Free Software Wins Court Battle in Quebec

courteaudotbiz writes "In a court battle in the province of Quebec, Canada, initiated more than two years ago, free software activists Savoir Faire Linux (translated 'Linux know-how') won the right to submit offers (Google translation; original French version) when the government takes public requests for submissions to replace its desktop operating systems and office suites. This opens the possibility in the future of replacing Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Office in favor of Linux and OpenOffice.org, or any other operating system and office productivity suite. In his judgment, the magistrate said that the government acted illegally when it discarded the proposal of Savoir Faire Linux for replacing Windows XP with a Linux distribution."

Comments

Bravo to FACIL, Cyrille and his team!

[MagicFab]

No doubt the court decision documents will help many people understand what Free software is and how it can be considered for government use.

Full (French) PDF of the court decision is available here:
http://blogs.savoirfairelinux.net/cyrilleberaud/KMBT35020100602152155.pdf

English background information:
http://www.fabianrodriguez.com/blog/2008/03/17/gnulinux-integrator-complains-to-supreme-court-about-quebec-government-illegaly-upgrading-to-vista-without-proper-rfps/

Re:Bravo to FACIL, Cyrille and his team!

[tomhudson]

It's always like that , and that's one reason why this decision is important - it means, at least in Quebec, that there's no more of this "it's just an upgrade" BS.

From what I read in the original french, the judge wasn't buying any of the gov't arguments. To paraphrase, if buying new computers with Vista on them is just an "upgrade", then everything becomes "just an upgrade" and there's no reason for ever calling for public tenders. (Those new police cars are "just an upgrade - no need for tenders").

The problem is that Windows boxes are a continuing cash cow because of their higher on-going support needs, so of course people are going to push Windows. They aren't tech-savvy, they just know how to push the boxes, maintain the anti-virus subscriptions, which icons to click to set up the network, and how to reformat.

Re:Bravo to FACIL, Cyrille and his team!

[tomhudson]

RTFA. These computers were plain-jane desktops running Office '97. Openoffice is completely able to read and write office97 documents.

The Frenchs saw it comming

[McGiraf]

Vive le Quebec libre!
- Charles deGaule

"Won the right to submit offers"

[Errol backfiring]

Seriously, doesn't this yell corruption into everybody's ears? What right is held back next?

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[OzPeter]

Seriously, doesn't this yell corruption into everybody's ears? What right is held back next?

Nope. What it more likely yells at me is a bad translation from French political/legal speech to English.

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[Etyenne]

The RFP specified "Windows Vista license", which by definition excluded anybody who wanted to submit a proposal desktop OS replacement plan based on Linux. What Savoir-Faire Linux won is, basically (paraphrased, read the judgement) the right to submit a proposal to upgrade Windows desktop to Linux.

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[Interoperable]

Quebec has a long history of failing to put contracts to tender properly. In particular, the construction industry has long been involved in the corruption of government officials to win contracts on dubious grounds. It's part of the reason that the infrastructure is so bad. I doubt that corruption was involved in this case however; I think it comes more from the fact that a large slice of the public doesn't realize that non-Microsoft operating systems exist.

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[tomhudson]

Read the article in the original french. The judge made it quite clear that what the government did was illegal. Not just "illegal", but totally illegal, and that they tried to cover it up after-the-fact.

And F/LOSS is political. Using F/LOSS is as much a political statement as it is an economic statement - that it's our computers, our data, and we have a right to see the source, to use open formats, to modify it the way we want, and no private corporation should be able to lock us out.

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[Rogerborg]

Sure, the RFP should have said "Windows Vista, or better".

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[value_added]

I think it comes more from the fact that a large slice of the public doesn't realize that non-Microsoft operating systems exist.

Now that they have a chance to learn just that.

It's entirely possible that the rate of Linux adoption will be faster than elsewhere; not having to grapple with distinctions involving beer metaphors should make things easier. ;-)

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[tomhudson]

This judgment was about the procurement process in this context, but it has far-reaching implications. It means that the government has to follow the rules that they laid down for public tenders, and not (1) try to subvert the process, and (2) lie about it afterwords. If you read one of the other articles on the french web page, you'll see that it's the Parti Quebecois that is trying to get the government to be more user-friendly with our data and our tax dollars, while Jean Charest' Liberals don't want to know shit

Then again, Jean Charest is such a lying fuck it's incredible. I remember talking to reporters and saying "people actually believe this guy?" and the response back was uniform "he says one thing to one group, another thing to another, but our editors just want to report what he's saying, not that he's lying half the time". We saw it with the whole demerger thing. Make a promise to do the right thing, then lie lie lie while you fuck everyone over.

Then again, what do you want from a former Mulroney Conservative. There are so many anglos in Montreal who vote PQ now in provincial elections because there's no way that they can trust him again.

