
3) You can get computing classes that don't require a particular OS. RHCE is availble and other courses are about the apps, not the OS
4) Granny either gets it installed when bought or get sonny to do it. Windows *requires* a full re-install every year or so, Granny can't do that, so the machine gets worse and worse, until the machine needs scrapping. But Granny doesn't have the money for that, being a pensioner, so eventually, the computer sits idle, worthless.
5) Learning to be a programmer, Linux comes with all you need. Windows needs ££££s ofmoney spent on it. And you need serious money for an OS/400 system...

Re:WOW

[ajs318]

Shame that weather is the only thing that gets full coverage these days

That's because as of the present moment, the weather is the last bastion of there being no vested intellectual property rights. But sooner or later, you can bet your ass that somebody is going to try to claim IP rights in the weather. Consider the following:

• Weather forecast data will be copyrighted and released under a strict end user licence agreement. The use of circumvention devices such as barometers, hygrometers, min-max thermometers &c. will be outlawed.
• Somebody will try to patent the act of getting rained on, and you'll have to pay them a fee every time you get wet.
• Someone else will patent the act of staying in when it rains, and you'll have to pay them a fee every time you don't get wet.
• Broadcasters will be deemed legally responsible for the accuracy of their weather forecasts; a nationwide TV network will be bankrupted by a class action lawsuit when the promised "thirty-degree sunshine" turns out to be just 29-point-five-degree sunshine, and local radio stations ultimately will not dare give out anyting more than vague suggestions for fear of infringing copyright or making an unfulfillable claim.

Re:WOW

[Eivind]

You are, as they say, not even wrong.

The law isn't passed to "compete with MS", infact the law doesn't mention Microsoft in any way shape and form, and nothing in the law prevents the state from buying all software and all it-services from for example Microsoft.

The law says open source software should be choosen, where adequate alternatives exist. Where that isn't the case, exceptions are given and proprietary software can be used. In most cases such exceptions will be for two years, but will be renewed if after two years open alternatives still don't exist.

The reasons are clearly stated in the document and has nothing particularily with Microsoft to do. Among the reasons are:

• National security is improved if the state is free to inspect all the software it uses for bugs and/or backdoors.
• It aids technological independence in that one have a choise of providers with open software, instead of being tied to a single one with a proprietary system.
• It can create more jobs and be developed locally. If an extension or adaption is needed the state is free to buy those services locally, or from whomever they deem most qualified.
• The cost is typically lower, or even if not, there's atleast one variable less to keep in mind, the number of licenses. That's one headache less.

As I said: Nothing of this has anything in particular with any one firm to do. It's just pretty objective advantages of a open source system. Obviosly the government in this case felt that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, so they enacted this law. Simple as that.

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

Many professional CAD systems (Pro Engineer comes to mind) can save their files in "open" formats, however if you are silly (IMHO) enough you can even used "closed" formats.

With regard to word processing software I think the best way of selling a decent solution is to ask the CEO (or senior management) if they really own their files. You really need to carefully explain about open and closed formats and how it relates to them and if you have done your homework well how much closed formats will cost them in the long term.

Please note I did not say Microsoft Office, Open Office, Star Office or any other word processor. What is important here is open formats.

The argument that "Microsoft OS's are easy to manage" - well try explaining that to your neighbours who have spy-ware and virus/worms on their system which runs worse than a 286 with MS Windows or who need a DVD or anything else installed on their system. The only thing the neighbours can really do is take it to a dealer/consultant and pay, unless they are willing to do some learning or get someone like me to do the work (I do it for free - well a few beers, but they are good neighbour's). This also applies to Linux/Unix systems as well although it is rare to have the issues MS Windows has with regard to spy-ware and virus/worms.

I always hear about MS being easy for the non technical person and Linux is too hard, well all I can say to that, is give them a copy of MS XP (ligit of course) and Linux (your favorate free distro) and ask them to install and configure - they normally have no idea. The only reason why MS is relatively easy is your vendor has already done the hard work for them.

I think the FUD about MS Windows being easy is rubbish and is normally made by the uninformed. I find Linux/Unix by far the easier to install, configure and maintain. In case you think I am being biased "yes I am" but I have had considerable professional experience (25 years) in many OS's including MS's which is the only one I genuinely dislike.

Re:WOW

[Hosiah]

I'd suggest modding the parent down.

...because GOD FORBID anybody else should stumble upon this thread after us and have the opportunity to make up their own minds about it.

Re:WOW

[njh]

Check out qcad. I use it for all my CNC work now. It is commercial software, but licenced under GPL. Yes, it reads DXF.

Re:WOW

[Itchy Rich]

Bottom line, the free market only works properly when the market is informed and educated.

Excellent point, although "properly" is subjective. The current system does work properly from the perspective of the people who use marketing and advertising misinformation to make hug profits from poor products. I'll leave you to form your own subjective value judgements about those people.

Re:WOW

[clueless123]

If you want to read an acurate (straight from the horses mouth) description of what the law is supposed to do for the peruvian people, read peruvian congresman Villanueva's response to Microsofts objection to the Law. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2002/05/19/ms_in_peru vian_opensource_nightmare/ There are many other important points that favour open software current state, open formats are just one of the key ones.

Re:WOW

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, we can start outsourcing some of that tech support to Peru...

Re:WOW

[Petrushka]

Cool. Thanks.

Re:WOW

[LWATCDR]

" 1) CAD files are sort of a defined format, so interchange is eminently possible. "
Have you ever used a CAD system. I use Solidworks which is one of the most popular. I have a hard time exchanging parts with people working on Pro-E.
"2) You are supposed to be sending around documents, not word files. Even so, compatibility is fair to excellent. Ask for rtf."
You said it fair to excellent. The problem is that for many things only perfect is really good enough. Then you have the problem of complex spreadsheets. They are applications and for some people very mission critical ones.
"5) Learning to be a programmer, Linux comes with all you need. Windows needs ££££s ofmoney spent on it. And you need serious money for an OS/400 system..."
Microsoft gives away Windows and Visual Studio to colleges or for so cheap it is scary. Linux is great for teaching programing concepts and for systems programing. However like it or not most desktops around the world run Windows. Knowing the Windows API, Visual Studio are valuable skills just as knowing make , Netbeans, gcc, and emacs are. I happen to like Eclipse CDT.

"Favoring" law?

[dada21]

Here's a complete waste of a politician's time -- laws that only make a statement, but don't actually change much. I see so many laws (daily) that don't actually do anything, they just say things:

H. RES. 99: Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks in Madrid that occurred one year ago

H. RES. 59: Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 36) expressing the continued support of Congress for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education.

Expressing? Providing? Favoring? What exactly are these public figures DOING?

I don't think this law is honestly going to create more open source usage by their government, nor is it really going to change much. Even laws requiring the use of open source are only as good as the government can enforce, which is probably nil. I did some consulting a dozen years ago for a government organization, and I couldn't get one office to settle on a single application -- everyone had favorites they wouldn't give up.

Good luck.

Re:"Favoring" law?

[Anonymous Coward]

Resolutions aren't laws. Everything uttered by a group of politicians isn't a law, you know. What you're looking at there is just a fancy of way of saying "Here's something.. do we agree? Okay, we do."

Re:"Favoring" law?

[diegocgteleline.es]

I see so many laws (daily) that don't actually do anything, they just say things

Oh well, you're right. In fact, from your POV, NO LAW ON EARTH CHANGES ANYTHING. Noticed how racism exist, despite of the existence of laws that forbid it?

You can be pretty sure that Peru will adopt free software, gradually, and never 100%, but it'll be quite high I hope. Having a law which promotes it helps quite a lot to it - much better than some politician promising he'll adopt it if he wins the next elections.

