Slashdot Mirror
French Senator Proposes Requiring Open Source
Translation of comments by French Senator Pierre Laffitte to postings on the French Senat e-forum to his proposed law for making government services electronically accessible and mandating the use of open source software (I hope I did better than BabelFish).
Message from Senator Pierre Laffitte - email: p.laffitte@senat.fr Sent : 28 Oct 1999 09:37:59
Subject: Comments on the state of the forum on 27 Oct 1999
The success of the forum opened by the Senat shows the interest in the proposed law. More than 400 messages are awaiting me when I get back from Stockholm & Tunis in six days.
Some of them are very potent and enthusiastic; in particular, I'm thinking of those from Jeff Thompson and Xavier Giannapoulos on the 26th October. Of course we wish that the European Countries and others will follow. I add that the approach matches the strategies of a number of global information technology Companies. It's by way of services adapted to the customers rather than by selling proprietary software that money should be made. IBM and SUN are of this opinion and MICROSOFT seems to me ready to follow this path.
I thank you in the name of my colleagues and myself for the many positive responses.
I note that few of the comments touch on the use of electronic messaging in government departments. At the moment the legal control services of regional government oppose their use between local groups, which explains Article 1.
Few comments concerning the billions of savings that would result from public services and companies using email for calls for offers (Article 2). Nobody has brought up the very strong incentive for modernisation that this example by public services would provoke.
Most of the messages focus on open source, hence these remarks above. (Articles (4 & 5)
The objective of this forum is to collect suggestions, these will all be analyzed and weighed, in particular by the sponsor in charge of proposing the law. It will be no doubt examined as extension of the the proposed law presented by Ms. E GUIGOU giving legal status to digital signatures.
As is customary in the Senat, this will be completed by auditions and everything will be examined with a sense of responsibility, rigorousness and analysis of the various consequences. This conforms the tradition of the role to the Senat at the heart of the French Parliament.
Sénateur Pierre LAFFITTE
The article has some interesting comments - my personal favourite is the possible impact this may have on companies dealing with the government. They might be forced to make more use of Open Source S/W and systems if they want to have their bids considered by the government.
something wicked this way comes...
From the translated message from the Senator, it's not at all clear as to what the Articles actually state.
I'd be very much in favor of a law that required all software used by the Government to be provided as Open Source, wherever possible (whatever that means).
This is not really that different from the current law in the US, if I understand it correctly, that any software written for the US Government (as a deliverable) has no copyright and is thus in the public domain. It would simply be moving from public domain to an Open Source license requirement. The two are very close, but an Open Source requirement would imply that the original source code must be supplied. A deliverable to the US Government could be executables that are in the public domain (could legally be reverse engineered).
There was a discussion of these issues over on Technocrat awhile back, with Bruce Perens making the interesting suggestion that someone should look into getting software created by/for the US Government released with Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA) requests. While it appears the software created by/for the US Government has no copyright (Public Domain), the US Government is not under any obligation to make releases, except possibly under FOIA requests, which is what Bruce suggested someone should look into.
It appears that some people here seem to think that the French law will require that all Software be Open Source. I'd probably be opposed to such a mandate. This would unnecessarily displace workers suddenly who develop and release non-Open Source software. If Open Source is to succeed, I feel that it's better that it wins in the marketplace, not by mandate.
The Government is a customer in the marketplace, and if it's determined that the Government (and thus the people) benefit from the advantages of Open Source, well, that's just a customer making a minimum requirement for purchased goods. Nothing wrong with that.
cant learn much listening to you shout on a soapboax, can i?
"Are you sure translating an official document from French to English isn't against the law? Expect French Foreign Legion troopers outside your door at any moment!
You would think they would prefer an operating system that was designed in France, by Frenchmen, and whose native language is French, and can't be localized to other languages."
False, look at: http://www.senat.fr/english/somm.html
This is a part of the senat website translated in English (there also is German and Spanish).
"The number of suckers born each minute doubles every 18 months."
-jafac's law
Well, given your post you seem to be one of them
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I didn't look closely enough to realise you had made the orignal submission whan I made my posting. My mistake.
No problem and no need to apologies.
I hope I have correctly translated your sentiments.
Yep, you undertood well what I thought.
Cheers
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
i cant belie... well actually i find it very easy to believe that as benign a comment as the previous was 'moderated down'. the thing i dont understand is how rob malda and the other 'presidents for life' of this forum have so much disrespect for freedom of speech... well actually i understand it completely, they arent running this place for any other reason than it gets them famous... otherwise they would worry about 1. whether articles are true or just big fat rumor bait 2. whether or not moderators are abusing power. obviously malda et all have much more important motives such as getting link hits to VAResearch or whatever.
I think your a little confused.. you start off sounding like a 100% capitalist when you say you can't make money off open source!
Which is a typical misconception of capitalist "software is really a manufacturing industry" idealist. But then you say this:
you won't have a monopoly on your product any more, and thus lose your major leverage to make money
Huh? Doesn't this promote COMPETITION? Isn't competition the backbone of the capitalist system? So something that limits competition is good, but
Yes, you CAN make money on open-source. Just like Archetects make money designing buildings ("You can't make money off Archetecture, because you're not selling the materials to make the building - once you design it, the customer can take the plans and get anyone else to build or modify it, and you'll be shut out.")
Read "The Cathedral and the Bazaar", and try to understand that the software industry is really a service industry masquerading as a manufacturing industry. If you can grasp that, you'll see that this is really a good thing.
It is very true that the French gov. relies on bureocracy more than most Euro govs. But that is, because very little govs. in this planet have got a better benefit system for society. Yes there's unemployment benefits, yes, social security is free, yes, housing benefits exist. Things that other countries cannot even dream of, are a common an unquestionable day-life thing in France. All this benefits come at a price, gov. must keep track of the people that really needs help, and therefore bureocracy was born.
I personally love France. Not only the country, but the culture is fascinating. We should look up the french people as examples rather than making fun of them. Because their social system, even though bureocratic as hell. Results in more comfortable living standards. I'd really like to see a British or American lady living with a decent pension provided by the govs. they been paying taxes to, all their lifes. That's feedback! And that's what the French people obtains with their constant strikes, revolutions, protests, etc. Feedback from their gov. that actually takes care about what the people thinks.
French people might not notice this, and complain as everybody else does, about their gov. But when you live in different countries for a while, and you try France, you can notice the difference. France is really awesome.
Yes sir
... errh ... righteous retaliation mesures from virtuous free-market-for-all Americans against over-subsidized socialist archaic French pigs is still active and kicking.
This braindead !#%@^&$#@ embargo
And no, it wouldn't even piss off the ones who decided this embargo as it would just mean more cash in the Federal vault.
Sweeping decisions by governments usually scare me.
1. France says "Hey this idea is great! Now lets make any private enterprise that does business with us be "Open Source compliant". Now your private enterpise can't choose the software it wants to use.
2. France decides that there isn't enough open source to choose from. Now it is hiring programmers to attempt to create an "Excel" (yes I know there are open source spreadsheets but this is an example). How many Euros will that cost the French tax-payer?
3. People like Bob Metcalfe have argued that Open Source is communism. While Metcalfe is totally out of his depth on this issue...France is taking the first step to making this a reality. It becomes socialist when the governments mandate how code is written and fascist when the governments conscript individuals to write code. France is dangerously close to the Socialst model.
4. If this law is passed a software czar will have to be put in place to provide "guidance" for the law. This software czar will use his position to create policy about...well... software. Doesn't this scare anybody?
I would caution anybody to say "Yeah, well the U.S. has those things!" That doesn't make it right.
Be carefull what you wish for....
I found it funny when I heard that Linus Torvalds got an email from the US acusing him of stealing honest people's jobs but this is too much. All that's left is for someone to acuse Torvalds of being a witch or that GNU has ties with Cuba. Maybe Gates should pressure Clinton to bomb "them damn commies" in Finland.
hi everyone. I'm the one that made the translation (but I'm more known on /. as Le douanier) but I didn't knew that I changed my name from RousseAU to RousseA ;) I'm translating the open letter in English so you can avoid the use of Babelfish. This will beavailable in the directory where I put the translation but wait 1/2 hour or 1 hour so I can translate it. Cheers
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Of course, the Minitel was 70's desgin.!!
They were slow ? Well, 1200 donwload/75 upload is slow compared to a 56000, but back in 1982-1986, how many americans actually owned a computer with a modem ? And what kind of modem ? (I had a 2400 with my 8086 in 1986)
The (freely available) Minitel was, and is still, generating a lot of money. The Internet is still an unsafe place for online transaction, and Amazon is still losing money...
The French are buying plane or train tickets online since 1984.
Around that date, every household discovered online chats - way before the IRC.
Since its beginings, you could find a search engine (Minitel Guide des Services) and a national telephone directory on the Minitel.
BTW what computer technologies did the French brought us that are used around the world?
Er... the first microcomputer was invented in France by a Franco/Vietnamese guy, the French were just too dumb to see its potential.
And this was just a few years before the Altair.
The US brought the net, C, UNIX, mainframes, PCs, workstations, etc...
In the 70's, not only the US but also the UK, France and Germany designed and tested Arpanet-like networks. Do you really think American scientists came to Europe and installed a network ? Have you heard of EARN (equivalent of BitNet) ? Do you actually know why the Internet is called
InterNet (and not just ArpaNet) ?
The Internet technologies are not created by US people, they are created by everybody. If I was following the previous poster's idea, I would say that the Web is British (Tim Berners Lee 'invented' the Web, after all, innit ?) or perhaps Swiss (he worked in french speaking Geneva), and that IRC is Finnish (well, it *is*).
Probably the french were working on their "super cool" technologies on US mainframes.
Wrong - play again !
Until the mid-60's, the #2 computer company in the world was French - it was Bull (the #1 was IBM, but its dominance was not that obvious at the time).
Just to let you know :
1st man in space : russian.
invention of car : joint German and French.
Linux : finnish. and the World
smartcards : French. They have ued smartcards for more than 15 years, and pay everything with them. American phone companies only started using them in the early 90's.
Feeding cattle with mud from sewage : French. Sometimes, they can be very stupid, like everybody in general (and the americans in particular, except, being French, they do it with panache and culture, of course).
Actually nuking another country : US. Twice
Well way I'm off topic, but you get the idea.