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[tomhudson]

Wrong. The government is required by law to consider all functional equivalents. The government's own studies show that linux is as good as, and often better, than Windows.

By specifying Windows Vista, MS-Office, and Visio, rather than "products that provide the following functionality ...", they broke the law. Then they tried to cover it up, Worse, they claimed it was a "software upgrade" when it in fact included the purchase of new computers as well.

To quote from the judgment Savoir-Faire Linux included this request when they became aware of the intended purchase: Page 8: "L'article 12.4 impose une 'recherche serieuse et documentee', pourriez-vous nous faire parvenir cette documentation?"

Translated, it means "Article 12.4 requires that an in-depth, documented study be done, can you send a copy of the study to me?" There was no study done before deciding what to buy, and the government tried to cover up that they didn't follow the law.

The government, under threat of legal action, agreed to meet with Beraud, but refused to give the specifications, nor the study that was requied to be done (because neither existed).

Beraud then offered [56] an outside expert to help them do the study that they were required to do by law anyway (and hadn't done) during the procurement process.

Now check out para. 84: (page 19) "A l'audience, le procureur de Microsoft souleve " - Mr. Softie didn't sell the software directly. I was bought through Compugen. But Mr. Softie knew that losing here would mean opening the doors to losing more $$$ later.

Para 150 (page 29), quoting para 116 of Judge Silcoff in Alstrom "... the court notes that the study, to be in conformity with the law, must not only be in depth but also documented. If th STM (the city transit commission) wants to use an exception provided by law (to this requirement), they must document their research and conclusions .. before making their decision."

This is the law for all procurements exceeding $25,000.00 (para 152, page 29).

Para 153 (page 30) shows that there was no study done - quite the contrary.

Para 156 (page 31) - back in 2005 the Regie had put out a policy saying that when it came time to renew software in 2006-2007, open-source would be considered.

The smoking gun: para 157: (my translation) "I'd like an expert on open source software from CGI to comment on the following reply that we have made to a promoter of linux/openoffice. Are these valid arguments? What are the weak points that the promoter will attack and how will he do it?"

In other words, "We didn't do the study required by law, and we want to cover our asses - tell us where we fucked up."

It blew up in their face: para 160 (page 32) : "I believed that the objective was to compare the two solutions. Instead, it's a request to confirm that Linux-OO is no good. That would be a bit paradoxical for (us) to make such a statement when we are publicly stating the exact opposite ourselves."

Pares 198 ff (page 38) the court completely rejects the government's arguments.

The judge agreed that the government had no right to do what it did.

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[tomhudson]

I guess you don't live in the West Island.

We are so pissed off at Charest. I've voted PQ in several elections (and I'm one of the few people who led public protests against both bill 101 and meech lake and got bomb threats and police harassment over it way back when. My federalist credentials are better than the sheeples who did nothing, or left, or refused to learn french - wtf is up with that? You live in Quebec, show a bit of respect for your neighbors, learn some french, tabernak).

Funny thing - my sister, who can't hold a conversation in french if her life depended on it, voted PQ too - we're all sick and tired of the fear-mongering "don't vote for them it will destroy Canada" bullshit.

Canada is about workable compromises. You can't ask the other person to understand your side if you won't try to understand theirs.

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[stakovahflow]

For that, I think OS/2 would suffice...
--Stak

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[Scrameustache]

What if Linux doesn't run the app they needed and Vista does?

I'm sorry, but in the real world, Linux simply can't replace Windows in a lot of cases. I didn't bother to RTFA, its pointless on this sort of discussion on slashdot, no one is rational here when it comes to Linux.

This case is about the right to make an official proposal. If you don't bother to RTFA, don't bother to spew your ignorant opinions either. If the company who sued for the right to actually make the proposal can't make a proposal that meets the needs, then the proposal will be rejected.

Re:"Won the right to submit offers"

[tomhudson]

It means that more tax dollars are wasted on the trials, even then the cost of the trials outweigh any benefit to be gained by avoiding licensing costs

It means that the acquisition price is lower over time because of increased competition, and that there is less likelihood of corruption. It's the corruption aspect that was specifically cited in the law that set out the tendering process.

finding Linux support people that are cheap (like windows support people) is next to impossible

You get what you pay for. You need fewer linux boxes to provide the same services as Windows, and the linux boxes (and bsd boxes - let's not forget them!!!) are easier to administer because the os is more robust, and you don't have to click through 20 dialogs and edit a stupid registry to change something, and then have to do it over again the next time the machine boots.

So they won the right to submit, that only means that the RFP's will include WHQOL (sic) standards.