The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[Andy Tai]

In both the text translation (of Google) and the English text posted at opensource.org, the term used is "Free Software", not "open source." I wonder why the title and the text here at Slashdot use the term "open source"?

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[Anonymous Coward]

In spanish it says "Software libre", it means Free Software, free as in speech.
It doesn't say "Software gratis", gratis means without cost.

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[fireduck]

read further in the Opensource.org text. Near the bottom of the bill you'll find the following:

Article 4 - Definition of Free Software

Free Software shall be defined for the effects of this law, that whose license shall guarantee the user without additional cost the following:

        * Unrestricted use of the program for any purpose.
        * Unrestricted access to the respective source code.
        * Exaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the program.
        * Use of the internal mechanisms and arbitrary portions of the software, to adapt them to the needs of the user.
        * Freedom to make and distribute copies of the software.
        * Modification of the software and freedom to distribute said modifications of the new resulting sofftware, under the same license of the original software.


while the term open source isn't explicitly used, I think the intent from article 4 is that open source software is what is desired.

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[dtfinch]

The original text says "libre", which is free as in freedom, as opposed to "gratis".

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[adavies42]

No, that's pretty clearly "free software", as per the RMS/FSF definitions. In fact, it seems to be taken almost directly from the FSF's "four freedoms".

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[public transport]

Their definition of "Free Software" is in fact very close to that of the FSF due to the requirement that modified versions shall be redistributable under the original license (cf GPL). The subitter of the article was modest when translating it as Open Source, since Free Software is a stronger requirement.

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[LocoMan]

The actual law (the one they have on the untranslated link in the summary) says (paraphrasing):

- Unrestricted use of the program for any purpose (first item of parent post)
- Exhaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the program (third item)
- Creation and distributing of copies of the program (basically the 5th item, but they don't mention freedom, change to "it allows", but in esense is the same)
- Modification of the software and freedom to distribute said modifications and of the new resulting sofftware, under these same conditions. (doesn't say the same license, but simmilar)

Still is basically the same, the word "source" isn't mentionted, but it's implied if you're allowed to modify the program, I'd think.

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[m50d]

Sounds exactly like stallman's free software definition to me. 2 and 3 go together, as do 4 and 6.

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, you clearly don't even know the difference so why post about the difference?

Open Source includes BSD, which isn't "Free" in their sense. So they're not after Open Source... they're after a subset of Open Source, called Free Software.

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[Dwonis]

Just an aside, but wouldn't it be clearer to talk about "free as in freedom", instead of "free as in [free] speech"? I think the idea of "free as in speech" can be confused with "talk is cheap"...

Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source"

[xethair]

while the term open source isn't explicitly used, I think the intent from article 4 is that open source software is what is desired.

Look again at your own text:

• Freedom to make and distribute copies of the software.
• Modification of the software and freedom to distribute said modifications of the new resulting sofftware, under the same license of the original software.

That is not "open source". Free as in freedom. I'm impressed you can list EXACTLY the difference between "open source" and "free software" and then say they meant "open source."

Re: Projecting

[RentonSentinel]

Sounds like a classic case of the mods projecting what they want to believe upon the actual story...

I guess this will be a boon to all the Freeware makers who export to Peru though. SWEET!

translation

[jzeejunk]

from TFA To present that TO COPY he is legal (if is free software of course)

shouldn't this be
To present that TO COPY him is legal (if he is free software of course) ;)
talking of google translation this is something a friend forwarded to me
Step 1: Go to http://www.google.com.my/language_tools?hl=en

Step 2: Enter the following line into the translate textbox:
Aishwarya's mom is nice and cool

Step 3: Translate from english to spanish.

Step 4: Copy the translated text, and translate it back from Spanish to English.

Re:translation

[tdsotf]

babelfish seems to be a bit better: The mother of Aishwarya is pleasant and fresh.
at least it doens't talk about her breasts :)

Re:translation

[Anonymous Coward]

When translating mom to spanish, it should say mamá (with an accent over the last a).
But it seems google omits the accent. And without the accent, mama means breast (like in mammals)

Re:translation

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here. ALL threads need a "breasts" comment.

OpenSource.org shows the wrong bill

[crazybit]

The translation of the bill showed in Opensource.org is the translation of one of the first proposals that were passed to the Congress. The bill that has been approved i different from that (beta) version.

In other news...

[k4_pacific]

Prior to the vote, Steve Ballmer testified on the issue before the Peruvian Congress. During his testimony, he removed his shoe and banged it on the podium, while announcing that he was going to "fucking kill" them if they went with Open Source. For his closing statement, Ballmer said nothing, but fumed a bit, then tossed a wooden chair across the stage.

This is not the way to do it

[grasshoppa]

Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job and save the tax payers money. You must evaluate each package independantly against your requirements, keeping in mind future needs and considerations.

I am not saying anything for or against OSS, nor proprietary solutions. It is entirely likely that OSS stuff will end up on top if you follow an established and well thought out evaluation scheme. I am merely saying this is as foolish a tactic as giving preferential treatment to proprietary software vendors.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[clueless123]

Willing or unwillingly you are spreading FUD.

The Peruvian congress is just guaranteen that Peruvians have free and unrestricted access to their information. (i.e. no propietary formats)

Microsoft (or any other company for that matter) is welcome to compete for the market by supporting open formats.

Now that this is clear, to counteract the mis-information your comment may spread, please say outloud 100 times: "This Law Has Nothing To Do With Microsoft"

Re:This is not the way to do it

[grasshoppa]

Willing or unwillingly you are spreading FUD.

No, I'm merely pointing out what should be the obvious.

The Peruvian congress is just guaranteen that Peruvians have free and unrestricted access to their information. (i.e. no propietary formats)

No, what they are doing is giving preferential treatment to open source software. Which, i admit, is better than giving top billing to proprietary, but not by much.

Microsoft (or any other company for that matter) is welcome to compete for the market by supporting open formats.

But they won't get the same treatment. What if, by whatever stretch of logic, some proprietary software package will do the job better than an open source package will? Due to this law, it's not a guarantee that that software package will be chosen.

Now that this is clear, to counteract the mis-information your comment may spread

Please, enlighten me ( quote relevant text ): What misinformation.

please say outloud 100 times: "This Law Has Nothing To Do With Microsoft"

Please say out loud 100 times: "RTFA" and "OSS is not the end all, be all of software", and I would even add in, "RMFC" ( read my fucking comment ), because you were obviously in "zealot" mode and misunderstood it.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[m50d]

Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job and save the tax payers money.

However, insisting on source code access saves money in the long run by ensuring the taxpayer is not locked in. It's not like insisting on a single vendor, if MS wants to they're welcome to open their source and sell to the Peruvian government.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[legirons]

"Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job"

Actually, yes it is...

Re:This is not the way to do it

[SharpFang]

Yes. And they did.
The governments of several South American governments have realized this already, that software used for all the government purposes should follow these guidelines:
- Be transparent to the government. The government MUST have a way to verify if no malicious code, country-hostile elements, backdoors or other such insecurities exist. Without source - impossible.
- Be transparent to the citizens; any citizen of the country should be able to analyse and examine how the government handles the data, verify that no illegal activity is being performed using the software. Required: Access to sources, access to specifications.
- Countrywide Integration: Any citizen should be able to integrate systems used in government with systems they use privately, (e.g. in private business - taxes) to increase efficiency, removing need of manual conversion between two closed standards or such. Req: Open standards, access to hooks/API.
- Free access for citizens to the software. No need to sign NDAs, no fees to access the sources, freedom to use and examine the software at will. If they pay taxes to fund the software for government, they shouldn't be forced to pay again to use it themselves. Req: Free as a beer, no "don't copy" style licenses.
- Indepence from vendors. The country can't be held hostage by any vendor because they are the only entity that can implement/change/fix some essential feature. Any developer should be able to come along the way and continue the work, where the previous one left it. Req: Access to sources.
- Supporting local economy: Making development of software for government, easy for local businesses, no matter what their size. Because anyone can develop the software, the government isn't tied to a single corporation creating the subsystems and won't be locked with expanding underperforming system because cost of total replacement is too high and there's nobody else besides the corporation that could fix the software (and the corporation lacks skill/resources to do this). Req: Access to sources for everyone.

