Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Microsoft Lobby Denies the State of Chile Access To Free Software

Posted by Soulskill on from the lockin-leverage-legislate dept.

walterbyrd writes: Fresh on the heels of the entire Munich and Linux debacle, another story involving Microsoft and free software has popped up across the world, in Chile. A prolific magazine from the South American country says that the powerful Microsoft lobby managed to turn around a law that would allow the authorities to use free software. "An independent member of the Chilean Parliament, Vlado Mirosevic, pushed a bill that would allow the state to consider free software when the authorities needed to purchase or renew licenses. ... A while later, the same member of the Parliament, Daniel Farcas, proposed another bill that actually nullified the effects of the previous one that had just been adopted. To make things even more interesting, some of the people who voted in favor of the first law also voted in favor of the second one. ... The new bill is even more egregious, because it aggressively pushes for the adoption of proprietary software. Companies that choose to use proprietary software will receive certain tax breaks, which makes it very hard for free software to get adopted."

33 of 159 comments (clear)

  1. Or you could blame Chile's MPs by i+kan+reed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Who kowtowed to any lobbyist, regardless of which one it happens to be.

    1. Re:Or you could blame Chile's MPs by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If they're anything like American legislators they just let the lobbyists write the laws so they are free to put on an act of serving their constituents.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    2. Re:Or you could blame Chile's MPs by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yeah, well I was responding to the tone of the summary that suggested that Microsoft was entirely at fault(as if lobbying in Chile were illegal or something), and didn't even make any room for the people actually pulling the vote. You can play as complex and nuanced a perspective as you want. I'm not opposed to that at all.

    3. Re:Or you could blame Chile's MPs by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is difficult to tell from either the summary or TFA if that is even true. The summary is horribly written (what is a "prolific magazine"?) and uses the word "bill" and "law" interchangeably. ALL countries that have income tax allow software purchases to be deducted, so I don't see why that is thrown in. These tax deductions apply to Open Source (which is not necessarily zero priced) as well as proprietary software. TFA would be far better if it had more facts, and focused less on trying to generate outrage.

    4. Re:Or you could blame Chile's MPs by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      Oh come on, someone posted this exact sentiment over 20 minutes ago. I even replied to them, so you can't pretend it's because you don't see ACs. I'll repeat my reply for your benefit though:

      Nuance is good. Please be nuanced about blame allocation, just don't let elected officials slide.

    5. Re:Or you could blame Chile's MPs by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Plus, just in the summary, two MPs are conflated, and following that, we have the idea being pushed that legislation to promote free software in government is somehow hobbled by more legislation to provide businesses with tax credits to offset software purchase costs?

      Last I knew, the Chilean government wasn't a federation of businesses, and the second bill just makes commercial software look more like free software (in terms of purchase/license cost) to businesses.

      Seems to me that the second bill could also be used to offset purchase costs of free software that comes with support, making it an extremely lucrative option.

    6. Re:Or you could blame Chile's MPs by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Chile is often held up as being one of the more libertarian governments. As such it seems logical that it would often appear to be a federation of businesses.

    7. Re:Or you could blame Chile's MPs by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      It's not just software that can be deducted, it's anything at all that costs money which your business purchases. If your business purchases a coffee machine for employees to use, it can deduct that. It has nothing to do with software, it has to do with business expenses.

      Proprietary software costs money, so of course it can be deducted. However, deductions aren't a good thing; they only reduce your tax liability. You come out ahead by simply not spending the money at all, and paying the tax on it. So if option A is something that costs nothing, and option B costs money, and both are equally good, then option A is better from an economic standpoint.

  2. Publicly Funded Governments by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    should always equal OSS/Free/Libre software.

    - Usually better software quality.
    - Prevents monetary kickbacks.
    - No stupid license fees (an evil in itself)

    In this regard, I am in agreement with RMS.

    1. Re:Publicly Funded Governments by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      All government data needs to be open to auditing. Thus any government data needs to be stored in open formats that can be examined and manipulated with tools that can be sourced from multiple parties. Furthermore, the government should not be in the business of helping entrench particular software monopolies.

      The nature of the binaries being run is really just a side show.

      It's the DATA that needs to be open.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Publicly Funded Governments by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are many reasons why proprietary software is sometimes the better choice. In some cases the TCO will be lower, or the software is easier to use for office workers (like it or not, Windows / Office is pretty much what employees will already be familiar with). It may be easier to find support staff for some proprietary software. And in some cases, the proprietary software will simply be of better quality, more reliable, or a better functional fit. Also, I fail to see why license fees are evil.