>So why not talking about libre software or >libertad software if we use the spanish word Well, in English we could refer to "liberated software", but this has two problems. First, people would expect to see penguins burning their bras. Secondly, there is a mistrust in America of the word "liberty", which sounds vaguely radical. H. Beam Piper said that the English language was the result of Norman men-at-arms trying to date Saxon barmaids; one happy result of the bastardization of English is that there's always a succinct way to express yourself.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
> basically just a huge BBS, that was doomed very soon.
Of course it was all this. But it was still an immense success, even though it was the first
WIDESPREAD (and I mean it: they made it to get rid of the phone books. They GAVE IT
AWAY FOR FREE to anyone who asked.)
> BTW what computer technologies did the French brought us that are used around the world?
> The US brought the net, C, UNIX, mainframes, PCs, workstations, etc...
> Probably the french were working on their "super cool" technologies on US mainframes.
Well... 30 years ago, you didn't have anything BUT mainframes. So, I guess you answered your own question... :) :) :)
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
Chapeau.
Not exactly, I think Hindhi and even Urdu (two languages from the Indian subcontinent and widely spoken in Ealing, UK) would come before english and spanish.
Well, a part from the fact that no one has even mentioned MICROS~1 on this topic. I can assure you that we (Euros) are as ignorant to extreme capitalism, and limitation of freedom and corporate slavery as we can. We Euros, like (at least our European people) to have as much freedom of choice as possible.
Yet again, the fact that there's open source software that cannot reach the quality of certain closed source alternatives; doesn't mean that we are forced to use open source. But this proposal encourages gov. agencies to use OSS whenever it's viable. We are not going to use a stupid function plotter if Mathematica is available, obviously. Even if it's closed source.
Just think about the enormous economic resources the French gov. will free up by not having to pay certain licenses. And just think how much of that money can actually go to invest in research, or social benefits.
It would be funny that just because the French gov. would free up monetary resources, they were able to invest more money in solving cancer or AIDS. Because then Euros (as stupid as you say we are) might put your US-biotech out of business.
Europe has a great history record of leaps in science and philosophy. Understimating this past, and believing that the "seed" for this evolution is far gone past, is absolute ignorance and arrogance.
>> proposed law and translate that for us.
Demandez, et vous serez exaucé:
> Article 1er
> Les communications entre les services de l'État et les
> collectivités ainsi que les communications entre collectivités
> locales seront réalisées par voie électronique. Les conditions
> du passage entre les procédures actuelles (circulaires, lettres,
> convocations, etc.) et la messagerie électronique généralisée
> seront précisées par voie de décret.
The communications between the State Services and collectivities, as well as the communication between local collectivities [municipal, regional governments] will be done through electronic ways. The condition of changing over from the current procedure (circulars, letters, sub-poenas, etc.) and the generalized electronic messaging will be precised by way of decree.
> Article 2
> Afin d'assurer une large transparence et un accès rapide à
> l'information par les entreprises, les appels d'offres publics
> ainsi que les documents annexes feront l'objet d'une
> communication électronique.
> Les réponses de même seront fournies par voie électronique.
To insure the widest transparency and quick access to the information by the [private] companies, public tenders as well as subsidiary documents will be communicated through electronic means.
The answers as well will be provided though electronic ways.
> Pendant une période transitoire, la communication électronique
> pourra être doublée par une communication papier. Un décret
> précisera la durée de la période transitoire ainsi que les coûts
> de la communication papier réalisée sur demande.
During a transitory period, electronic communications could be doubled by paper communications. A decree will define the duration of the transitory period, as well as the costs of paper communications done on demand.
> Article 3
> Les administrations de l'État, des collectivités locales et
> des services administratifs, sous réserve des dispositions de
> l'article 4 ne peuvent utiliser que des logiciels libres de
> droits et dont le code source est disponible.
> Un décret fixera les conditions de transition avec la situation actuelle.
The State [various departments], local collectivities and administrative services administrations, under the reserves of article 4 can only use software that is copylefted and whose source code is available.
> Article 4
> Certains logiciels spécifiques peuvent être utilisés et
> acquis par les administrations et services mentionnés à
> l'article 3 après autorisation délivrée par un service compétent.
> Un décret précisera la répartition géographique de ces services
> et les conditions d'obtention de cette autorisation.
Some specific softwares could be used and acquired by the administrations and services mentionned in article 4 after being authorized to do so by a competent service. A decree will precise the geographical dispertion of those services and the conditions to obtain that authorization.
> Article 5
> En vue de faciliter la mise en oeuvre rapide de la présente
> loi, il sera institué un service de renseignements électroniques
> auprès de chaque préfecture pour les services publics et les
> collectivités locales, et des assemblées consulaires pour
> les entreprises concernées.
To facilitate the implementation of the present law, an electronic information service will be instituted at each préfecture[the representation of the central EXECUTIVE authority through out the territory of France] for all public services and local collectivities, as well as consular assemblies for the concerned companies.
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
You're mostly off-topic. :), but still with the high expectation that OSS carries. I'm sure you will agree this is a Bad Thing.
You mostly missed the point I was making. So I'll chop it up into nice little MTV sized nuggets for you.
Think a little further than the adoption of non proprietary software. Think about a future when the French government have invested some time & money in OSS stuff, and feed it back into the community. Except one of the basic tenets (and major strength) of OSS, that of peer review, is greatly hampered because the additions to the source are illegible to most other programmers, or at least a good deal harder to decode.
So now we have something which is touted as "Open Source" yet intrinsically can not be exposed to the Open Source process of ongoing review by a very large peer group. So you get lower quality software (I'm not saying that the French government are going to write crap code, but everybody makes coding mistakes in non-trivial systems, even me
Now, don't you think you are being myopic about this? Think a little further than immediate impact for once. I'd bet you are an MTV kid.
I'm sure you're one of those who think that there should be only one desktop project, one Linux distribution, preferably in English.
Nope, I'd like to say you couldn't be more incorrect, but the content of your post leads me to believe you can. Vive la differance, I say!!! Through diversity comes strength. And I'd love to see Linux with Japanese ideograms on the screen!
Instead of complaining about Babelfish, learn a new language.
I can maintain reasonable conversational and business French, can get by in Afrikaans, and could probably order a beer in most European languages, even after 8 pints. And that's not counting C, C++, x86 assembler, Perl, Java, Delphi, COBOL, SML...
If you want to make derogatory remarks about peoples' postings, don't you think you'd have more credibility if you didn't post as an AC? To quote Dilbert "You're mighty brave in cyberspace, flameboy"
Strong data typing is for those with weak minds.
So what happens is that they're fighting to pretend to serve some purpose. The head of the chamber (what's his face gain?) is using his net presence to look branché (wired), and at least more branché than the other side of the parliament.
Actually, they're rather succesful at that: they had their website way before other gov't institution.
Then, all cynicism aside, the fact that they don't have much real power does'nt mean that this is useless. They can at least challenge the gov't to do something ...
the proposal is about using open source software in the administration. If you had some clue to what the exterior world is you would know that you are as free in france as anywhere in the US and noone is going to tell you which OS you have to use in your company. But if you go digital in the administration it has to be open source otherwise it makes no sense: do you really want to have to fill a .doc file to vote in the next elections ?
One wonders why you picked my post to reply to when I am arguing against making fun of France, and there are posts that blatently make fun of it. One also wonders where you learned to spell "people".
And you are wrong.
blah blah blah blah blah Linux blah blah open source blah blah BLAH.
Uh, they aren't making it law that everyone in the country has to use open source software, just making it a procurment guideline for government purchases of software products.
Ungh
I'm the first to complain about how ignorant Euro governments, organizations, companies and the public are in general when it comes to Microsoft software (besides being plain /wrong/ in the case of public institutions to MANDATE the use of proprietary American file formats), but this is NOT the way it should be done.
1. Requiring access to source code is OK. It doesn't need to be Open Source. That's what source code escrow is for.
2. Proprietary software is OK, when
a. The company providing it does not hold a [virtual] monopoly (eg: not only Microsoft would be out, but Mathematica, too). In this case, if the alternatives are not good enough, the state should provide a substantial amount of funding to help develop free alternatives (eg: REDUCE, Mockma, whatever).
b. There is no dominant player, and the commercial alternative provides relevant benefits, and is not attemptting an `embrace an extend' (a.k.a. vendor lock-in) strategy [Extensions not denounced by a sizable proportion of the community as improperly designed should be OK].
3. If a non-European player is not dominant as a whole, but only in relationship with its commercial competitors, and these include European companies, that dominant player is disqualified.
[Note that this does not mean that an European vendor is finally chosen].
4.`loss leaders' associated with conglomerates are disqualified.
Thoughts?
France is one of the most fiercly nationalistic (mainly in a good way) countries in Europe, and frequently takes action against dilution of French culture by overseas influences. The expurgation of the language being a notable example.
Open source offers a way to replace one `culturally imperialistic' product with one which can be modified and repackaged in France, and sold to profit French firms.
After Korea, my money was on France to be next. After that though, I'm at a loss. Maybe India.
As a developer, you are free to (try to) sell your program as a closed source program. No one can remove your the right to (try to) do this.
On the other hand, as a consumer, I'm free to choose not to buy your program. I'm free to choose an open source program instead of your closed source one. This is not as saying developers have no rights.
Do not delude your self thinkning that Democracy == Freedom. When the US was a republic we were much more free. Governement screws up almost anything they stick there smelly mitts in. Frankly nothing is going to turn me off faster then some big fat bloated government geting invoved and start saying "all software must be open source". Boy we will have problems then. The socialists are evrywhere and they want to force you into thier way of thinking. I am having trouble seeing your democracy argumnet...it does not seem like democracy...everyone is not voting for something and make that the standard...which would be horrible, no thanks no democratic software for me. I did not even like the idea when studying democratic software engineering teams.
Unluckilly, you're right.
French people will soon eat British beef;
British and French and German will also soon be forced to eat american Genetically Modified food (and American hormon beef, and bananas harvested by children)
Actually, you're wrong : I guess they do not disregard the foreign films, they only have to adapt them to the appaling cultural level of the local population.
ex. : they don't know where Berlin is, so they move 'City Of Angels' to the US.