1. RFPs can't include WHQL standards when specifying software
2. linux supports most Windows hardware better than Windows does

When it comes to maintenance, linux is cheaper, because you save on boxes, electricity, space, licensing, lost time due to viruses, and you need fewer staff to maintain them.

For those who aren't bilingual...

[Interoperable]

Here is some English reporting on the subject.

Re:For those who aren't bilingual...

[Hurricane78]

I’m quadrolingual, you insensitive clod!

A business, not an "activist"

[Etyenne]

Correction to the article text: Savoir-Faire Linux is a commercial Linux service provider (an integrator), not an "activist". Look them up on the web. They sued the government because buying Windows specifically without considering Free software options was witholding them business.

FACIL, which also sued the government for the same reason in a different case, *is* an advocacy non-profit organization, somewhat akin to APRIL or the FSF.

Re:A business, not an "activist"

[stakovahflow]

Even if this is an action by a business, it will not be the first time, nor the last...

Red Hat sued the Swiss government (2009 IT World):
http://tinyurl.com/o6mv2f

And how many times have M$, Apple, Novell, etc done similar things?

I'm just happy to see a law suit that does not revolve around copyright/patent infringement.

--Stak

Re:Rediculous.

[elrous0]

I would hope that any major upgrade in government would involve at least some degree of systems analysis. And any decent systems analyst is going to take differences in software packages into account (along with many other factors)--not just price.

Please respect the law

[elrous0]

Please note that your response posts must be provided in both English and French.

Re:Please respect the law

[Anon-Admin]

S'il vous plaît noter que vos messages de réponse doivent être fournis en français et en anglais.

You should have included the french then.

Vous devriez avoir compris le français alors.

English article and Digg link

[MagicFab]

Here is a link to an English article about this:
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2010/06/03/quebec-microsoft-lawsuit.html

ASnd please digg it:
http://digg.com/business_finance/Quebec_broke_law_in_buying_Microsoft_Software :D

That is needed in the USA

[Anon-Admin]

I did some government biding some time ago. It was such a joke, they would request bids for "150 Dell Latitude D830's to be delivered over a 12 month period" The thing was, Dell was bidding and the government would through out anything that was not a Dell Latitude D830. So No comparable systems and no way to beat Dell's bid. As far as I was concerned it was a rigged bid and most of them went that way.

So, For the government to request bids on "Windows Vista" and to ignore all other desktop OS's is the same thing as far as I am concerned.

Now, the real question is: Was the bid written so that they could only get a bid from who they wanted or was it written that way because the guy in charge listened to the sales person, decided that was what he needed, and then wrote a bid because it was required that they take bids?

Re:That is needed in the USA

[Richard_at_work]

I did some government biding some time ago. It was such a joke, they would request bids for "150 Dell Latitude D830's to be delivered over a 12 month period" The thing was, Dell was bidding and the government would through out anything that was not a Dell Latitude D830. So No comparable systems and no way to beat Dell's bid. As far as I was concerned it was a rigged bid and most of them went that way.

So, For the government to request bids on "Windows Vista" and to ignore all other desktop OS's is the same thing as far as I am concerned.

I disagree - there is the probability that there already exists an infrastructure built around Windows desktops, including systems management and applications. In such a case, does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure (or replace the existing infrastructure altogether, with all the costs associated with that)?

With regard to the Dell example, I regularly got Dell equipment cheaper from a Dell reseller than from Dell direct (and we were placing orders for $90 - $150K of equipment), but I understand your example - however, a different laptop is not exactly comparable to having to swap an entire OS and its ecosystem.

Re:That is needed in the USA

[wrook]

I disagree - there is the probability that there already exists an infrastructure built around Windows desktops, including systems management and applications. In such a case, does it really make sense to consider bids for an alternative desktop OS, which would require extra unbudgeted expenditure in order to integrate into the existing infrastructure (or replace the existing infrastructure altogether, with all the costs associated with that)?

The answer is YES! The government is required to consider all competing bids. It's not just a good idea, it's the law and for good reason. It helps stop corruption when doling out taxpayer's money. IF it can be shown that a competing bid is more expensive for the same value, then of course they are quite able to reject the bid. However, disallowing competing bids is extremely bad because you don't know what the cost will be, or what the issues are -- because nobody has made a bid! Given that the capital cost for the average Linux distribution is zero, there should be plenty of money left over for other expenditures required to integrate into the existing infrastructure. In fact, from a reputable integrator, this (along with training and support of course) should be the vast majority of the cost.

Re:That is needed in the USA

[DarthVain]

Yes because all our software licences we currently own are linux compatible. As is all our server software. All our web is hosted on linux. Also all all IT staff all know Linux, and also know how to support it which is pointless anyway as all the users know how to use Linux, as well as all the Linux equivalent office software.

Sarcasm.