      With that said, I think governments should use open standards for data, document storage and interfaces where available, and avoid products (proprietary or otherwise) that do not support such standards.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Publicly Funded Governments by i+kan+reed · · Score: 2

      That's a nice theory too. It's got a good reason for being wanted.

      But what about military secrets?
      What about ongoing stings of organized crime syndicates, and the undercover police who might threatened?

      Are these exceptions? How many lives is this principle worth?

      If(instead) these are valid exceptions, what objective criteria would you use to separate the valid secrets from the invalid?

      People have been trying to solve the problem you just laid down a simplistic solution to for decades now.

    4. Re:Publicly Funded Governments by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      But what about military secrets?
      What about ongoing stings of organized crime syndicates, and the undercover police who might threatened?

      Both eventually become open records to the public anyway (after an expiration date, naturally), so aside from keeping such exceptional data sufficiently isolated from the public until their expiration dates (which happens anyway), what do you think detracts from GP's philosophy as per data format?

      Back in the Bad Old Days, everything was typewritten on paper... a completely open data format. So...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    5. Re:Publicly Funded Governments by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In some cases the TCO will be lower,

      That is true, but only when looking at TCO in the short term. In the longer term, proprietary software will always turn out more expensive. Either because licencing fees go up or the business eventually goes out of business and expensive projects will need to be started to replace the functionality of the now unsupported software. Using free open source software, means that the user always has access to the technology and is able to ensure the product continues to perform the function that it was intended to perform, which in turn improves business continuity.

      Unfortunately, most people don't plan beyond the next couple of years and short term gains have become more important than long term continuity.

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
    6. Re:Publicly Funded Governments by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      With that said, I think governments should use open standards for data, document storage and interfaces where available, and avoid products (proprietary or otherwise) that do not support such standards.

      As long as the products really do support the standard and the standard doesn't allow blobs of proprietary data formats.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  3. Details? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not to be a party-pooper but there isn't anything at all in the article about what "the Microsoft lobby" actually did or not. Only that a politician that were against the free software support law from the start managed to get a contrary law passed a while later.

    1. Re:Details? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

      ...not even that. From TFS, you can deduce that the second piece of legislation isn't even contrary, but is just equally beneficial to ALL software instead of being tailored to encourage adoption of free software.

      So the summary could be rewritten as: "Free Software Lobby fails to prevent the use of Closed Software in Government and Business."

  4. It seems like... by toonces33 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The legislators were mainly interested in getting a price break from Microsoft, and they found a way to do it.

  5. Well, wait,,,, by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    By my understanding, tax breaks being offered on something only mean that you effectively only get some percentage of the money back that you spent on that thing.

    But if you aren't spending any of your money on that thing in the first place, even if it would give you a tax break, aren't you still further ahead than if you did spend the money when you can only get part of it back?

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:Well, wait,,,, by Kabukiwookie · · Score: 2

      Correct.

      It will lower the threshold to continue or start using proprietary software though. It's about the market share first, the money follows later once you've cornered the market.

      --
      The mountains of madness have many little plateaus of sanity - Terry Pratchett.
  6. I have an idea by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Instead of lobbying, lower your damn prices. At my US company we're sure as hell not paying $450 a seat for the corporate single license version with Access and Publisher. It's not my damn vault they lost billions on Windows 8 and the Xbone and need to make it elsewhere.

  7. What "Munich Linux debacle"?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Munich isn't ditching Linux.

    Not often that SN gets the drop on /., they must be improving.

    http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/08/21/0836239

    1. Re:What "Munich Linux debacle"?? by Teun · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Exactly!

      There's a vice-mayor that heard stories of some city workers having trouble with the compatibility of certain file formats and he wants an investigation into it.

      This says nothing about the Linux OS or something else OSS being ditched, it doesn't even mean he's getting his investigation!

      --
      "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  8. Wow by Greyfox · · Score: 2

    You know, if anyone was actually bribed in the process of that, it would be VERY illegal back here in the USA. Just sayin'...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    1. Re:Wow by JRV31 · · Score: 2

      Bribery is not illegal in the US, we call it campaign contributions.

  9. Re:Microsoft cannot compete in the marketplace... by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'd argue that using windows is easier for most people than it is using Linux....

    Why is Microsoft afraid of allowing the marketplace to decide?