As for now, Open Source/Free Software fulfills all these requirements "out of the box". Getting them all from any commercial vendor would be near-impossible, or at least a true torment in the means of negotiations.
Also note it doesn't lock out any commercial vendors. It just changes what the government buys: They buy THE software (binaries+sources+specs+IP) and not just license to use the "borrowed" binaries which they wouldn't really own.
What the government does with the purchased software shouldn't be your concern, you got paid for selling all rights to it to them. Well, they open-source it. For the better of the nation.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[moviepig.com]

Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job and save the tax payers money.

One person's Creed is another's Heuristic. Since it's impossible to evaluate the whole tree of possible near-term outcomes, choosing open-source's long-range advantages and certainties seems common-sensical... a bit like betting on gravity.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job and save the tax payers money.

What are you talking about? The Peruvian government just passed a law that says one criteria of software is important to them and if at all possible software should meet that criteria. It is a functional specification, not a creed and it is well defined in the law.

If the U.S. government passed a law that said, "to insure the safety of government employees all garments purchased by the government for employees should be flame retardant, unless there is a good reason to use flammable garments" would you complain that they were unfairly favoring the "inflammable" creed of clothing manufacture? Now maybe other factors like cost, warmth, resistance to small arms fire, etc. are more important for a given application, but there is nothing wrong with trying to get all clothing that does not easily burn.

This law is the result of lots of publicly owned information being available only by paying a toll to one foreign company. It addresses a real problem. It is giving preferential treatment to software that is better in one specific way (that they deem very important to them). It is just like making sure government clothing buyers don't skimp on clothing and buy unsafe garments to save money in the short term. Peru, and many other countries are tired of getting burned and are taking action. I applaud them.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[kanweg]

"But they won't get the same treatment. What if, by whatever stretch of logic, some proprietary software package will do the job better than an open source package will? "

It doesn't do the jobs of file exchange, competitive development of even better software, and future accessability of files as well. The bill contributes to ensure that this is looked after instead of short term gains.

The bill will help open software. If Microsoft wants a piece of the pie, they can have it. But they'll have to compete by quality and meeting (these) market demands, not by historic market dominance (and monopoly abuse).

Bert

Re:This is not the way to do it

[clueless123]

Then You should RTFL = Read the freaking law :

The law tittle is : Ley de neutralidad tecnologia en la contrataciones de licencias y servicios informáticos
Badly translated reads : Law for the technological *NEUTRALITY* on the contracts and services of information systems.

Neutral = Nobody is being favoured here.

If your software, meets the conditions of "openen-nes" & fiscal responsability we don't care who made it.


Further more (From the freaking article) :

"El proyecto aprobado resume las iniciativas legislativas 1609, 2344, 3030, 7389, 8251 y 9026 que tienen el mismo propósito a favor del software libre. "

Which basically says: The digest you are reading is a just a small amendment to a legislative action that has been 3+ years on the making.

You can paint it anyway you want to, but the true "spirit" of the law is to protect access to the public data. anything wrong with that ?

I stand by my original comment: willingly or unwillingly , you are spreading misinformation.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[laughingcoyote]

I R'd TFA, and the full text of the law as well (in both Spanish and English, my Spanish is decent enough I could catch the general meaning of it). There is no mention, whatsoever, of any vendor being "favored" or "disfavored".

Have you ever looked at a government contract for something, like, say, a road? It sets out exacting specifications for what you must, may, and may not do, and as to what the end result must be. Any company who wishes to build roads, for that government entity, on that project, MUST follow those rules. These few general regulations are NOTHING compared to that. No vendors are being locked out whatsoever. If a proprietary software company wants the Peruvian government's business, they have to meet the Peruvian government's specifications-either open up the source and formats of an existing product, or develop an open-source alternative that meets Peruvian law. What the proprietary software companies are being called on is standing back and screaming "It's not FAIR, they want their roads paved in asphalt, but we only want to do concrete! We're being excluded!" Nothing is preventing them from developing in accordance with these regulations, and if they choose not to do so, well then, they don't sell their stuff to governments whose standards they aren't in compliance with.

The standards this law sets forth are wise, and are well-supported by the reasons laid out in the law's preamble. All this is is the establishment of rules-anyone who wants to play in the game, must follow the rules, just like with ANY government contract.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[latroM]

As for now, Open Source/Free Software fulfills all these requirements "out of the box". Getting them all from any commercial vendor would be near-impossible, or at least a true torment in the means of negotiations.

Proprietary you mean? What would some company have against providing some Free Software solution for money?

Re:This is not the way to do it

[mrchaotica]

Nobody cares which particular piece of software is technically superior; the issue at stake here is the sovereignty of the state. They MUST have full control over their data and IT infrastructure, or else they don't really have control over their country.

Not mandating Free Software is functionally equivalent to giving Microsoft the keys to the kingdom. That's not a choice at all, for any country with even a shred of self-interest and patriotism.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[SharpFang]

well, what I meant was "any modern day big software vendor." They are all proprietary and they have heads too high up their asses about remaining such to ever agree for producing open-source. Thing is, if you write a program, then sell it, source and all, you get money for what you did, hard-earned and honest. But if you write a program, then license it out, money keep coming and you don't do any real work anymore to deserve them - well, that's a parasitic hole in the network of mutual dependencies of the society. It's the easiest profit though. So no wonder companies start kicking and screaming "But now we won't be able to keep sitting on our asses and count the money coming, we will have to keep working, competing, improving, for real!"
Luckily it seems these that don't evolve are on the best way to extinction.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[jc42]

- Be transparent to the government. The government MUST have a way to verify if no malicious code, country-hostile elements, backdoors or other such insecurities exist. Without source - impossible.

It is widely believed that this has happened.

There is serious debate about whether this story is apocryphal, and of course only insiders at the CIA know for sure. But the story is very widely circulated outside the US, and is one of the canonical examples used to illustrate why one should never trust a computer whose software is controlled by a large American corporation.

It's easy enough to learn about this story. Just do as I did, and google for "Russian pipeline explosion computer software". That link was the first of 79,500. It's a well-known story.

If Microsoft really wants to fight this, they'll probably have to find a way to convince politicians that this story never happened. And that nothing like it has ever happened. And that nobody is even thinking about it. The latter is difficult when there are thousands of descriptions on the Net.

The sensible approach for anyone in a position to decide on software would be to assume that such stories are highly likely to be true, and to take steps to ensure that you can't be bitten this way. If you're a government or a successful business, you do have enemies, after all.

Without access to the source, you're totally at the mercy of the vendor and anyone who can bribe their programmers. And just to be sure, you probably want to recompile it all yourself. (And read Ken Thompson's famous ACM lecture. ;-)

Re:This is not the way to do it

[Shelled]

This is a government. In their evaluation they've decided the best software for goverment use is one available to all their citizens, not just those who can pony up the coin. This is especially important for a country like Peru, one without a G7 GDP. Your implied definition of "best for the job" is good for a business but far too narrow for a goverment.

Re:This is not the way to do it

[ajs318]

What Peru is doing is giving preferential treatment to software which supports open standards. As a matter of definition, Open Source / Free Software / Logiciel Lisible Libre can only support open standards: the source code, which anyone is allowed to look at and anyone is allowed to use in their own software iff they play by the rules, is the specification.