> then possibly Spanish
Perhaps in the USA, but definitely ont in the world, where the english-speaking countries make a paltry 5% of the total world population.
(300 million -versus- 6 billion)
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
The abysmal lack of public transportation in most of the USA forces the people to give it's hard-earned dollars to GM, FORD, EXXON, FIRESTONE & companies...
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
>We make the source to our product, Resin,
>available to the user for the reasons above. But
>you can't snag our code and sell it or >incorporate it in your product without our
>permission.
>My understanding of the slashdot ideology is that
>we're just as evil as a closed source software >company because we're not giving away all our
>rights for free. I've never understood that.
I suspect that it's only the real fanatics who take that attitude - most will take the more reasonable view. Unlike the guy earlier, stating that source is a "consumers right".
Getting the source is *not* an automatic right. You can encourage companies to make source available, you can refuse to use closed-source things, but getting hold of the source for something is not a requirement for releasing a piece of software.
(Bets that this gets moderated down? )
FYI Hebrew is written mostly right to left. That's why KDE work, although very welcome, is inadequate. It's mostly message translation stuff a la gettext(). I still cannot type Hebrew text properly.
Now, it's relatively easy to add basic Hebrew support (it's slightly more complicated with Arabic) to single-font no-markup plain text widgets in each major toolkit (Qt 2.0 has it), and even have reasonable inter-toolkit consistency.
But then there are KOffice and AbiWord and Gnome Workshop and Mozilla and... I don't think any progress is possible here unless some sort of coordinated effort happens Right Now(tm), which is unlikely.
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
HOLY COW!!!! I would have never expected this from the french. My first guess would have been that they would have surrendored to the borg known as Microsoft with little resistance if any. Ive been to france and a I really liked it.. I like it more now
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
We are also working towards incorporating XML to keep our data portable. Currently, we are running Solaris but I'd like to move to Linux in the future because open source software is cheaper and easier to maintain. We are continually understaffed in IT and can't afford to be supporting various flavors of 3rd party proprietary software. With open source software, I can go online and find answers to questions if needed as opposed to being forced into a (substandard) support contract with a software company. So, open source software really is the best way for government to go, from my perspective, and should be given preference just based upon cost, maintenance and resource issues.
Just my 2 cents.
tokengeekgrrl
The pedigree of honey
Does not concern the bee;
A clover, any time, to him
Is aristocracy.
as a french expat living in california I have to tell you that you have everything wrong. I did not have less paperwork to fill when I came here. (and this is an understatement). Regarding the capacity of a french government to take a decision, things are of course more involved than in your cliche description. Remember the first declaration of human rights comes from france and was adopted in one day. More recently great decisions have been taken like the 35 hours working week. Only when a decision irritates big lobbies does it take forever to pass. But what about fire weapons in the us ??? my guess is that you are just the kind of gone out of the US just once in my life without a clue moron that helps maintaining the reputation of your country so low outside your borders. Just too sad considering the fact that no nation has a monopoly on intelligence or stupidity.
Strategically they were outmanuvered and outdated. Their officers had used all the money to a useless defence line that was too short.
But they didn't lack courage or will to use rifles.
-- :-)
Never thought I'd end up defending the French
I think that this is a great idea..., and that only good can come from this.
No wine.. No Beer. Get the man a martini. Shaken Not Stirred with 2 olives. No wine cause you ever see the Foreign Exchange Simpsons where Bart went to france? they Put ANTIFREEZE IN IT DAMMIT. And no Beer cause the only people that can make good beer other than the Nice Guys in Pottsville,PA at the Yeungling Brewery is those Spiffy dudes in Bitburg Germany BITTEN EIN BIT! Bitburger is the best beer on earth. And French like germans about as much as they like americans. So Give em martinis!
--------========+++Dont Feed The Lab Techs+++========--------
hard-earned dollars to GM, FORD, EXXON, FIRESTONE & companies..
I don't even know how to begin explaining the difference. So I will just repeat myself.
My problem is that the government is forcing people to give money to *one* *specific* *company*. That is far more insidious. For transportation, there are many choices. You can buy your car, your fuel, your tires from a variety of companies. You can even make your own bicycle and ride that around. And the government rarely requires that you travel. It's bad when the government does, but it's not one thousandth as bad as the government requiring that you give money to Microsoft.
My concern is the same as if voting over the net were possible, but would only work with Windows. And that's even an entirely reasonable scenereo - you might have to run a Windows executable, or it might be web based and Windows-only for any of the dozens of reasons existing Windows-only websites exist.
the proposal is about using open source software in the administration Ok, from further information showing up, I'm starting to be convinced that the proposal is only for within the government, which, of course, is up to the government what it wants to do. Indeed, the requirement for the Government to use open source makes a lot of sense. However, I still get a slight impression that the government may impose a law on French companies as well to use Open Source which is NOT a Good Thing. If you had some clue to what the exterior world is you would know that you are as free in france as anywhere in the US Oh, I thought everyone was forced to live in jails and get whipped daily in France. Silly me.
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
Good to see this happening in some corner of the government, at least!
tokengeekgrrl -- thanks for adding to the case for Free / free based on real-world costs in addition to philisophical wholesomness.
:)
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
From your answer I guess you understood my "non-intellegible comments"... French must not be so difficult. No problems for me if the comments are in English in the sources, we are used to it. It is our strenght to understand you, it is your weakness not to understand us. So I will continue in english. The problem with closed source software is not whether the comments are in French or not, but it is more that you can not exactly know what it does. Does Windows send informations to the NSA about my work ? Is it possible to crack my confidentiel network ? Will I lose international contracts ($$$$$) against the US because I paid for an expensive US software devoted to US secret services ? Sorry for my bad english... It is good enough for understanding comments in source files. Next time we do it in French again ?
Rioting farmers Language police Cultural Protectionism Stupid Postmodern Philosophers (French Philosophers are the laughing stock of rationalists everywhere) legislated 35-hour work week (hey, our economy sucks, so lets try to lower unemployment figures by having 2 people work 1 job) Mass Torture (1 in 10 people in Algeria tortured) Style over Substance (french culture, french food, french fashion) French people love to talk about their revolution. But you know, when Americans revolted against the monarchy, they did not rise up and KILL the ruling class. At best, loyalists were tarred-and-feathered. The US revolution was not a revolution against the wealth, it was a revolution again unjust government. France, by contrast, fucking guillotined everyone even suspected of being educated, or of an upper class background. Ah, the wonderful Robbespierre. Anyway, moving on from France's Cambodian-like revolution to computers, Let's see, French had Minitel, the US had Q-Link, Compuserve, DJ Online, People Link, Genie, etc. I had a 9600 baud modem in the US when french hackers I knew had only 1200. Everyone knew the best demo coders/crackers came from Holland, Germany, and the UK, and not France. US had vibrant BBS community, hundreds of thousands of them. WWIV, Fido, CNET, USENET. Oh, I count BSD as bringing Unix to the masses way before Linus wrote his first line of code. As a student, I purchased BSDI for $100, and then went to FreeBSD. I also ran ESIX SysV on my 386. If you want to see interesting culture, look to Japan and the new youth culture there, not decaying, dying Europeans. The Campaign to Force feed GM food to rioting french farmers! Send your donation today.
That's a great idea. Open source doesn't need an unfair advantage, just a level playing field. If the government required the software they used to have published file formats, APIs, and protocol specifications, everyone would have equal electronic access to our government.
There should also be a requirement that companies supplying hardware to the government have to provide either published interface specs., or device drivers with source code.
I knew it. Someone replaced the french with really reasonable, nice people. Ok, who did it? C'mon, own up....
>
That mindset amazes me as well, especially considering it usually comes from people who have a vested interest in protecting their intellectual property rights, namely programmers. What we are talking about here is drifting way off topic into the philosophical, but I cant resist.
Many slashdotters seem to hold the view that any software that is not open source is evil. In the same breath they scream about freedom. And yet they would deny the innovator of a new program the freedom to decide how his code is to be controlled and distributed. Linus chose to make the code open, and the distribution open. If Linus had chosen to make the code closed, but the software freely distributable, would we be having a different discussion? Would he have been the antichrist? And so on and so forth.
The problem is that some people do not recognize the right of an individual to control the product of his labor. Forcing someone to open their source is worse than charging for closed source software. And faulting someone for excersing their right and not opening their source is just as bad. You are demanding that they give you, for free, the product of their labor, against their will. And they say Bill Gates is bad. As a consumer, you have the right use whatever product which can be obtained with the mutual consent of both parties. If you dont want to buy closed source, or want the code that the owner does not provide, the solution is very simple: dont go there.
Derek Long
delong@symet.net
Well, if any public (read: government) service/agency uses some M$ software, then some of your taxes go to M$...
I think it's just dangerous...
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
we must not let this open source thing get over our heads. Developers must have the power to choose what to do with their software, requiring open-source sounds like communism in disguise to me.
Microsoft et al will go whining to Uncle Sam who will give his bitch the WTO a slap and the next thing you know France will be ordered to open up their government procurement market to non-OSS software. Same thing happened with bananas (EU countries giving preference to ex-colonies) and beef (EU countries trying to ban hormone-treated meat.)
This is happening within the US even - witness the government of Massachussetts being dragged up before the WTO for refusing to deal with companies that deal with Burma.
This is important and not many people know about it - an unelected, supranational body, which holds all it's deliberations in absolute secrecy - is taking away YOUR country's sovereignty and it's right to pass legislation based on health and safety, human rights whatever.
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
All code comments must be written in French, though. Otherwise they will be outlawed.
The Register has an article on this in English languange at http://www.theregister.co.uk/991024 -000005.html.
Stephan
blah blah blah blah Linux blah blah open source blah blah blah.
Where did you get this out of the original post, or do you have another source? One of my prior questions was to what extent are they proposing this...no need for condescension. :) A great deal of the Senator's speech looks like typical political babble to my eyes.
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.
The French are great at coming up with ideas that at some level seem quite logical, yet at the end, when it is all well and done the result is chaos.
The key phrase in the proposal is:
The objective of this forum is to collect suggestions, these will all be analyzed and weighed, in particular by the sponsor in charge of proposing the law.
This indicates that the idea is doomed from the start. Firstly all that is being proposed is collection and analysis of suggestions. Looks fine to an American, no? Let me tell you, with the French this could take centuries. The French have a tendency to analyze the shit out of everything before taking a move. Time in France is a very relative concept, and coupled with a fear of being wrong leads to analysis paralysis as a way of life.
