Slashdot Mirror
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."
Free software In peRu; outSTanding PrOmiSe for The open source movement.
"Made up/misattributed quote that makes me look smart. I am on
I say, GO PERU !! No against at all.
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.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
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.
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"?
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!
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.
sarchasm
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.
- Human knowledge belongs to the world
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.
Unknown host pong.
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.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
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.
Oh well, what the hell...
Direct link to Guardian translation here.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
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.
Digital Citizen
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.
Smart people adapt to changing situations AND do what they enjoy. It's not a difficult concept.
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
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.
"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
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
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.
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:
I found the commentary to be apropos then and still find it to be informative and helpful today.
Digital Citizen
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.
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.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.