The reason for this is to guarantee that

1. The people -- all the people, not a subset of the people who have bought a particular company's product -- will always have access to the data which concerns them.
2. The government -- whose wages the people pay -- will always have the option to change their supplier in the event that this would be beneficial.

Microsoft, or any other software company, are welcome to implement open standards in their software. But they probably aren't going to, because proprietary data formats are how they lock-in users to their products. If, say, Excel incorporated full read and write support for the Gnumeric data format {hint: if you've ever done tables in HTML, you'll pick it up} then it would be easy for the Peruvian government to switch from Excel to Gnumeric anytime Microsoft disappointed them.

And frankly, I find it supremely hypocritical for the likes of Microsoft to suggest in one breath that they are being excluded from the process {by a decision that Microsoft made and that Microsoft are free to renounce at anytime} while also complaining about rampant "piracy" in the third world. FCOL, it was Microsoft turning a blind eye to "piracy" of their products that ultimately crushed all their competition. Given the choice between MS Office Professional for £500; a reasonably-well-featured office suite by an independent publisher for £50, saving £450; a "pirated" copy of Office for £0, saving £500 {and probably retaining a familiar UI if they use MS Office at work}; or a "pirated" copy of the other suite for £0 saving £50, almost everyone is going to plump for the pirated MS Office. Microsoft stood by and let them get away with it; if they had prosecuted "pirates" more aggressively, then maybe more people would have decided to be honest, paid the £50 for the alternative office suite, and they still would have saved themselves £450. But then Microsoft might not have attained such a dominant position.

It's Free as in Speech.

[Spy der Mann]

In both the text translation (of Google) and the English text posted at opensource.org, the term used is "Free Software", not "open source." I wonder why the title and the text here at Slashdot use the term "open source"?

The spanish text says "Software Libre", which means "Free-as-in-speech Software".

In Article 3, section 1, we read that "Software Libre" is one whose user license guarantees faculties to:
- Use the program for any purpose without restrictions,
- Inspect exhaustively the program's functioning mechanisms,
- Customization and distribution of program's copies, and
- Modifying of the program and free [ as in speech ] distribution of both the alterations and the resulting new program, under the same conditions
(retranslated from spanish)

So, they're talking about Open Source Software. Spanish does have different words for the different meanings of "Free": "Libre" (as in speech), and "Gratis / Gratuito" (as in beer).

It kinda surprised me to see "Free distribution" use "Libre" versus "Gratis" (in spanish, the term "distribución gratuita" is used very often). They were very careful when wording this law.

Re:It's Free as in Speech.

[AuMatar]

No, they aren't talking about open source software. They're talking about Free Software. Open source is a lesser version of the idea, and not all Open Source licenses protect the ideals of Free Software.

Re:It's Free as in Speech.

[J. Random Luser]

Just to be sure we're talking about the same document the official law is published at
http://www.congreso.gob.pe/relatoria/documentos/ PROY1609Software.pdf
I'm assuming the Peruvian govt servers can withstand the demand for spanish pdf from /. readers ;-)

Congressman Villanueva's brilliant rebuttal to FUD

[knifeyspooney]

Direct link to Guardian translation here.

Slashdot: THIS IS NOT THE BILL THAT WAS APPROVED

[tabo_peru]

This is the old version of the law. The bill that was approved is: http://www.congreso.gob.pe/relatoria/documentos/PR OY1609Software.pdf
This is not strictly speaking a free software law. It is a law that norms the use, adquisition and adjustment of software in public administration.

LAW to use open-source/free software?

[grumpyman]

Isn't that too dragconian and extreme to the other end? Does that mean somebody may go to jail if they choose to use paid software? Ok maybe not, but what's the point? It could be government spending guideline or whatever, but law??? It's like talking about outlawing unhealthy food. Government shall never tell us or even suggest what we should do. Unless they make it a law lol.

Re:LAW to use open-source/free software?

[LocoMan]

I may be feeding a troll, but what the law says is that when a public administration is going to buy software, it must look first for free (as in libre) alternatives. If none are found, or are not as good/adequate than comercial ones, then the comercial ones are used instead.

Re:LAW to use open-source/free software?

[public transport]

The government policy is for internal use, and does not apply to citizens. That said, I think the translation goes very far; it even excludes some open source licenses (like QPL, but IANAL). But, the text that passed is different from that of TFA according to some posts.

Re:LAW to use open-source/free software?

[DeepHurtn!]

...I can't believe that you're serious. But maybe you are functionally illiterate.

Re:LAW to use open-source/free software?

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

It's like talking about outlawing unhealthy food. Government shall never tell us or even suggest what we should do. Unless they make it a law lol.

Did you even read the law in question? It is about government acquisition, not what private citizens or companies can do. It is a lot more like the government passing a law that says all food purchased by the government to be fed to government employees must contain a list of ingredients, and the preparation is subject to inspection so that they can make sure no poisons are being added. The only way someone might go to jail is if they buy food (or software) for the government that is not up to spec and may be poisoned. RTFA.

Read parts 4 and 7 of the law.

[Spy der Mann]

Part 4 states that no hardware which forces to use a specific software should be used. Part 7 states that the compliance must be certified by a local authority. Failure to comply must be sanctioned.

Re:Read parts 4 and 7 of the law.

[dada21]

I see. It still doesn't mandate open software or free software.

I can't think of many hardware devices that force specific software anymore, although the ones that do are REALLY specific hardware devices. My brother owns a recording studio that uses very proprietary programs -- if a Peruvian government has its own recording studio, will they be limited to using OSS software? Eek, scary. How about large-scale accounting programs used by the State? Is there an inexpensive way for the State to transfer to an free software format in the short run, or will this just be more pork money for favored companies who can provide for this "free" transition?

And who is the local sanctioning authority? Another scary law, IMHO.

Re:Read parts 4 and 7 of the law.

[NineNine]

How about large-scale accounting programs used by the State?

Hell, how about small-scale accounting programs?! I still haven't found an OSS program that has 1/2 the features of plain ol' Quickbooks!

Re:Read parts 4 and 7 of the law.

[elgaard]

How about 3D graphics?

Maybe if a few more countries follow Peru, we will get Free NVidia and ATI 3D drivers.

Re:Read parts 4 and 7 of the law.

[Anonymous Coward]

C'mon, read the bill text already. If no FOSS exists that fulfills your needs you can be given temporary (2 year long) and renewable permission to use proprietary software. But you have to explain which exactly functions you need that are absent in FOSS - and publish your reasoning. As soon as FOSS becomes available that performs those functions, your permission to use proprietary software expires.

Re:Read parts 4 and 7 of the law.

[xethair]

I can't think of many hardware devices that force specific software anymore, although the ones that do are REALLY specific hardware devices.

Mayhap you have heard of "Trusted computing"? I wish we had that law already on our books...

Make it better, image if OS'es were trucks

[SmallFurryCreature]

This particulair tale is nothing new, I heard it relating to many different logistics companies, in fact any company that buys cars in large numbers.

I do however know for a fact that some are true because I seen the result.

The story is simple, large trucking company A finds it is time to replace its fleet of trucks from brand B. However the salesrep from B is for some reason not all to willing to give the discount company A wants. So company A makes sure when the salesrep visits that there are a couple of trucks just parked outside the company of brand C. If the salesrep still doesn't get the message, they usually do, then brand C will be the brand company A drives around in for the next 3 yrs (average truck live) unless salesrep C is smart enough to give a company buying a 100 trucks a big enough discount.

There are plenty of versions of this story from big to small. Everyone knows you can always talk down the price when buying even the smallest car. When your purchase order comes into the millions the sales people WILL have to bend over backwards, plenty of other truck manufacturers.