Not only is this trap obvious here, but the speaker is proposing that somebody else actually do the work! Well, I can tell you from my experience with the French that this is bloody unlikely! French organizations embody the very essence of siloing. Unless there is some damned good reason for this other fellow to do the work, it just is not going to happen, a) just because this other fellow suggested it, and b) NIH c) my boss didn't like it. d) even if my boss did like it he didn't think of it e) we are on strike this week f) it's August so everyone in in the Alps.
If you ever plan to visit France it is very important to understand System D; that is how to weasel and worm out of French Bureaucrats the basic paperwork you need to live. And the French Buraucracy has been in place essentially unchanged since the time of Napolean! The very word Buraucracy was invented by the French to describe their system of goverment. It literaly mean tyranny of the desks!!!!
As far as I can tell such a speach may in fact be a clever ploy by Microsoft to prevent Open Source from ever gaining a foothold in France!
Of course the good news is that the Germans will take a look at the French and do exactly the opposite. My guess is by the end of next year all of Germany will be run on Open Source, and Microsoft will be more entrenched in France than ever!!!
Well, in the UK the media have just started teaching us to hate the French again (We've been at war for much of the millenium). Ostensibly over contaminated French meat, but in reality I think its just pent up frustration with French farmers raking in huge subsidies from our taxes and blockading channel ports whenever anyone complains.
Bother. Why can't they decide if they're good guys or bad guys.
:)
If Microsoft was a German company, the French wouldn't stand a chance.
Rioting farmers
Language police
Cultural Protectionism
Stupid Postmodern Philosophers
(French Philosophers are the laughing stock
of rationalists everywhere)
legislated 35-hour work week (hey, our economy
sucks, so lets try to lower unemployment figures
by having 2 people work 1 job)
Mass Torture (1 in 10 people in Algeria tortured)
Style over Substance (french culture, french food, french fashion)
French people love to talk about their revolution. But you know, when Americans revolted against the monarchy, they did not rise up and KILL the ruling class. At best, loyalists were tarred-and-feathered. The US revolution was not a revolution against the wealth, it was a revolution again unjust government.
France, by contrast, fucking guillotined everyone even suspected of being educated, or of an upper class background. Ah, the wonderful Robbespierre.
Anyway, moving on from France's Cambodian-like revolution to computers,
Let's see, French had Minitel, the US had Q-Link, Compuserve, DJ Online, People Link, Genie, etc. I had a 9600 baud modem in the US when french hackers I knew had only 1200. Everyone knew the best demo coders/crackers came from Holland, Germany, and the UK, and not France.
US had vibrant BBS community, hundreds of thousands of them. WWIV, Fido, CNET, USENET.
Oh, I count BSD as bringing Unix to the masses way before Linus wrote his first line of code. As a student, I purchased BSDI for $100, and then went to FreeBSD. I also ran ESIX SysV on my 386.
If you want to see interesting culture, look to Japan and the new youth culture there, not decaying, dying Europeans.
The Campaign to Force feed GM food to rioting french farmers! Send your donation today.
In France, isn't it a fact, that a surprising percentage of the work force is in the public sector working for the government? If so, this requirement means that almost all business-to-business software bought in France would have to be open-source. How ridiculous. No we can sit back and watch and France falls further behind in the internet revolution. Silly french.
From Julien Roussea's translation:
=== Cut===
Article 3
State administrations, local collectivities and administratives services can , with the exceptions of the dispositions of the article #4, only use software free of rights and which source code is available .
=== Cut===
It says "only use software free of rights and which source code is available".
Now what does that exactly mean?
If I understand it correctly, it doesn't have to be GPL'ed software -the software could be licensed under the QT-license or Sun's community license, or whatever license, as long as the source code is available and they are alloved to change the source code as the like.
Not that it matters that much...it's a giant step in the right direction *if* it becomes a law.
What about ESPRIT projects whose documents must be in MS Word format? (when SGML, HTML, or XML is available) [I don't give other names] .doc format only? .doc format?
.ch)).
What about Euro organizations providing document templates in
What about Euro organizations putting documents on the web only in
Why should we, computer professionals, subsidize the biotech industry? Clueless bureaucrats have done more than enough to keep the European software industry for flourishing. We don't need them to destroy what's there, or to give us even more motivation to move to the US (as if it was not enough with the more conservative character of the VC market, (or restrictions on the financial placements of insurance institutions, at least in
The minitel was a bad design, it was limited,
unscalable, basically just a huge BBS, that was doomed very soon.
BTW what computer technologies did the French brought us that are used around the world?
The US brought the net, C, UNIX, mainframes, PCs, workstations, etc...
Probably the french were working on their "super cool" technologies on US mainframes.
the bit about radio quotas is incorrect. The ratio is 60% of french-language music (not french music actually, so people like daft punk aren't in the quota) and the rest for other languages' musics.
. . . . . . .
may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
Reading on in the discussion on http://www.senat.fr/Vforum/5/forum.html , there is a useful posting from one Julien Rousseau just below the posting from Senator Lafitte. (Click here to see it)
? action=lire&page=1&id=489&forum_num =5) also raises the issue of how free software can be certain to comply with French law regarding cryptology. For the French nationals out there, this is quite interesting.
;^)
The salient points: (translated materials in italics, all else my comments)
It seems to me there are some errors in the wording of the law... The first (..) is the use of the phrase libre en droit.
Libre de droit is associated with the notion of public domain in French law - free software is not necessarily public domain.
The second error is (...) in the principle of requiring the use of free software even though it isn't necessary. This complicates the law and its application. Furthermore, it is not guaranteed to resolve the problem. (...) I think most people would take a dim view of any requirement to use free software. (...) Even the most ardent defenders of free software recognise that free software can't do everything at the present time.
In my experience there is no adequate free solution for SGML editing. There are decent commercial ones, but even those are few. There are certainly other domains in which this is true. As an SGML advocate, I have to agree with M Rousseau, and have second thoughts about this type of project.
A solution has already been proposed by several people on the Senate forum: require the use of open data formats rather than mandating particular software.
I am in full agreement here. I think with XML we're making some progress on this count, and a government mandate would certainly help.
M Rousseau goes on to other matters as well. For those of you who are French-compatible, I'd advise you to take a good look at his posting.
Another posting - an earlier one, before that of Senator Lafitte - by a user named Phillipe raises an interesting issue. (It's here)
He rasies the point that if an institution is to be required to use free software, they will have to support the free software community, since the institution's requirements are not likely to be spontaneously met by the developers. This is not an insignificant consideration. If an institution is to use only free software, it must either become a software development shop or contract other individuals and companies to write or modify free software for its needs.
This lends itself to two questions. One: is it cheaper to pay for the development of free software than to deal contractually with non-free vendors? And two: does the free software community want to find itself dependent on government subsidy?
Another poster, Lucille Fievet, suggests here, that before this bill (Law 495) is passed
We need to start thinking about law 495's little brother and create a French Public Interest License, which would permit:
1- the recognition of (...) the first author (...) as artistic licenses do.
2- the copying, recopying, sales (and) use for commercial purposes (of software under this license).
3- the modification of free software, on the condition of sending the original owner or some sort of national repository a copy of the modified code.
4- obviously, the publication of the source.
5- (and) forbid reserving the right to convert the free program to a proprietary license.
I disagree here. I do think a rigourous legal definition of what constitutes free software has to happen first, before any other free software related law is passed. That legal definition should allow GPL and Berkeley license software to be seen as free, as well as public domain offerings like the nsgmls package. It should be relatively liberal.
I disagree however, with all the additional requirement the author of this posting asks for. The requirements of the GPL license seem sufficient to me.
A national repository of free software doesn't sound like a bad idea to me. I have some questions as to how it would be run, but that is a different issue.
Serge Oudet (posting at http://www.senat.fr/Vforum/cgi-bin/Vforum-1.6.cgi
Personally, it does not concern me (je ne suis pas français - il y a d'autres pays francophones dans le monde), however, it suggests a second interesting notion:
All cryptographic systems used by a government or mandated by one should be free software, available to all. This is the only protection against encryption systems with hidden key recovery schemes. Recently, it was revealed that a Swiss cryptography outfit was, in fact, secretly owned by the NSA and had been selling compromised equipment to Iran and other governments. Accessible source and public algorithms strike me as the only sure way to prevent this kind of thing. I feel it would be quite appropriate to mandate free software in this context.
______________________________________
Ce n'est que mes deux sous
If Open Source is better for the software companies, legal requirements are not necessary.
I'm not under the impression we're talking legal requirements, anyway. The subject matter is, if I understood correctly, that the french senator suggests a decision with respect to the french government software procurement. He wants the government, as a consumer, to decide to buy Open Source instead of Closed. That's all there is to it.
No conspiracy to write legislation to twist the arms of software companies or any such thing.
Not to mention the stubborn adherence to strange units of measurements. Somehow I have trouble using a temperature scale based on the temperature of the average man's armpit...
//rdj
No one can understand the truth until he drinks of coffee's frothy goodness.
--Sheikh Abd-Al-Kadir, 1587
Hi everone, i have finished to translate my open letter in English.
r enchLaws/Law1999.495/index.html.
;)
You can find it at the following address:
members.xoom.com/rousseauj/english/translations/F
Tomorrow I will try to translate the document explaining why they did the law, but this is if i have the time and nobody do it before me (I you are doing it let me know)
Cheers
Julien
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I think all governments - in fact, all entities - should no longer deal with companies that refuse to place their source code in a trust that ensures that, should something happen to the authoring company (or even should the company opt not to support that product anymore), that the purchasers have the ability to hire other to develop/extend/whatnot the software that was purchased. To me, that's wise business. But no, I don't agree with seeing the French (or any government) requiring open-source software. That won't gain us much - in fact, knowning the government, it'll cost us a lot of taxes. How? Well, the government will decide it NEEDS a given piece of software, and, of course, the vendor, knowing that once the software is sold, it becomes free to all, will charge an incredible sum for it. And boom - there goes our taxes! The answer is in getting the correct terms for what you pay for - not trying to force rules on everyone.
