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.

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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.

"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.

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"

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

[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.

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.

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.