Slashdot Mirror
French Parliament Votes To Give Priority To Free Software
An anonymous reader writes "The French Parliament just wrote into law the first instance of Free Software priority in a public service, by adopting the Bill on Higher Education and Research. [Advocacy association April], after extensively contributing to the debate, especially welcomes this vote and congratulates Deputies and Senators for recognizing the importance of Free Software in the Public Service for Higher Education, since it alone can ensure equal access to the future public service. April hopes that this first step will be followed by other legislation in favor of Free Software. It also thanks all the persons who mobilized and contacted the Parliament Members."
Priority is nice, though mandatory would be even better.
Free, open source software is much more educational by its very nature than closed source shit. One can't learn from source that one can't read.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
Now for the rest of the world! Unfortunately North American governments will probably embrace this last because of corporate control and mass ignorance. Meanwhile, Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free. Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free. Hoarders can get piles of money, That is true, hackers, that is true. But they cannot help their neighbors; That's not good, hackers, that's not good. When we have enough free software At our call, hackers, at our call, We'll kick out those dirty licenses Ever more, hackers, ever more. Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free. Join us now and share the software; You'll be free, hackers, you'll be free.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
stuff, is that Windows and perhaps OSX will die and open source will take off on the desktop. A number of nations will be thinking that if MS works closely with NSA, than they certainly have a back door there.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I wounder what changed. First the no more internet cutoffs for piracy, and now this...
Good point. BUT, I think that is exactly the case. They are just saying that do not want the MS type ppl running around lobbying and buying their pols. Considering that MS and others have worked closely with NSA, and very likely that are loads more backdoors inside windows, it would make sense.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Started in 2004, it still seems to be going well at first glance:
http://www.zdnet.com/no-microsoft-open-source-software-really-is-cheaper-insists-munich-7000010918/
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Sure. This is only a legal expectation: use an open-source license. That said, anybody can compete, and win on its own merit.
A few weeks before this vote, the French Army confirmed a global contract with Microsoft, despite advise not to do so by a security commission, for technological and strategical independance reasons. Lobbies are still here, be reassured !
Sarkozy is a mix of democrate/republicain : on the right side of the political scale. And yes, democrate are definitively on the right side too. Hollande came in which is on the left side (socialist). So the political really changed, not like in the US where both right side only differs ind etail implemnentation really. Plus ,no offense , but the french constitutional council isn't ike your high court where political influence (i am looking at you scalia for example) can lead Supreme court judge to vote against the repelling of an obvious anti consitutional law due to politics. The french constitutional council judge usually care much less for the politics and much much more to really maintain consitution. Thus repeal of part of hadopi among other constitutional works.
Also what might have influenced this is the fact which is known now that microsoft knew about a backdoor in skype (closed source) and this throw in a very very bad light *ANY* closed source US software.
Also, due to limited budget, some police stations have Word installed on some computers and Excel on others.
Want to copy/paste? Too bad.
The Dutch government has put all kinds of open-source-friendly laws into place as well, but does not even abide their own laws, especially when it comes to open source software. So I am waiting for the news that the French actually DO switch to open source software instead of just saying they will.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Free software = logiciel libre. Libre => liberté.
In French, there is no ambiguity between libre and gratuit.
If open source is so much better, it ought to win on merits. Of course, in civil service merits usually don't count, which is why they have lots of rules, and ultimately the whole doesn't achieve much of anything. So much so that bureaucracy is a byword for exactly that.
An example of how to do it is the LiMux project. There, the city of Munich stuck out its head, made a plan, adjusted as necessary (because, due to scope turning out much larger than expected, they needed a much longer timetable), and now has a rock-solid integrated software suite to do most if not all their many, many little departments' bidding. As a side effect, they have a clear picture of what sort of thing is in use, where previously that was a complete unknown (and turned out to be much more disparate than expected). That suite is made up out of many open source parts integrated with their own glue.