It seems like i made an error with my html code. At least you will have no excuse to miss the link
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
The initiation of this program was made in August 1997, by the Prime Minister during a speech which is translated at the following address: http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/GB/INFO/HOURT. HTM (in English) In January 1998, the prime minister announced a program (http://www.internet.gouv.fr/english/textesref/dpr esang.htm, in English) which may priorities are: 1. new information and communications technology tools in the education sector 2. an ambitious cultural policy for new networks, 3. information technology as a tool for modernizing public services, 4. information technology, an essential tool for companies, 5. meeting the challenges of industrial and technological innovation, 6. encouraging the emergence of effective regulation and a protective framework for new information networks. Now, all the government information and services that were already available on the Minitel, are accessible from the Internet. "The Internet must become a standard tool for the government." The bill discussed at the French Senate is missing a very important point: the necessity to have open document standards for all the information and documentation publish by the national and local administrations. Beside promoting open source software, it should also promote structured document standards such as SGML or XML.
The first micro was French. i don't remember his name and there also some rethoric about it because the man that did it in his garage didn't take a patent or something like that but nonetheless, the first known micro constructed was french, and a micro is quite an important thing.
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Are you sure translating an official document from French to English isn't against the law? Expect French Foreign Legion troopers outside your door at any moment!
You would think they would prefer an operating system that was designed in France, by Frenchmen, and whose native language is French, and can't be localized to other languages.
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
I feel sorry for my own country (which is called Israel for the time being). Such a proposal would never make it here.
Why? Because no single Open Source(TM) project worth mentioning has adequate support for freakin' Hebrew, much less for Arabic.
Most of Israeli geeks can live with English-only software; our government cannot. So it MUST use non-free software.
(Moderation suggestion: -1; offtopic.)
--
Industrial space for lease in Flatlandia.
"Ok for open source, but the state must finance development effort"
"closed source is not the problem: closed document formats are"
"GPL fights the black-box problem, it has proven its value and, capacity to evolve. It is a political and citizen's imperative to support it."
"A proposal for Open Source Licensing giving original authors royalties for the usage of open source code."
"Open standards and doc formats are more important than open source"
---
Dunno about that, but the Kiwi (NZ) stuff is good ;-).
General background of the law
It seems that very few in the US are aware of the commitment of the French government to catch up with the development of the Internet. As some pointed out in this forum, France has been in advance for some technology developments. For example we have been using Smartcards for years, and the Minitel has provided to French people, secure online services and information since 1986. Unfortunately the Minitel was a dead-end and this technology could not be scaled and evolve, and it development may account for some of the delay in the development of Internet in France.
Since 1997 the French government has launched a big program to promote the development of Internet. There is an internet site (in French, English, German and Spanish) which gathers all the information on the development of Internet led by the French government: http://www.internet.gouv.fr/english/sommaire.html (in English). The initiation of this program was made in August 1997, by the Prime Minister during a speech which is translated at the following address: http://www.premier-ministre.gouv.fr/GB/INFO/HOURT. HTM (in English). In January 1998, the Prime Minister announced a program (http://www.internet.gouv.fr/english/textesref/dpr esang.htm, in English) which main priorities are:
Now, most of the extensive government information and services that were already available on the Minitel, are accessible from the Internet. "The Internet must become a standard tool for the government."
Points missing: Opend document standards
The bill discussed at the French Senate is missing a very important point: the necessity to have open document standards for all the information and documentation publish by the national and local administrations. Beside promoting open source software, it should also promote structured document standards such as SGML or XML.
General background of the law
It seems that very few in the US are aware of the commitment of the French government to catch up with the development of the Internet. As some pointed out in this forum, France has been in advance for some technology developments. For example we have been using Smartcards for years, and the Minitel has provided to French people, secure online services and information since 1986. Unfortunately the Minitel was a dead-end and this technology could not be scaled and evolve, and it development may account for some of the delay in the development of Internet in France.
Since 1997 the French government has launched a big program to promote the development of Internet. There is an internet site (in French, English, German and Spanish) which gathers all the information on the development of Internet led by the French government: http://www.internet.gouv.fr/engli sh/sommaire.html (in English). The initiation of this program was made in August 1997, by the Prime Minister during a speech which is translated at the following address: http://www.premier-ministre.g ouv.fr/GB/INFO/HOURT.HTM (in English). In January 1998, the Prime Minister announced a program ( http://www.internet. gouv.fr/english/textesref/dpresang.htm , in English) which main priorities are:
Now, most of the extensive government information and services that were already available on the Minitel, are accessible from the Internet. "The Internet must become a standard tool for the government."
Points missing
The bill discussed at the French Senate is missing a very important point: the necessity to have open document standards for all the information and documentation publish by the national and local administrations. Beside promoting open source software, it should also promote structured document standards such as SGML or XML.
The second point which is missing is that the French government should not only promote the use of Open Software in the administration, but it should also promote the development of OSS. Development project should be funded by the government to develop software needed by the administration in an open source background.
Alain Ducasse
The free market way to resolve this situation would be to boycott software companies that don't offer the services you want. If you want open source, buy only open source software, and tell all your friends to buy/not buy. When the government steps in and takes action like this it can get dangerous. Today it's this, tommorrow they'll be telling what OS developers must develope for. The governement doesn't know enough to make standards, the people should be in charge of that independently.
-Zach
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
See above for more outrageous examples ("Not the right way")
Gosh. I'm glad I don't live there. AFAIK, it's only paper in this canton, so I can't get mad.
Prices in SFr: (1 USD = 1.5 SFr)
Microsoft Visual C++ Enterprise 2433.30
Microsoft Visual C++ Professional 1026.35
Microsoft Visual C++ Standard 186.45
Microsoft Windows 98 update 168.00
Microsoft Office 2000 Small Business update 399.00
Microsot Office 2000 Premium update 799.00
Microsoft Office 2000 Professional 529.00
Microsoft Office 2000 Standard 419.00
Microsoft Word 2000 update 179.00
Microsoft Excel 2000 update 189.00
And then I get flamed..
Nick
-- "It's a sad day for American capitalism when a man can't fly a midget on a kite over Central Park" - Jim Moran
I didn't look closely enough to realise you had made the orignal submission whan I made my posting. My mistake. I hope I have correctly translated your sentiments.
I'll take a shot at translating the law (I used to get paid for this sort of work.)
_______________________
Article I
Communications between national government offices and local governments will take place using electronic means. The conditions and requirements for the transitory period between current procedures (circulars, letters, physical meetings, etc.) and electronic messaging will be determined by future decrees on the subject.
Article 2
In order to insure transparency and rapid access to information by businesses, public offers for tender and their document annexes will be available by electronic means.
Responses will also be accepted in electronic form.
During the transition period, electronic communication will be accompanied by paper communication. A future decree will determine the length of the transitory period as well as any fees for paper communication when requested.
Article 3
State offices, local governments and administrative services, except for cases described in article 4, can use only software which is free of legal encumberment (libre de droit) and for which the source code is available.
A future decree will determine the conditions under which the transition from the current situation will be made.
Article 4
Some software may be acquired and used by those offices and services described in article 3 with the authorisation of a service charged with this task. A future decree will determine the geographic repartition of such services as well as the conditions for obtaining such authorisations.
Article 5
In order to facilitate the implementation of this law, electronic information services will be instituted in each prefecture (local government centres) for the public and local governments, as well as consultaive services for businesses affected by this law.
____________________
N.B. Feel free to use this translation. It does not however constitute a certified legal translation. I am not a certified translator in any jurisdiction at this time.
www.senat.fr
www.senat.fr is running Apache/1.3.6 (Unix) on Solaris
No IIS there.
Let's all go see "The Messenger" this weekend in support of our French brothers and sisters!
Eat French Bread with French Fries and French Toast covered with French's Mustard and French Dressing, and let's give the California Wine a break this time, okay?
I wish I had a nickel for every time someone said "Information wants to be free".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
And more FUD
I'm afraid not. Consumers, by definition, use software. They could care less about the source code. Demanding Open Source is a boon to a certain sector of the developers. And it represents a shift in the software economy, away from one where consumers pay for a product that includes a certain amount of support built-in (manuals, etc.), to one where the user has to hunker down and spend two hours a day on Usenet to know that the OS is secure, and deal with badly written HOWTO files and third party (it's all third party with Open Source!) books for documentation.
You, Sir, with all due respect, don't seem to have a clue what you are on about. First of all, how does what you are saying deny that it is a consumer's right to demand OS? You MIGHT be demonstrating that it is not a WISE choice. But it does not in anyway refute the RIGHT to demand.
You claim Open Source is, by definition, a shift away from support and documentation. By that very statement, you demonstrate your ignorance. In Open Source, support and documentation is where the money is. Therefore, if a government would demand open source, they would also look for a good party to support their software. And who better suited to support/document/etc the software (and hence earn money) than the very folks who made it?
Ultimately the end result is lots and lots of incompatability, where the consumer again pays.
This line is even more revealing. With Open Source, it is EASIER to ensure compatibility, not HARDER. With closed source, one will only be able to ascertein the same level of compatibility as is possible with Open Source, when buying ALL software from a single provider. Of course, not all Open Source software will be compatible, but only the better compatible software will stick around as the rest fades to the background.
As for companies making pretty darn good closed source software, sure, I won't disagree with you there. But what guarantee do you have of support, say, 10 years from now? Who knows that that company is still alive by then? Just to name one reason why one might choose Open Source. It is, afterall, a choice.
But we know you like playing with your straw man.
Huh. I do? Pray tell, for whom? This is news to me. I guess you know me well, then?
I suspect that it's only the real fanatics who take that attitude - most will take the more reasonable view. Unlike the guy
earlier, stating that source is a "consumers right".
I think this is a misquote. DEMANDING source is a consumer's right. Just like, when the demand isn't met, shopping elsewhere is a consumer's right. Handing out source is NOT a producer's legal obligation, nor should it be.
Meant what I said and said what I meant.
It is still the programmers CHOICE to refuse to open source their software. It is however also in the CONSUMERS CHOICE (in this case the French government) to refuse to use software that doesn't use a license they like. The programmer doesn't have any right of dictating that I should use their software.
I've seen some of the comments about goverments (particularly the US gvmnt) "forcing" open source licenses...I don't think that that's the way.