But I noticed something very strange, when talking to some smaller transporters who pulled the same trick but with a mere 10 or so trucks being part of the purchase order and therefore getting far smaller discounts, I found that it was very difficult to get them to accept the idea that a similar stunt could be pulled when it comes time to upgrade their PC's.

That just forking over whatever MS demands is like just forking over what your truck seller wants.

Business men who would think nothing of buying a handfull of different brand trucks (trucks are EXPENSIVE) just to make a point could nonetheless not understand that having a handfull of linux machines might make the next purchase from MS a little cheaper.

Directors who would never EVER allow their operation to become locked into ONE truck brand nonetheless happily say that they can't switch from MS because of lockin.

It is amazing, it is like when it comes to IT, the best brains in business suddenly loose their intelligence, as if different rules apply when it comes to computers.

So I have the following suggestions to any business leader:

• When a salesrep visits and sees competitor brands being used, salesrep will instantly offer extra discounts just for you. This works ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE. Even in IT, I know for a fact that some of the biggest companies on purpose have both SUN and IBM servers just to keep the sales people on their toes.
• If your excuse against using non-ms software is that your locked in then you got only 1 choice. UNLOCK NOW. The longer you wait the more locked in you will be. If it is bad business sense to be locked into one supplier for ANY other need be it your trucks, your supplies, your employees, your customers then why would it be good sense to have your IT, often the glue that holds everything together, be dependant on just one company.
• If your excuse is that your employees would find it hard to adjust, FIRE THEM AND GET BETTER ONES. Would you consider hiring for one second a truck driver who can only drive MAN trucks? A repair mechanic who can only handle DAF? Of course not. So why hire IT people who can only handle windows?

At the moment MS has a chokehold on business. It can demand whatever it wants and you will just have to cough up. It is insanity. Install a few macs, install a few linux boxes, then call your IT salesrep and tell him to give you a discount or to get out.

Get out of the lock-in and make IT subject to the same rules as you do all your other purchases.

Re:Make it better, image if OS'es were trucks

[Anonymous Coward]

What a complete load of shit. I have a fleet vehicle. I deal directly with my company's fleet manager of 2400 vehicles. What the fuck does a couple cars parked in a company lot in Toronto have to do with a nationwide lease agreement? Nothing. The story though has a lot to do with bullshit about Peru not really wanting open software because MS is so darn good.

Re:Great News...

[Anonymous Coward]

And what exactly is the primary trade of YOUR country ?

1. Who is actually funding those exports ?
2. The so called richest & most advanced country on the world can not stop it from comming in... How the @$#$@!! you expect that a third world country could stop it from getting out hu?

I know you are just an ignorant troll.. and I should just let you crawl back to your whole.. but.. not today when I feel so proud of being Peruvian.

BTW, Peru does not export opium .. you ignoramus.

Re:Great News...

[Godwin O'Hitler]

Yes. But countries including Peru usually have multitasking capability.

No. Software freedom is desired.

[jbn-o]

[W]hile the term open source isn't explicitly used, I think the intent from article 4 is that open source software is what is desired.

Actually, Congressman Villanueva is very clear that software freedom is what he was after, what the bill seeks, and why he asks for free software by name ("software libre"). Read Villanueva's letter to Microsoft's rep who tried to reframe the debate in the same way.

The reason why Microsoft tried to reframe the debate away from software freedom and why Villanueva was so insistent that Microsoft not do so is clear—the open source movement dismisses software freedom. The open source movement does not stand for the same philosophy as the free software movement. Software freedom is what proprietors fear. They have no argument against it. As we see with Microsoft's reps talking to Massachusetts, they are constantly trying to frame the debate around the cost of software. As if what you pay for software is the single most important issue to consider. Congressman Villanueva and the rest of the free software movement know that this is not so ("It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions."), therefore they don't stand for such misrepresentation. Properly, Villanueva also insists on calling proprietary software "proprietary" and not "commercial" as so many (even on /.) will do.

The theme here is on what rights users have with the program, not how quickly it can be developed, how much money one can save, or how few bugs there are in the software. The free software movement has nothing against the development methodology that the open source movement stands for, but the free software movement says that the open source movement's philosophy isn't enough.

The GNU mascot...

[Anonymous Coward]

Is it just my imagination, or does the GNU ram on the Peruvian free software site have a somewhat larger smirk than usual....

Misses the point completely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I think the data format is far more important than the software used to manipulate the data. If they want to "preserve the state's data", they need to use a free and open standard. As long as the software can handle the data, what else matters? I suppose there will always be worries about covert activity (backdoors, spying, phoning home, etc), but I think that risk is valid for open source software, too. I mean, you find tons of pirated software in government computers. If they can't be bothered to check the validity of commercial software, why would they bother to check the MD5sums or even the code of open source software? Or maybe some foreign agency infiltrates the IT department of some government institution and he adds a backdoor in the next "software update". If you are not constantly checking and verifying the source and executables there is opportunity for bad people to do bad things.

Re:Misses the point completely.

[geekboy642]

I mean, you find tons of pirated software in government computers.

Source please. I work entirely with government computers, and we have very strict policies about the acquisition of ANY piece of software to ensure all licenseing requirements are met, in addition to verifying that it will be safe in a secure environment. In fact, those same policies have been hampering the uptake of OSS, as some of the requirements are impossible for a "bazaar"-style release to meet.

Re:I'm still waiting

[Maxo-Texas]

There are tons of free apps. If they are only supported by a small group of people, they run into trouble when that person loses interest. There are many charge apps that have the same issue. The company loses interest (EA's Space Mmorg for example) even tho there are thousands of paying customers because there are not tens of thousands of paying customers. But an open source application, supported by a couple hundred people is probably a better choice- and some of these free products are supported by more than a couple hundred people. Software involves nothing but people's time and thoughts to produce. It has no intrinsic value. So unless you can set up a moat of some kind around your product, someone else is going to write a free version of it. It sucks to go the way of the buggy whip- and I'm in the field. But once any piece of software is fully spec'd, anyone can develop it. So why should we be spending hundreds of dollars on a word processor when there is a solid free word processor available?

Re:I'm still waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Free as in FREEDOM, in spanish we have two words for that

Gratis: as for free
and
Libre: as in freedom

Re:I'm still waiting

[BeeRockxs]

You are missing the difference between Free as in Free Beer and Free as in Free Speech.
This law is about the second one, not the first one.

Re:I'm still waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

Free as in freedom dumbass

Yada Yada UhUh

[Jherek Carnelian]

Cue the pedants who claim "It's not about open or proprietary, people should pick the best tool for the job..."

Guys who claim that are wrong. They don't see the big picture and are ignoring secondary effects. Free software is all about "standing on the shoulders of giants." When you spend money on Free Software, you guarantee that the work done with that money is available for everyone to make use of. When you spend money on Proprietary Software, you guarantee that the work done with that money is only available to that one company which owns the software. They may make good use of it, but they are more likely to mismanage it to maximize their gains.

So, it is quite likely that paying for the second, or third "best tool for the job" - as long as it is Free - is a better long term course than paying for the best tool that is also proprietary. It is kind of like Ecclesiastes 11.1 - Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it after many days. When you cast thy bread on the proprietary software maker, your chances of it coming back to you are a lot smaller.

Re:I'm still waiting

[NineNine]

Software involves nothing but people's time and thoughts to produce. It has no intrinsic value.

Speak for yourself. The only thing that I can say that I truly have that has any real value to me is my time. That's the problem... college kids do most of the Free Software writing because they're bored, rich (many don't have to worry about a mortgage), and simply don't value their time (college kids never realize that they're gonna die). By the time they wake up and realize that the only thing that they DO have of value is time, it's too late... they're already written program X and ruined market Y for Z number of people that DO value their time (grown-ups).