Heck some of the negative airspace here can barely use Windows. Giving them Linux would be akin to giving a caveman a cellphone. Ook Ook Ah Ah Ah!

Just about everything is Windows. The cost to change everything over to Linux would be huge. All of which is a moot point as it all comes down to what the IT overlords are most comfortable with, and that is certainly the status quo. Heck trying to get them to set up an SQL Server is a challenge (MS or otherwise), as they are so entrenched in Oracle. Its like OCD I think, they get stuff set up a certain way just how they like it, and are then very resistant to change of any kind.

I hear ya in a lot of this stuff, but in the large soul crushing enterprise world, physics works differently.

Re:Rediculous.

[Etyenne]

If the government of Quebec wants to upgrade their AutoCad 2000 license to AutoCad 2010 licenses, do they have to accept bids from people who want to sell them the free software program "Bricscad" running under Wine?

Close, but no cookie. It means the government has to describe the need they need to fill, instead of dictating a specific product, in their RFP. Any bidder that can meet these needs can submit a proposal. It's common sense, really.

Re:So Quebec is in the wrong because...

[Delusion_]

That's fine in the abstract, but in the real world, it doesn't always hold up, particularly when what a new OS needs to accomplish is often something as mundane as "run the apps we've already spent money on" or "be compatible with the third party vendor software that we don't have (or want) an alternative to", such as enterprise small format and large format printers.

I've had this discussion with people before who migrated to Vista too soon who wanted drivers for $60,000 devices. In a couple of cases, I had to put it rather undiplomatically: "You have a $150 OS and a $60,000 device, and you're going to have to choose between them until the vendor is done with their driver update". If this is a company with 5 computers, the device wins. In business, you're often straddled with legacy applications that you as an IT person don't have the luxury of saying "it's not compatible with the new OS, so find a replacement".

Even worse, in a few rare cases we were talking about legacy equipment that was never, ever going to have a Vista/7 driver written for it. Most decided to stick with XP for a while longer and put off the question for a few months until they had a better picture on which to base such a decision.

Re:So Quebec is in the wrong because...

[Changa_MC]

We put out for bid by task to be accomplished, not by tool used.

Flying a bid to revamp the electricity in one of our old buildings using DeWalt tools would be... inappropriate. It's incompetence if accidental, illegal if collusion occurred (this is an example, I only wish I got bribed with power tools).

This is subject to some caveats, since sometimes only one company makes the tool you want -- but generally that's means you reject other bids quickly/there are no other bids. Not that you get to circumvent the process by never presenting other bids to committee.

im in ontario

[chronoss2010]

and if you guys had candidates here id vote for you and ive heard this before its LIKE canada is crying for a new party, one thats for people not stuffy suits that are selling off our values , country and civil rights

Re:Rediculous.

[turbidostato]

"If the government of Quebec wants to upgrade their AutoCad 2000 license to AutoCad 2010 licenses, do they have to accept bids from people who want to sell them the free software program "Bricscad" running under Wine?"

Of course not, and the sentence says no otherwise.

It's simply that there's no thing as "upgrading AutoCad 2000 to AutoCad 2010". It needs to be a "public procurement for an overhaul of Computer Assisted Design software at the Quebecois Regional Government".

Of course, in the procurement process things like the easyness and cost of the overhaul process, compatibility and/or moving-forward costs for porting in-house developments to the new platform, front licensing costs, guarantees and maintenance fees will be taken into consideration, so maybe (even probably) the winner bid will be the one proposing a migration from AutoCad 2000 to AutoCad 2010, but that will be *AFTER* proper consideration of the presented bids, not by negating access to the procurement process to anyone with the ability and desire to cover the functional needs of the publica res.

"The government of quebec's argument (an office 2003 to 2007, xp to vista) UPGRADE is not a bid-spec for a complete wholesale exchange of all their software and systems for one that is not compatible with all the other software in their list."

And the judge has clearly stated that this is illegal and it shouldn't have been done that way. If they need unbroken operations within the current environment, then so they need to state, not that the software will be from this or that brand and model. What if by some unstated means one of the bidders is able to give the asked for functionality, port all needed applications, with 0 maintenance stops, proper personnel formation, etc. and still get better price and guarantees? Should it be unable to bid because it happens not to be "Brand Foo Model Bar"? It's not up the government to say in advance "nah... that's impossible, so I'll ask for AutoCad 2010 instead", but to ask for functionalities and functional restrictions and then look what the bidders have to offer.

"I agree that the government should be considering extracting itself from the control of the "multinationals" as google-translate in TFA renders it."

And so the judge states too. It's not only that the government (illegally) asked for brands and models instead of functionalities, but that it didn't take its due dilligence not developing a study regarding what such needs and functionalities in fact were.