What the goverments SHOULD force (in a legal way) is for companies that produce software to adhere to open STANDARDS. For those that don't understand the difference...is not the same thing to say "you have to GPL your OS" than "You can license your OS any way you want, but if you use TCP/IP in your OS, you HAVE to use the standard protocol, can't borg it up with weird propietary crap"
That way, freedom is still there, but STANDARDS become that...standards.
For example, SMB is now (un)fortunately a de-facto standard, but it is fully controlled by MS...whenever the Samba team has it down right, MS rolls out a new piece of cruft and breaks it up, and Samba has to start doing some reverse eng to catch up. If things where right, the SMB standard would be controlled by a standrad's body who'd say "sure, encrypting passwords is good....this is how it will be done".
The attitude of this french senator is, almost, the right one...make it a law to follow standards of inter-operativelity(sp?), with the freedom of doing whatever you want with everything else in your product.
Just the opinion of somebody who thinks freedom is not only being allowed to do as you please, but being protected from those that try to lock you out of being free.
Vox
Pain is the gift of the gods, and I'm the one they chose as their messanger...
Demanding Open Source is a consumer's right.
I'm afraid not. Consumers, by definition, use software. They could care less about the source code. Demanding Open Source is a boon to a certain sector of the developers. And it represents a shift in the software economy, away from one where consumers pay for a product that includes a certain amount of support built-in (manuals, etc.), to one where the user has to hunker down and spend two hours a day on Usenet to know that the OS is secure, and deal with badly written HOWTO files and third party (it's all third party with Open Source!) books for documentation.
Ultimately the end result is lots and lots of incompatability, where the consumer again pays.
Don't point to Microsoft as the only alternative to Open Source. You can try to bury the truth by doing so, but it makes you look like a charlatan. There are countless other businesses offering closed-source solutions, and lots of it is pretty darn good stuff.
But we know you like playing with your straw man.
It seems strange to me that this particular text would be the one to be translated and sent to slashdot. The information provided is purely incidental. This text is not at the heart of the whole thing, but rather at the fringe. Why post it? I hope slashdot will follow up with a prominent link to The Register's article, submitted by a couple people already: http://www.theregister.co.uk/991024-000005.html All this speculation is getting old. To quote The Register, "French senators Pierre Laffitte and René Trégouët are proposing that national and local government and administrative systems should only use open source software." Note that the PEOPLE will be free to use proprietary software. The uninformative translated text seems to have put people in a panic regarding privacy rights of software engineers.
Microsoft is also going the services route, with their massive online services. They still depend on their software, but they've realized there's lots of money to be made in the services area too.
And if the entire French government market were closed to them if they won't provide source, then it might start to become interesting for them to release source to at least some products (I doubt that would include Windows and Office, though :-)
Wow, talk about short sightedness. If this proposal goes through, they'll have to live with third rate hacked up solutions instead of professionally engineered software. The drop in productivity among french office workers forced to use Linux and KOffice will be unparalleled in the history of manned computing.
What ever happened to the concept of using the best tool for the job?
Here is a little summary of the reaction posted in the forum:
.doc for exchanging document for example.
- general reaction: great, good idea
- many people think that open software is good but that what is important is "standard format" ie using HTML/XML instead of
* for me, both is important and I do hope that KOffice and AbiWord will use the same file format in the future. I think that it is more important than the Gnome/KDE (in)compatibility.
- a minor nitpicking of the article 3 of the proposal: it would ban every copyrighted software, so even the GPL would be banned also.
* I think that it is only an error in the way the proposal is worded: Senators are seldom computer experts.
- some minor opposition: some are fearing that open software could mean job loss.
* I find it quite amusing because the job threatened here are mostly on Microsoft' side, but anyway this is a weak conterargument (see the bazaar thingy).
As a French, what do I think about this proposal ?
Well, I'm enthousiastly(sp?) for.
It could boost free software, helping to improve it, the governement has enough money to spend on fixing the "rusty" parts of free software AND it would still be cheaper than buying closed source software.
BTW, in France we don't have the problem which keeps showing in English: does free means free as free speech or free as free beer, because we use two different word for it.
Free as free speech is "libre" and free as free beer is "gratuit".
So why not talking about libre software or libertad software if we use the spanish word (after all spanish is the most spoken language, I think) ?
Nobody is suggesting to outlaw closed source software. READ THE DAMN THING AGAIN. It is a suggestion to require the French government to only use open source solutions. It says NOTHING about requirements on private individuals or companies, except that, if they want to win a French government contract for computer systems, they will have to deliver open source software.
blah blah blah blah Linux blah blah open source blah blah blah!
If it causes cheaper solutions (read: less of your tax money used), is that bad?
What happens if a closed source software company goes under, or stop supporting a product? And don't pretend it doesn't happen... And it costs people a fortune. ESPECIALLY in government and other areas where computer equipment hardly is updated every year....
With open source, anyone can contract with the government to do the maintenance they need to continue using the software.
Your assumption may hold for individual users, but not for large organizations. There's a very real economic and practical advantage for choosing open source.
I don't do government work, so pardon my ignorance, but how is Open Source incompatable with the existing policies? Does the government actually have policies in place that state that it's not allowed to maintain the software that it uses?(!)
This doesn't make sense to me. All jokes of government-not-making-sense aside, I suspect I've missed some important point.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Unfortunately, I didn't keep the article. But the French decided to use Linux in the public gradeschools some months ago. There is a real concern here that they are behind. I see this as another step to define their role in the Internet age.
This bill by no means prohibits proprietary software. It would just change GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT rules so that free software is preferred over propritary software.
Read the fucking documents. If you can't read French, then get someone to translate them.
But please don't speak without knowledge like this.
first the lower chamber, which in most democracies has the last word on passing bills, is called the National Assembly (Assemblee Nationale) and not the Chambre des Deputes in France. Second, Senator Laffitte is not quite an anonymous looser trying to get publicity. He was for example one of the founders of the Sophia Antipolis project of a gathering of hi tech industries on the French Riviera. The privately founded project is now flourishing and has become a european landmark and the center of the economic activity for the whole region. Finally, this is not a subject that is likely to suffer from partisanship if t ever gets to be voted for. Like bio-ethics regulations for example, or issues as the CTBT (unlike in the US apparently), French lawmakers usually quickly agree on issues that do not carry ideological implication.
A great deal of the Senator's speech looks like typical political babble to my eyes.
Plus, it's in french...
Ungh
Microprocessor, or computer built around a microprocessor? I seem to remember seeing something that indicated that the first commercial microprocessor-based computer was French; I also seem to remember the name "Philippe Kahn" (yes, that Philippe Kahn) associated with it.
Offtopic:
;)
Let's all go see "The Messenger" this weekend in support of our French brothers and sisters!
Eat French Bread with French Fries and French Toast covered with French's Mustard and French
Dressing, and let's give the California Wine a break this time, okay?
Is there still the American quasi-embargo (double the taxes) on French products like Foix Gras and the like. if people follow your suggestion this would piss off those that decided it
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
I was talking of the first microcomputer, but he wasn't producted "en masse", just done by a guy in his garage.
For the first microprocessor i always thought this was Intel who did it. Is that right?
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
The Coalition Party decided in its last party conference that the government should use whenever possible open source products, expecially Linux! /. effect?
Unfortunately most of the party members/ministers/MPs doensn't know that, because they never follow that kind of stuff... But perhaps if enough people start asking about the issue they would wake up? Time for
Nope, most of them were there far before the article was posted on
"The obvious mathematical breakthrough would be development of an easy way to factor large prime numbers." Bill Gates,
Why in Europe and not in the US? Because most of the large software companies (IBM and Microsoft, to name only two) are in America. The US, were it to suggest Open Source alternatives should be considered for Governmental use, would only be shooting down its own IT economy.
The French, however, are slightly behind on IT and catching up at a frightening pace. You also have to understand that in a European eye, Open Source is something more European than American; remember how Linux is much more important in Europe than America.
So, in Europe, I think Linux has stood the test. It's only natural that the payoffs we've been rambling about for so long are starting to come into the Government's eye. Yes, it's exactly right: Open Source initiatives will spare money for the Government, and everyone is a winner about that.
I'm also tempted to say the French being such fervent believers in democracy (as opposed to capitalism), it's only natural they would jump the Open Source bandwagon first.
Expect the rest of Europe to follow suit. And as European Governments pick up the OS trend, more developpers will get into it. And the products of the Open Source movement will just get better and better.
Until... Until even the US have to recognise those loony Europeans are on to something.
This is a major breakthrough, people, don't underestimate it. This may be the public breakthrough the Open Source movement has been waiting for. Vive la République! Vive la France!
"Knowledge = Power = Energy = Mass"
And second, the money French government spends on Windows licenses would be more than enough to finance the further development of open source solutions to get well beyond what Windows can offer, even for the novice user.
Do you really think noone would spend money on developing solutions to compete for that market?
Sun maybe? They've already hinted at releasing the Star Office source. And surely they'd do it if they could get a few billion franc in French government contracts by doing it.
How many of you would scream bloody murder if it suddenly became illegal to release _open source_ software? This is a step on a very dangerous path, and I can't believe that slashdot, always the first to scream when big government does something questionable like echelon, is suddenly a Nazi enthusiast.My respect for this site just went down yet another notch.
I don't think he has that kind of influence. Now if Nokia somehow could be converted to a strong open source advocate, that would possibly sway the government.
Myself I think it's a great idea to have government agencies not buy software that is closed source. As ESR points out not having the source takes power out of your hands and gives it to the owner of the source. Maybe it's just me but the idea of having M$ using the government as a puppet scares me. I think passing laws that would phase out use of closed source products for use by government within say 10 years would be a good idea. They could begin to switch over to OSS and where they don't have the needed products as OSS they could fund the coding. I'd also imagine this would be a strong reason for developers of the programs currently used by government to consider making their products opensource. 10 years should be plenty of time to allow agencies and developers to adjust to the situation so nobody is especially stressed out by the situation. Schools especially should make this jump. By using OSS students get hands on experience with the code itself and can add to the code base. Need an OSS clone of Exchange Server? Well it's next weeks homework for all the grad students to work on together. Sounds good to me. I'm sure some interesting stuff would come out of high-schools too. We all know how smart teenagers are and hey they have the time to spare. Elementary I don't know, probably some teachers would begin cranking out some software that was more suitable for their students age groups. :) I'm just not seeing a down side as a tax payer. The government runs better, people become better educated, and I get lots of kewl OSS software added.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
considering Oracle's pricing well...