In fact, your argument is such that nobody who performs a service has any value because they're just using their time.

Re:Great News...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and the same for U.S. who is the first cocaine consumer in the world, they must to do something too

Paradoxial

[marco13185]

Isn't the whole point of open source to encourage choice. When the government officially sponsers a certain part of the market, you once again start to see a monopoly, regardless of the cost of the product. If everyone uses opensource, then the same problem arises, innovation does not take place. A delicate balance in the market creates a competetive and innotive market.

Re:Paradoxial

[christian.einfeldt]

Don't feed the troll.

Re:I'm still waiting

[Silkejr]

Smart people adapt to changing situations AND do what they enjoy. It's not a difficult concept.

Wrong bill text

[Anonymous Coward]

The text of the bill is not what is in opensource.org. The real bill approved (at http://www.congreso.gob.pe/relatoria/documentos/PR OY1609Software.pdf) does not mandate any use of free software at all, just makes sure the government is "neutral" when procuring software. Microsoft should be happy with it.

Other interesting thing - this law defines "free software" as the ones covered by the GPL license. BSD-licensed software are considered proprietary software under this law. Stallman should be happy with it :)

Re:Wrong bill text

[Anonymous Coward]

Other interesting thing - this law defines "free software" as the ones covered by the GPL license. BSD-licensed software are considered proprietary software under this law. Stallman should be happy with it :)

Really? The FSF include BSD on their list of GPL-compatible free software licenses. I really don't see why BSD and GPL have to be separate "sides". Save your arguments about which one is superior - that isn't the point. Both are infinitely better than full-time closed source.

Actually, it will change nothing. Why?...

[zzleeper]

Well, first of all, I live in Peru. Even more, my employer is currently a ".gov.pe".

Here in Peru, a law means *nothing* until the "reglamento de la ley" is approved (it's some specific regulation concerning exactly *how* will the law will be applied). It can take months, or more realistic, years until that is done. In many cases, the regulation is never approved, so the law is useless.
will be extremely difficult to implement FOSS in a user level (heck, how will we replace Oracle? Or even MS Excel, Word & Powerpoint? Its still a long way for OO).

I'm not against open source, but what the law states is unenforceable.

PS: However, cheers to APESOL for the effort.

Re:Actually, it will change nothing. Why?...

[zzleeper]

Oops, forgot the "In addition, it will be extremely difficult".

Re:Actually, it will change nothing. Why?...

[jsuarezcasana]

That sucks big time if only i were president, everyting would run on linux almost right away

Re:Actually, it will change nothing. Why?...

[BinLadenMyHero]

how will we replace Oracle? Or even MS Excel, Word & Powerpoint?

PostgreSQL and Open Office?

Its still a long way for OO

A long social way. The technical one is basically done already.

Re:Actually, it will change nothing. Why?...

[geekee]

"Its still a long way for OO

A long social way. The technical one is basically done already."

With an attitude like that, it's no wonder zealots are confused when people in the real world say they hate OO.

Re:Actually, it will change nothing. Why?...

[Anonymous Coward]

With zealotry like that, no wonder some FOSS proponents tell you to feck off.

Linux geek nutjobs

[oliverthered]

Well, I think the tide is turning, very slowing, but it still turning.

I have a friend who's job is fixing peoples PC's, he's asked if I can go through some Linux stuff with him because he's seriously considering moving some people over to Linux instead of Windows.

I suppose he would prefer people to ask for help when they can't do something instead of when somethings broken because of a virus etc...

Not just business

[oliverthered]

"It is amazing, it is like when it comes to IT, the best brains in business suddenly loose their intelligence, as if different rules apply when it comes to computers."

It's also amazing when someone patents a common task/object with the word computer in it as a new invention. and it's also amazing when existing laws relating to theft or whatever aren't applied to computers and instead a whole new law which may bypass all legal president is passed instead.
The same thing is happening with terrorists, we have existing laws about incitement to commit murder, but we need new ones for terrorists. I suppose it keeps the Government in a job.

Re:I'm still waiting

[zotz]

"I'm going to get modded down to -16 for this, but I'm sticking to it. There is no free software. Someone must pay the developers who write it(not necesarily TOO write it)."

And well you should. Think about this to see why:

There are no Free People. Someone has to pay for the mother's food while she is pregnant and then they have to pay for food in order to keep the child alive.

Get the gist?

all the best,

drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/64732

Re:Great News...

[jsuarezcasana]

opium? from which grass are you smoking? besides, regarding cocaine, isn't that big from years ago, most is from colombia and bolivia. our (yes, i'm peruvian) principal export is minering and fishing among others. go and sniff something from steve-o butt-crack

Some important remarks

[sT0n3_h34d]

First of all this new bill needs to be made official by announcing on the official goverment newspaper by the president. We have put a better translation of the bill on APESOL website.

We'd like to remark that even this is not a free software specific bill, It was based on all the previous proposals made on the subject.

I and many of us believe that its a important step towards making free software a truly and goverment supported alternative, since it also remarks, and will be regulated after making the official announce, through its own reglament, the benefit of free software when choosing alternatives for projects, avoid work duplication and saves money. Although for most goverment agencies free software it something already being deployed and used on many of them now, for instance the army is just moving their computing infrastructure to free software, training their personel and so.

Private derivatives: get it with free software.

[jbn-o]

The parent poster gets it exactly right, and the grandparent poster managed to give important and interesting evidence then reach the wrong conclusion.

To build on the parent's article, one specific example of a practical benefit free software gives us that open source software does not is the freedom to make private derivatives. Private derivatives are changed versions of programs one never distributes. The open source definition has nothing to allow users to make these, but the definition of free software requires that users have this right ("You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.").

This came up in the discussion around the early version of the Apple Public Source License. It was one reason that those versions of the APSL were not free software licenses, even though they qualified as open source licenses. The earlier revisions of the APSL required notifying a central authority—Apple—of any "deployed" APSL program.

As a result, the GNU Project commented on what Apple had picked up from the then year-old "open source" movement:

Aside from this, we must remember that only part of MacOS is being released under the APSL. Even if the fatal flaws and practical problems of the APSL were fixed, even if it were changed into a very good free software license, that would do no good for the other parts of MacOS whose source code is not being released at all. We must not judge all of a company by just part of what they do.

Overall, I think that Apple's action is an example of the effects of the year-old "open source" movement: of its plan to appeal to business with the purely materialistic goal of faster development, while putting aside the deeper issues of freedom, community, cooperation, and what kind of society we want to live in.

Apple has grasped perfectly the concept with which "open source" is promoted, which is "show users the source and they will help you fix bugs". What Apple has not grasped--or has dismissed--is the spirit of free software, which is that we form a community to cooperate on the commons of software.

I found the commentary to be apropos then and still find it to be informative and helpful today.

Re:I'm still waiting

[zotz]

Well, if those college kids can give the corps who are your customers all they want for no money, you are not really doing your job. That, or the people running the corps who are your customers are not doing theirs.

So, talking to this and the post above talking about the dev house being in a worse position than the Johnny Come Latelys, let the college kids do the initial design and development for you for free and you make your money supporting their free apps for your customer.

(Now, in the above, I gave in for a short while to the libre versus gratis ignorance.)

all the best,

drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/64732

Re:Great News...

[Anonymous Coward]

And what exactly is the primary trade of YOUR country ?

1. Who is actually funding those exports ?
2. The so called richest & most advanced country on the world can not stop it from comming in... How the @$#$@!! you expect that a third world country could stop it from getting out hu?

I know you are just an ignorant troll.. and I should just let you crawl back to your whole.. but.. not today when I feel so proud of being Peruvian.

