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

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.

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"

[m50d]

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

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.

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

[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

[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.

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.

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: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*

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: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: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

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.

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.

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.