All opinions are my own - until criticized
In Geneva, Switzerland, you can fill-in your tax declaration on you computer and just send the floppy instead of manually filling all those page... The problem is they send you the floppy with the template and formulas in M$ Excel format, nothing else...
I don't have any M$ software, so I have to find my way through my stupid tax declaration and spend hours and hours doing everything manually. Gee, at least they could make the purchase of Windoze and Excel tax-deductible, but NO! I asked *why* the XLS format, the answer is: "it's the world's standard, everybody's got it". Well...I don't.
Sux to see the Geneva tax administration has been eaten up by M$... No wonder they got so many problems compiling their results! A group of GNU geniuses should ask them if they'd be interrested, they're spending gazillions on a new system... Hope they didn't buy M$ crap yet...
Sux to see part of my tax payer's money goes to M$!
-- It's always darker before it goes pitch black.
> When the US was a republic we were much more free.
We are STILL a Republic. We elect representatives from any political party or faction we choose, who then rubber stamp any funding or policy the Federal Government wants. So anything they want is totally free! And they are completely free to do exactly as they like with us! How could you improve on that?
DonC.
I think the requirement for Open Source S/W is not about freedom of choice. It is about "fitness of purpose". Closed, proprietary S/W no longer meets with the French Goverment's need for secure, cost effective and maintainable S/W systems hence the requirement.
If Open Source is better for the software companies, legal requirements are not necessary. The participation of gov't here only hurts OS, because it implies that, were it not for the legislative intervention, OS wouldn't make it. I think this is an issue for the market, and though it may be tempting to try and speed up the transition to Open Source, this is not the way to do it.
Karma: Good (despite my invention of the Karma: sig)
My thoughts exactly. Open Source != best solution in most cases.
Lets put all the joking about France surrendering to open source or testing nuclear weapons on it aside because this is a good thing. Believe me, I'll be the first to admit that making fun of the French is funny, but in this situation, they're the good guys. We should at least have respect for their good choice and reserve making fun of them for other threads.
Perhaps Linus could persuade the Finnish government to do the same thing?
We already use a large amount of open-source here in the US for research, so why not require it? I think it would be benificial to all. The government has no reason to pay for what it can get for free.
It's also a good way to encourage open-sourcing of products - "Look, even the government won't use proprietary software!". This is in the government (and the people)'s best interest. Good for the French. Now, let's start calling OUR senators...
Visit
Found it. This page from the Computer Museum Web site says that "The Micral was the earliest commercial, non-kit personal computer based on a micro-processor, the Intel 8008."
It also says "Thi Truong developed the computer and Philippe Kahn the software."
Presumably that antedated the Micral, as the page I found on the Computer Museum site seems to imply that the Micral wasn't just a single machine made in a garage (although maybe the first Micral was built in said garage).
(To bring in a reference to another Frenchman's work, was it an airtight garage? :-))
I have the impression that the Intel 4004 was, in fact, the first single-chip microprocessor.
your 'im so damn sure im right, this is so great' comments are pointless. have you ever heard of discussing issues and arguing on both sides? i will mention only briefly the idiocy of forcing people to use a certain communication channel, the ease with which email is forged, other technical problems, etc... then i will mention the problem when the government decides what is put on your computer. i dont know if youve ever worked for a government instution but the main reason they are so full of red tape is because some fuck hole at the top thinks they know everything and that everyone 'lower on the chain' is a complete imbecile (and is treated like one, let me assure you). imagine all the extra hassle you will have to go through on every piece of software used to make sure its 'approved by the higher ups'. its bad enough to have to go through the hassle of worrying about Microsoft licenses as it is. "yeah open source is great". no. open source in and of itself is nothing. anytime you force something on people it makes them hate it, even if it is "good for them".. you take away their freedom to choose what they want. i dont care if microsoft is a giant conglomerate taking over the world, the solution is not to "become another microsoft". the solution is to let everyone freely choose, not to force people to choose one way or the other. lastly id like to say that anything the government regulates, it will eventually try to control. eventually governments will try to piddle with the kernel, take out all the naughty words, make sure only capitalists/communists/whatever are working on it, etc. they will do it through subterfuge or by any means necessary. if you dont believe me, look at history.
im very proud of you, you didnt call the /. population a bunch of witless fucks even once. well you said hemos was 'pointless'.. but its better than your usual cuss filled diatribe.
Communism? No, its Democracy at its finest! Freely distributable software lets you make your own changes and make a difference if you wish. No central control of one Big Dinasour Company.
I hear this communism thing as well as "security issues" from ignorant folks who just only know the Redmond Way. They are at work and at parties. Them and their warez. They only think they are free.
fucking slashdot nazi fucks.
they will probably have us all shot. "god forbid someone have their own ideas. i mean, they might have the wrong ideas! we cant have that. you have to die." i can see it now. the linux police blast my door open with a ram, come in with their rifles pointed, pin me up against the wall and frisk me, start searching for weapons, they pry open my computer with a fucking hammer, they beat my root password out of me, then they tell me 'you cocksucking rebel, youre gonna die! you arent using debian!'
geeks like to masturbate to sorting algorithms but if someone mentions internationalization, they think they are a scumbag worthless humanities/social science bum type. "why cant everyone just learn english". this is the attitude of the so called 'intelligent' geek... heh. more like "brainwashed technoslave moron fuckwad"
Article 1:
Communication between state offices and local offices should be by email/internet. The translation of hard-copy documents to electronic formats should be done where appropriate.
Article 2:
In order to assure that business has fast access to information, request for proposals will be issued electronically. Replies will similarly be accepted electronically. During a transition period, electronic communication can be backed up by hard copy documentation.
Article 3:
The state and regional offices, notwithstanding Article 4, will use "free software" [lit. 'logicels libres'] for which the source code is available.
Article 4:
Certain specific software [presumably "non-free"] can be bought and used with special authorisation.
Article 5:
In order to facilitate rapid implimentation of this law, an information service will be set up for the state and regional offices and the affected businesses.
Certainly not a perfect translation - French beurocrateze isn't my specialty (Quebecois street French is), but it gives you a rough idea.
ai731
--
"I use the words you taught me. If they don't mean anything any more, teach me others. Or let me be silent"
It sounds like Senator Pierre Laffitte might be confusing the free software service model with software renting (that whole business of application service providers).
;)
Providing services to customers is one thing. Providing source code and letting someone else provide the services is quite another.
Microsoft have said that they are trying to move their business model towards 'software as a service', which is what ESR, Red Hat and others have been pushing for a while now. Of course, they will still try to retain the monopoly advantages of proprietary software, to stop others from eating their lunch.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
The text of the bill itself is available here. I will attempt to translate it, but my ignorance of legal jargon (English, and, to some extent, French also) will probably show: this is hardly better than Babelfish.
Keep in mind that this is not really a bill. It is only a suggestion of a bill, made by a small parliamentary group (the RDSE group, which isn't even a political party as far as I know). Also note that the Senate is the less powerful of the two house of parliament in France, and normally the more conservative one (curiously enough, the Senate's web site runs on Apache, whereas that of the other house of the French Parliament, the Assemblée Nationale, runs on Netscape Entreprise).
As Senator Laffite points out, this draft is concomitant with another bill proposed by French Justice Minister Elisabeth Guigou which would make digital signatures legally binding, and both bills might be merged into one.
Anyway, here's my translation:
Article 1 Communication between state and local administrations, as well as between the local administrations shall be performed by electronic means. The conditions of the switch from the current means (circulars, letters, summons, etc.) and generalized electronic mail shall be specified by a decree.
Article 2 So as to insure a good transparency and a more rapid access to information for business, public calls to bids and their ancillary documents will use electronic communication.
Responses will likewise be sent by electronic means.
During a transitional period, a paper communication may be added to the electronic communication. A decree shall specify the duration of this transitional period and the cost of the paper communication made on demand.
Article 3 The state and local administration and the administrative services, except as stated under article 4, may only use software that is free of rights and whose source code is available.
A decree shall specify the means of transition from the current situation.
Article 4 Certain specific software programs may be used and obtained by administrations and services mentioned in article 3 after authorization by a competent service. A decree shall specify the geographical location of this service and the conditions for obtaining this authorization.
Article 5 So as to hasten the application of this bill, a service of electronic information shall be created in each prefecture for public services and local administrations, and consular assemblies for the companies involved.
Maybe, YOU should read the article. They aren't forceing developers to do anything.
I think the first step a government should take is to require that government documents be saved and transmitted in a fully-documented data format. Open source the data formats before worrying about the code.
Closed data formats put control over the government data in the hands of a private company, which is never a good thing.
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
I've been thinking about this topic for a while.
...
... not just ASCII text, but also not Word 2007. There's probably a better description than "low-level" ... )
Because there is a great deal of Free / free software in the world, every time a tax-funded agency / department / division / administration settles on a proprietary format or computer system, they are building in future costs as well as paying a premium for the software in the first place. And they use tax dollars to pay for both.
Now don't get me wrong -- if they choose a free / Free software combination it doesn't remove the threat of future costs by any means. If an agency which has used MS Word and Outlook for 5 years switches to (say) Linux, AbiWord and open-source mail clients all of a sudden, there are training/re-training costs, there are incompletely amortized investments in current software, there are costs in wide-scale software upgrades, blah blah blah. If the closest Free / free stuff doesn't do *all* of the things it needs to independently, there may be additional proprietary software needed, even if it become a garnish instead of the main course.
However, an honest cost analysis would show that with closed products those things have to happen every few years (at least) anyhow, as the Outside World moves to the next (slightly file-incompatitble) version of Word, or Outlook, or
With free / Free software, generally built on low-level standards and thus inviting interoperability so long as the Outside World will exchangte documents that meet these low-level standards, the potential cost is much lower, particularly when it comes to applications which may have to mutate to best meet the needs of a given organization.
(By "low-level standards" that I mean things like html and rtf
Another aspect of government stewardship of money when it comes to spending on any software is that the government, unlike a business, does not have a practical incentive (except in the case of National Security, natch) to keep the code it uses proprietary, and has every incentive morally to be able to upgrade it cheaply. Unfortunately, government bodies in general have little practical reason to spend their IT budget wisely; they're not in the business of competition except in a wildly indirect way.