BTW, Peru does not export opium .. you ignoramus.

The primary trade of my country, the U.S., is neither cocaine nor opium.

1. Peruvian drug-dealers are funding these exports.
2. Peru should stop the drug trade by making an attempt to stop the drug trade, not on adopting software they aren't sophisticated enough to use, anyway.

I might happily crawl back into my "whole," if a "whole" was something I could crawl into. Did you mean "hole"?

BTW, Peru exports a massive amount of opium. Google it.

BTW, it's not your fault Evolution has shafted Peru as far as intellectual development is concerned.

TRANSLATION OF THE BILL

[tabo_peru]

This is the translation of the bill that was just passed by the congress: http://www.apesol.org/news/199
Note that we are still waiting for the president to publish the bill in the official newspaper, only then it will be really official.

the fine art of RFP writing

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend once told me he was handed a copy of Principles of Operation for whatever the then-current 360-flavored processor was and a copy of the specs for a 360-compatible machine, and told to find some difference. I fear the difference, once found, was written into a spec to make sure that IBM would be the one to win the contract.

This law provides for exceptions when only proprietary software will do; how many RFPs will we find in Peru written very carefully so that only some MS product will meet the constraints?

Re:No. Software freedom is desired.

[mrchaotica]

Great post! But, to clarify even further...

Free Software involves more than just "open source." You can easily have open source software that's not Free: it would be the case where you have access to the code, but don't have permission to distribute it, make derived works, etc. (RMS's "four freedoms"). If you want an example, just ask Microsoft.

Don't you get it? Cost is IRRELEVANT

[mrchaotica]

The entire point is that Peru wants to be able to have the Four Freedoms, and to not be controlled by a foreign corporation. That's more important than any amount of money!

More important: standard-compliant websites

[zzleeper]

Agreed, teaching everyone from secretaries to senior managers how to use OO instead of MS Office 2003 (with Outlook 2003 included) will probably be extremely difficult.

On the other hand, there are some things that MUST be done.

For example, http://www.bcrp.gob.pe/ Peruvian's Central Bank website is totally incompatible with anything non-IE6. The menu system doesn't work. Try right clicking. All the dynamic pages are processed using incredibly slow ASP.

Before going all the way towards FOSS, can please someone force peruvian webmasters to use standards??

Re:More important: standard-compliant websites

[J. Random Luser]

For example, http://www.bcrp.gob.pe/ Peruvian's Central Bank website is totally incompatible with anything non-IE6. The menu system doesn't work. Try right clicking. All the dynamic pages are processed using incredibly slow ASP.

Umm, seems to work here with Safari 2.0.1 "Work" means I ignore the peppering of non-printing characters caused by [charset=windows-1252]

Well done!

[loconet]

I think I speak for the many peruvian geeks reading /. today when I say ..

VIVA EL PERU CARAJO!

No, a LAW to maintain control of their own country

[mrchaotica]

This law exists to prevent things like state secrets being stolen through backdoors, data loss due to proprietary formats, the state being held hostage by their proprietary software vendor, exclusion of minorities (e.g. the poor) from the democratic process, loss of transparency of government, etc.

You know, just those insignificant details that are essential to maintaining a sovereign democratic government. That's all.

Putting their money where...

[J. Random Luser]

their mouth is?? From the official copy of the law:

/CreationDate (D:20050923171727-05'00')
/ModDate (D:20050923171727-05'00')
/Producer (Acrobat Distiller 5.0 \(Windows\))
/Author (igutierrez)
/Creator (PScript5.dll Version 5.2)
/Title (Microsoft Word - Proy. 1609 Adquisici\363n de Software.doc)

great notice

[NeuronalTraining]

Sin duda una gran noticia para todos, espero que no solo quede en leyes, ya que existe demasiada corrupción dentro del gobierno. Saludos!
Viva el PERU!
Y ustedes se animan visitar el PERU, Machu Picchu?

Re:great notice

[AlexCeli]

Y en verdad que costo bastante trabajo sacar la ley, el apoyo de APESOL fue fundamental, por mi parte, estuvimos apoyando como PLUG asesorando a Edgar Villanueva para poner nuestro grano de arena tambien. Espero que este sea uno de los primeros pasos a que todos los estandares sean abiertos.

um..

[Run4yourlives]

Works fine in Firefox 1.0.7 on XP

Re:I'm still waiting

[RingDev]

My response was based on the larger picture, not this law specificly.

-Rick

Re:I'm still waiting

[RingDev]

I understand the Free as in beer analogy vs free as in speech. My reply was in reference to the larger picture. And as I was playing off of the "No such thing as a free lunch" analogy, I assumed that the repliers would follow the free as in beer interpretation. Because, so far as I know, there is no constitutional protection of the noon time meal.

-Rick

Re:I'm still waiting

[Maxo-Texas]

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough.

If all you have of value is your time, you are screwed. Because there are about a billion people on the planet who have nothing but time on their hands who are ready and happy to take your job for a few thousand dollars a year. The artificial moat protecting you is gone. From here out, their standard of living will creep up and the advanced nations standard of living will creep down. Any "pure brain"/"brain+time" job is facing severe competition.

Likewise, if you are in a field that competes with idealistic college kids or rich people, you are toast as well. You need to be saving a huge portion of your income (I save just shy of half of my net pay) and you need to be looking for a new career.

Part of the problem is that we are still paying top dollar for drugs, entertainment, property, clothing while our competitors are paying 5-10% of our prices because of false monopolies and trade franchises which prevent us from benefiting from the low prices being charged. If the prices were "fair" then either we would be making less but living well because our $100 drugs would cost $1 or they wouldn't be able to compete so well because their $1 drugs would cost $100. Same thing across the board for computers, software, etc. Only things like cars and heavy machinary seem to sell for about the same price everywhere.

Re:No. Software freedom is desired.

[Dolda2000]

You can easily have open source software that's not Free: it would be the case where you have access to the code, but don't have permission to distribute it, make derived works, etc. (RMS's "four freedoms").

Sorry, but that's not correct. Take a look at the open source definition (OSD). It requires a compliant license to permit "Free Redistribution" (criterion #1), and to permit "Derived Works" (criterion #3).

Open source software and free software means almost the exact same thing in practice. They only differ in philosophy: The open source movement desires these freedoms in order to create superior software, while the free software movement doesn't care about software quality, they want freedom and a community.

Just to demonstrate, let me show it for each one of RMS's four freedoms:

The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). Covered by OSD criteria #5 and #6 The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Covered by OSD criteria #2 and #3. The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2). Covered by OSD critera #1, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9 and #10. The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. Covered by OSD criterion #3. Personally, I believe much more in the free software philosophy than the open source one, but it's not as if software under an OSD-compliant license isn't Free.

Re:I'm still waiting

[Anonymous Coward]

You are incoherent, and I'm not talking NUMA either.

does this mean that...

[the-build-chicken]

...winamp no longer kicks that llamas ass?

The 1.x revisions of the APSL show a difference.

[jbn-o]

[...] but it's not as if software under an OSD-compliant license isn't Free.

Software under any 1.x version of the Apple Public Source License qualifies as open source but not free software. For more on this, consider the GNU Project's APSL essays (including the older one still published for historical reference). I also discuss this (pointing to the older APSL document) in another post I made in this thread.

All 12 of Peru's computers...

[mi]

will run Linux. Hurrah!

What about all of those foreign meddlers, who helped bring the country to standstill this spring? Do these well-meaning organization switch too, or will they continue using Windows?

Re:All 12 of Peru's computers...

[christian.einfeldt]

In Soviet Peru, foreign meddlers choose software for you.

Re:No, a LAW to maintain control of their own coun

[grumpyman]

Well, does that mean the current law that we have here in the States cannot protect us or government from these threats, or we are not living in a sovereign democratic government?