Real results always beat legislation that say someone else should something. This legislation will cause a lot of arsecovering and tickboxing and ultimately make the notion of open source part of the rules establishment, of an obstacle to be skirted, not part of the solution. And that is really quite sad, seeing its strong "scratch an itch" genesis.
Thus I predict that French governments will not see serious open source adoption for decades to come, if ever.
You don't even need a door in Windows - you just need a brick (script kiddie) to smash it.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Which is exactly what FOSS will allow them to do, choose between alternatives on merit alone.
Proprietary software doesn't allow winning on merit, because salesmen/lobbyists for business interests ensure that comparison on merit is replaced by whatever it takes to seal a deal, from simple bias and misrepresentation to backhanders and other shady dealing or worse. There is no shortage of evidence for that.
And then in later years, again it's not possible to win on merit because the proprietary software creates lock-in, whereas open source allows a different supplier to be chosen at any time.
For governments, proprietary software never has a benefit unless there is no open source package for the job, in which case proprietary wins not on merit but on mere existence. In all other situations, it's a costly liability.
Back doors inside windows... I'm sure there's a joke there I'm missing...
....that won't change the commercial market place (or the number of government systems that run under MS).
Of course, the back-doors are a hot-potato - at least, they are to anyone that hasn't been aware of them since NT4.
If they switch to open source, I hope they'll set aside some fraction of the money they currently use on licensing to fund further development.
You often see this kind of initiative ending with everyone switching back after a couple of months because the new software couldn't support some specific use case, seemingly without considering one of the great benefits of open source: the wide range of options you have for getting the problem fixed yourself.
It's total bullshit. It's a legislation requiring to "prefer" open source, it's no legal obligation. And with alluring Microsoft offers, these laws are usually blatantly ignored. As there are often discreet corruption cases or conflicts of interest, it's just meaningless not to enforce open source usage.
The business model of skype all along has been to get people locked in and dependent on the service, and then work out ways to make money from it... Wether that means jacking up prices, selling user information, or bombarding users with advertisements.
Either way, skype is a return to monopoly telco networks from years gone by, a huge step backwards.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Either way, skype is a return to monopoly telco networks from years gone by, a huge step backwards.
Not really. Nothing prevent me from using the exact infrastructure I use for Skype (my PC and ithernet connection) for other similar services. And with IPv6 implemented, all that will be needed is a directory service, because every device on the internet will have a unique IP address, fully enabling point to point communication. The current model where everything has to go through central servers will be obsolete. Of course Skype will want to be the directory service of choice, but anybody can build one. And they will.
Microsoft might give free licenses to France for 2 yrs, then decide that was a bad business choice - change the price in France to $5000/ea.
While you main point is valid (F/LOSS is needed and free of cost is not free), the example you give indicate a total lack of contact with the business world.
If contract people are as incompetent as you seem to think, they get what they deserve. Any (potentially) long term contract would include restrictions on price increase. For an online service it would also include agreements on phase out.
Also, apart from Office365, Microsoft sells perpetual licenses, so if you stop paying (lots of companies run MS without a SA), you can continue running what you have. No hurry in changing software.
Trop long, pas lu. I just read that the original text says "libre".
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
Interestingly, at gas stations, "libre-service" means self service.
I use "libre-sex" all the time.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Quite not. French people use the English wording "Self-Service". Libre-service means that it's gratis.
We can forget about such similar legislation ever passing in the US . . . ain't no way in hell we're gonna (knowingly) follow France in anything!
I think I'm deviating from the thread but while I personally love & admire FOSS I think that the law is discriminatory toward non-free software which might offer a worthy product albeit lack of source code is disappointing. It'd be better to see them put FOSS at an equal footing with closed/proprietary. That's my idealistic thinking anyhow.
What if being "open" is a merit that is usually overlooked? Then this is forcing things to be measured on their own merits. But then, that is the point of AA.
Learn to love Alaska