  10. Old ways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Nobody bribes the old way.

    Your spouse get consulting job, your son gets contract to discover effects of Moon's light on frogs population.
    That's how is done, just look at the transfer of government money into lucrative contracts for private companies.

  11. Huffpost loses misleading tagline championship! by clovis · · Score: 2

    This just out: Slashdot publishes an article with the title "Microsoft Lobby Denies the State of Chile Access to Free Software".
    Anyone reading the article sees that no such thing has happened.
    Huffpost slides into second place for misleading tagline, but still retains "sideboob" title.

  12. Re:Microsoft cannot compete in the marketplace... by Stormwatch · · Score: 2

    I'd argue that using windows is easier for most people than it is using Linux.

    After Windows 8, that's quite debatable.

    --
    Circumcision is child abuse.
  13. Re:Easy to lobby when funded by the taxpayer by symbolset · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Any is too much.

    --
    Help stamp out iliturcy.
  14. Excuse me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Munich and Linux debacle"? Looks like you misspelt "success story" there, and nevermind the political backstabbing.

  15. Re:Microsoft cannot compete in the marketplace... by walterbyrd · · Score: 5, Interesting

    > I'd argue that using windows is easier for most people than it is using Linux.

    Why? When I want to launch a browser, I click the browser icon. What is so difficult? When I want to print, I can clink the printer icon. And so on. I would say it is *much* easier to go from Win7 to Gnome2, than from Win7 to Win8. People keep posting about Linux being difficult to use. Why? What is so difficult about it?

    > Not to mention, they would need to retrain all their personal to use linux

    You mean like having to retrain people to use Win8? Win8 is radically different than previous versions of Windows. How about retraining people to that "ribbon" crap in ms-office. Why is it: if somebody does not want to learn the new MS whatever, that person is lazy and stupid. But, nobody should suffer the burden of learning Linux?

    > make their own variant for security purpose

    What?

    > and then actually Support that version of linux. In the end, that would cost too much.

    What makes you think so? What makes you think supporting Linux would cost more than supporting Windows?

  16. Bilingual speaker here! * by williamyf · · Score: 4, Informative

    My two cents here:

    I read the linked English article, as well as the article in Spanish that they reference ("Ubuntizando.com"), as well as the original article in Spanish. **

    The original article (in Ubuntizando) says NOTHING about the name of the legislator that did the counter-proposal, or anything about any alleged tax breaks. Is mostly derivative and incomplete. From this point onwards, I will reference only the article in "biobiochile"

    The second article cites two others which I did not read (I have a limited amount of time). BioBioChile interviews only the "Pro-Free-Software***" (Mirosevic) legislator, and not the other (Farcas) who, as the summary clearly states, was the one who voted against Free Software****. Is only logical that the guy launched a counter-proposal. The only surprising thing is the turn-around time (24h).

    Even more, the article (in biobiochile), indicates, in the words of Mirosevic himself***** "Half the people [referring to the other legislators, "diputados", or congressmen for those in the US] had no idea what we were talking about. I do not mean of the concept of Free software, but of software itself, but as we calculated, the rest followed those of us who understood". Is only logical, that they voted on the second initiative again whitout a clear understanding, either folowing party guidelines, or swayed by the 10 legislators that submitted the second motion.

    From the way of writing (the subtle nuances are often lost in machine translation), starting with the title of the article itself ("Microsoft Raped Us"), I feel the magazine is "Amarillista" (think tabloid/sensationalist). And Slashdot is just being Slashdot, with the added hurdle of the language barrier.

    While I am no big fan (nor am I an enemy) of Microsoft, I am less a fan of tabloids and crappy reporting, hence this comment

    * For the record, 296/300 in my ToEFL way back when.

    ** Is in biobiochile.com, never heard of any of them, here is the link, for what is worth:
    http://www.biobiochile.cl/2014/08/19/diputado-mirosevic-revela-sabotaje-a-proyecto-que-fomentaba-software-libre-microsoft-nos-violo.shtml

    *** Again to recap, the pro-free-software resolution was voted by 64 yes, 1 no and 12 abstentions.

    **** Free as in beer, "Libre in Spanish"

    ***** “La mitad de la gente no tenía idea de qué estábamos hablando. No digo del concepto software libre, más bien de los softwares, pero como habíamos calculado, el resto siguió a los que sí habían entendido”, relató Mirosevic a la publicación.

    --
    *** Suerte a todos y Feliz dia!