Re:But

[seweso]

"OpenSource.org also provided the full text of the Bill."

This is outrageous,

Alan Yates

Awareness

[Mark_MF-WN]

It's probably just taken this long for a lot of governments to realize that alternatives existed. Microsoft and other big software companies are much better at proselytizing their wares than the free software movement.

Different Rules do Apply

[RAMMS EIN]

``It is amazing, it is like when it comes to IT, the best brains in business suddenly loose their intelligence, as if different rules apply when it comes to computers.''

But different rules do apply. Your choice of operating system largely determines what appliciations you can run on it. If you get lots of documents in proprietary formats that only certain software can run, this might limit your choice of operating system (might, because there's always emulation). You would also need system administrators with different skill expertise.

The same does not apply to trucks. No matter what brand of truck you buy, it will run on the same fuel and be able to carry the same cargo.

In other words, what makes the rules different for software is the lack of interoperability. No real competition is possible as long as proprietary formats and protocols are the norm.

It is about file formats, but not only that.

[jotaeleemeese]

The language is so vague that you can interpret it in any way you want.

the interesting article is 4:

"No public entity will adquire hardware which forces it to use only a determined type of software or in any way limits its IT autonomy." (parent poster's offered translation).

Does this mean for example that hardware manufacturers stating their product is "for Windows only" will be screwed? I would hope so.

"In any way limits its IT autonomy" fall neatly in file formats. If you are looking for a solution and you find out that the data is not fully and freely transportable in a openly documented format (like MS Office) you could rightly claim that your IT autonomy is being hindered.

Lack of hardware support and closed file formats is what is hindering (not stopping mind you) FLOSS advancement in popularity. Laws like this, that level the playing field for companies to compete in quality and good levels of service are a good thing.

PLease note that the law demands that the goverment, not everybody has access to source code. MS, Sun and other big players already offer that in a way or another, so that should be a non issue funnily enough.

Democratic goverments have different priorities.

[jotaeleemeese]

Or they should have.

Openess and accountability are much more important, or should be, thus a goverment may decide to put up with a solution that is perhaps second best from a technological or systematic point of view, but the concerns about accountability and price (we are talking about other people's money here, the taxpayers') may completely override any technical or design merits.

We must be in different solar systems.

[jotaeleemeese]

Most hardware boxes have prominent stickers stating "Windows required" or any similar blatter.

In some fewer instances MacOS or whatever it is called is also deemd OK or even mentioned as the only OS supported.

A few iluminated companies will include a penguin, or goodness forbid, a little red devil.

So I frankly don't know in which planet you live where software is not required by hardware manufacturers. They should require none, provide drivers for popular OSes and provide access to the API to program their devices for others to support the device in less popular OSes.

If a goverment would have a recording studio then yes, with a law like this it may mean FLOSS only. Given such generalized incentive tools lacking any real power would be developped faster or companies wnting a piece of the action would cave in and show their source (please note tat as far as the law is concerned, the only beneficiary of the openess should be the Peruvian goverment).

Re:No. Software freedom is desired.

[ajs318]

The mail client PINE is a good example of software where you can examine the source code, but you are restricted in the way you can distribute modified versions {as source code, or as binaries but outside the original version numbering scheme}. It was meant to preserve the integrity of the original code and divert questions regarding modified versions away from the original authors, but it has a nasty side effect of not quite qualifying as Free Software. Some Unix implementations had, for operational reasons, to be supplied with kernel sources which you were allowed to compile, but not distribute {"Warning! The mouse has been moved. You will need to recompile your kernel for this change to take effect" -- well, it wasn't quite that bad, but you had to compile a kernel to match your hardware exactly}. And I believe that the original PGP licence similarly allowed you to inspect and compile the source code, but not distribute it.

"Open Source" is really just a euphemism, which was coined to downplay the association between freedom and troublemaking and so make it more acceptable to suits. {What do people usually do when they feel someone is constraining their freedom? They protest, in various ways that generally make business types uncomfortable.} It also neatly sidesteps the whole homonym issue {which is not an issue at all in countries where different words are used to mean "at no cost" and "without constraints"}.

Specific software? -Windows Printers

[trmcdougle]

How about windows printers/win-modems

I know that some of them now have Linux drivers available, but I think that is the sort of thing this is aimed at.

In Australia

[Anonymous Coward]

Govt, Policy on Open Source http://www.sourceit.gov.au/sourceit/oss
If only they applied the same concerns to proprietary software, equally. The only decent metric (benchmarking, best practice etc) is that the govt sector is badly lagging behing their commercial counterparts, and the 'gap' is growing. Normally, when anyone seeks 10% plus compound increases, the FMA should be applied.

Re:I'm still waiting

[zotz]

"I understand the Free as in beer analogy vs free as in speech."

OK, so you were basically saying:

While there is such a thing as Free Software, there is no such thing as free software.

Something like that?

The problem with the no free lunch idea is that it fails to consider point of view. Who pays and who gets. It also fails to consider the "free" that we get from the division of labour.

http://www.victorianweb.org/economics/division.htm l
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=economics +division+of+labour&btnG=Search

all the best,

drew
--
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/57503

Re:No, a LAW to maintain control of their own coun

[mrchaotica]

Seems that way to me, actually!

mod parent up! separation of OS and state

[Anonymous Coward]

is essential for the freedom of OS choice.

once the govt starts forcing a certain technology then we are up a creek

Not GPL?

[smithmc]

  while the term open source isn't explicitly used, I think the intent from article 4 is that open source software is what is desired.

But doesn't the following:

* Modification of the software and freedom to distribute said modifications of the new resulting sofftware, under the same license of the original software.

Pretty well nail it down as referring to the GPL?

NOT FLAMEBAIT, -1 MODS ARE STUPID

[C0llegeSTUDent]

OK moderators, whoever modded me flamebait, you're an idiot. Exerpt from CIA World Factbook - Peru:

Illicit drugs:
        Definition Field Listing
[Peru] until 1996 the world's largest coca leaf producer; emerging opium producer; cultivation of coca in Peru fell 15 percent to 31,150 hectares between 2002 and the end of 2003; much of the cocaine base is shipped to neighboring Colombia for processing into cocaine, while finished cocaine is shipped out from Pacific ports to the international drug market; increasing amounts of base and finished cocaine, however, are being moved to Brazil and Bolivia for use in the Southern Cone or transshipped to Europe and Africa

Thank you for your time.

But why are they different?

[SmallFurryCreature]

I know for a fact that with some mopeds you get a definite recommendation as to wich brand fuel to buy. But it is just that a recommendation (It was the advice of the mechanic selling me the moped not the moped company so I doubt very much it was part of some huge conspiracy).

No car company would dare to release car wich would only drive on Shell Petrol. The car simply wouldn't sell even though Shell owns, in holland, most of the highway fuel stations so that it is in fact hard not to buy Shell Petrol.

Why oh why has business who certainly know about the dangers of being locked into one supplier ALLOWED proprietary formats to develop allowing IT to lock them in. It is truly insane.

Car company's would love it if they could lock customers, they certainly trye their hardest with dealers. I don't know if this is true in the US but in europe it is very very hard to see a dealer with more then 1 brand of car. Those dealers that try to sell more then one brand are being obstructed at every turn. Repair shops are the same deal. With the increasing use of cpu managed cars it is very hard for an independent repairshop to get all the diagnostic tools needed to service all the brands.

The only reason the consumer is not locked into a brand of car maker so far is that the consumer is to smart. We would not allow a road to be build that can only be driven with Ford cars. We would not buy a car that can only be fuelled by Exxon. So how did MS and for that matter Wordperfect ever get away with making a wordprocessor that only worked with their own files?