Finally (I know I keep saying it, but it's hard to avoid in this discussion!), since they're using tax dollars, they have an obligation to maximize the value of the money spent, because it belongs theoretically to the People it was taken from and is to be used for their benefit. When it comes to buying carpet for the government's buildings, that's hard to do one way or the other -- you benefit only if you walk on it. But with software, that's another matter. Anytime the government pays a million dollars to Microsoft for a turn-key solution instead of paying for an open-source project to do the same thing (Say, paying a team of programmers who write code, or combine existing and available source, to reach the same functionality), we all lose, except the favored company.
Cheers,
timothy
p.s. Anyone who thinks government agencies buying MS (or any other vendor) exclusively is "captitalism" should look into the meaning of Mercantilism!)
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
I dont know about you, but I make around $55,0000 US supporting Linux. You only can't make money off support and customazation if you offer the same qualtity of service as most big commercial software vendors. (i.e. When a coustomer calls, I fix their problem. Always)
If this goes through, it means no one will make money off government software any more, or whatever agencies enforce this policy. Get this through your head- you can't make money off open source!! That is, you can't make real money. Sure, you can offer support, and maybe sell some of that, but you won't have a monopoly on your product any more, and thus lose your major leverage to make money for the work that you've done. Once something is open sourced, it becomes impossible to copy protect it (it is hard enough with closed source) and you have nothing but the charity of your customers to rely on. Where are the big Open source software companies that haven't made their money on hype- such as redhat?
ooops! What was that? Was it Bill Gates that has finally found the way to post his yadda-yadda-philosophy onto /.?
Williaaam!!! You've been a very naughty boy! X'D
another anon coward that forgot his passwd. /etc
If the government specifies that they want source code from everyone they deal with, then they shall have source code. If the developer doesn't like it, they are free to bid for work in the private sector.
Hi,
...), so this translation might be useful to your understanding.
;-)]
:p]
...
I am a french speaking geek too (i'm french indeed, yep, the country of the minitel and the ones american average people do hate - kinda hype, i guess
Article 1er
Les communications entre les services de l'État et les collectivités ainsi que les communications entre collectivités locales seront réalisées par voie électronique. Les conditions du passage entre les procédures actuelles (circulaires, lettres, convocations, etc.) et la messagerie électronique généralisée seront précisées par voie de décret.
-- Translation :
Communications between the State entities and the local representatives as well as between local representatives will be conducted through electronic media. Conditions of application 'esp. transition between the current state and the new state) of such a law will be discussed later, in a corresponding decree. [Note : this is typically french, indeed
Article 2
Afin d'assurer une large transparence et un accès rapide à l'information par les entreprises, les appels d'offres publics ainsi que les documents annexes feront l'objet d'une communication électronique.
Les réponses de même seront fournies par voie électronique.
Pendant une période transitoire, la communication électronique pourra être doublée par une communication papier. Un décret précisera la durée de la période transitoire ainsi que les coûts de la communication papier réalisée sur demande.
-----
In order to assure transparence and quick access to information for the companies, the calls for public contracts and the surrounding documents will be held electronically.
Answers will be as well.
In a transisiton period, electronic communication and "paper-only" communication will be performed simultaneously. A decree will bring more light on the transition period duration and the costs of the paper communication, on demand.
Article 3
Les administrations de l'État, des collectivités locales et des services administratifs, sous réserve des dispositions de l'article 4 ne peuvent utiliser que des logiciels libres de droits et dont le code source est disponible.
Un décret fixera les conditions de transition avec la situation actuelle.
Local representatives and State services Administrations will have to use free licensed and Open source software, except in the cases described by Article 4.
A decree will set the transition conditions blah blah blah [you might be upset with this
Article 4
Certains logiciels spécifiques peuvent être utilisés et acquis par les administrations et services mentionnés à l'article 3 après autorisation délivrée par un service compétent. Un décret précisera la répartition géographique de ces services et les conditions d'obtention de cette autorisation.
------
Some specific pieces of software can be used and acquired by the administrations and services cited in Article 3 after receiving an authorization from a competent department. A decree will set the geographical repartition of these departments and the conditions to fulfill in order to get the authorization.
Article 5
En vue de faciliter la mise en oeuvre rapide de la présente loi, il sera institué un service de renseignements électroniques auprès de chaque préfecture pour les services publics et les collectivités locales, et des assemblées consulaires pour les entreprises concernées.
-----
In order to ease ande accelerate the setting up of this law, an "electronic information helpdesk" will be available in each prefecture [France is divided into regions and departments, and the prefecture is the Department Hall] for the local representatives of the State, the State services, the consulate assemblies and the concerned corporations.
-----
That's all folks. Please excuse my poor english, i tried to give you the best i could. Some things are typically bound to our own democracy and administration system, which is in many ways quite different from the american one. I hope you could understand somthing, at least
Cheers
Michael
ok, i'm not even going to stoop low enough to comment on your third rate speech, it aint worth my time.
However, about this using the best tool for the job crap, in both my last two jobs i've had to use windows on my desktop, there was no choice and i bet you wouldn't have bitched, but you do when they actually make someone use linux? its called company standards jack-ass, and a company has the right to choose its standards.
Open source is about giving the programmer a CHOICE. Requiring open source is just as bad as requiring closed source. Go back and read those GNU Manifestos again, folks. This is NOT a Good Thing(tm).
-Chris
When I first started reading this article, I thought that the French government was going to make it illegal to write closed source code. Only after hitting some of the posts did I understand that their government is thinking of using open source whereever possible.
The latter is a great idea, in general. While the former would have pretty terrible consequences.
Maybe I got confused cause I just woke up :)
-Snoot
Don't forget that, 20 years ago, the French spearheaded the personnal connectivity revolution with their Minitel terminals, which they supplied for free (as in beer). The ostensible reason was to substitute phone directories, but it sprouted-up a vast array of services, such as the famous "pink messaging", decades before raw.sex.com...
In fact, the Minitel can be termed as the precursor of the widespread personnal "internet" that we are witnessing today, despite all it's flaws.
But there is a deeper hidden reason, too. 30 years ago, France was one of the world leaders of software developpment (before it got eclipsed by the U.S.); perhaps they feel that Open Source, by spurring independent software developpment, will enable them to regain that status; let's not forget that the french culture puts an enormous emphasis on intellectual achievement, rather than accumulating wealth, like the anglo-saxons are so fond of (the movie "Ridicule" is a good example: one's standing in the king's court is dictated only by one's ability to generate witty answers on-the-fly. Even though the king has been dead for two centuries, the tradition endures). And computer programming is an extreme form of intellectual achievement, which (can) have practical applications as a side benefit...
-- ----------------------------------------------
Vive le logiciel... Libre!!!
You should travel through Begium, my son. An absolute heaven if you like beer OR chocolate. The only issue I have with the Belgians, is that they can't seem to make 5% alcohol beer - they go all crazy and make 7%, 8%, 9% and more beer, which means you can't try too many before you fall over ;-)
Is requiring something loosing freedom? I can tell you about not being free with using NT at work. None of my business and I should quit if I don't like it? I do care about what operating system is used at my place of employment as I am 100% vested. Every time NT crashes, it costs downtime and dumsters full of scrap on production lines up to 5 digits. Its a waste created by shoddy software and each crash can cost me money in my quarterly statements. Administrator's or user's fault? There must be a lot of stupid NT users or NT must be really difficult to use.
What is really not so free about non free software is that it is often "leased" and components expire at times. Forget to renew a certain networking protocol? There's a few BSOD's that will punish for neglecting to pay your "taxes." And for what? Junk!
"requiring open-source sounds like communism in disguise to me"
That's the usual anti-Open Source nonsense again.
Demanding Open Source is a consumer's right. This is not a demand to 'not make profit', it is a demand to open up the source. Folks can still make money on support, on bundled documentation, etc etc.
Guess what? Governments pay far more for support contracts than they ever do for software pur sec, anyway!
And if you don't want to sell under these conditions, well hey... There's other consumers around.
...as opposed to us Americans who use third rate hacked up PROPRIETARY solutions instead of that "professionally engineered software" you were talking about, that, alas, only exists in our fantasies. Or maybe you think Office 95/97/2000 is really excellent, "professional" quality software? Then I can only assume you haven't used it professionally for any long period. Don't get me started on Windows 98.
By the way, you're supposed to sign your posts at the bottom, rather than in the "subject" field.
Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net
congratulations, your first and second sentence totally contradict each other. thanks for saving me the trouble of having to read the rest of your inane drivel.
alot more. on the 'its bad to be a puppet' level, microsoft and the government and this stupid proposal are in the exact same boat. they want to control everyone else.
After this is accomplished, feel free to moderate THIS Comment down as off-topic. Heh.
Thank you for your time, moderators.
sure the minitel was not a great invention. and it has never been free either (I mean we had to pay for it throught our taxes and as far as I remember the cost per station was not low) now that I have cleared myself of any nationalist accusations, let us face the US claims: - scientists in the CERN (switzerland) invented the http protocol which makes the www so popular. - a guy from finland made unix accessible for everyone. - the first affordable PC's came from south east asia. - microsoft comes from USA... precision added just in case: no bill gates did not invent the internet.
to paraphrase: newspapers (and news sites such as /.) are almost worthless in their content.... but they can give you a good feel of what people in general are thinking, and what views of a situation they might have been told.
Time to burn some karma to clear up the errors in the moderated thread above:
1. The Austrians, not the French, were caught putting antifreeze in their wine (whatever the Simpsons say)
2. The Dutch, not the Belgians, have plentiful, fine legal marijuana.
3. The Kiwis can certainly drink more than a couple of 8% Belgian beers before falling over.
jsm
sure the minitel was not a great invention. and it has never been free either (I mean we had to pay for it throught our taxes and as far as I remember the cost per station was not low) now that I have cleared myself of any nationalist accusations, let us face the US claims: - scientists in the CERN (switzerland) invented the http protocol which makes the www so popular. - a guy from finland made unix accessible for everyone. - the first affordable PC's came from south east asia. - microsoft comes from USA... precision added just in case: no bill gates did not invent the internet.
if you have seen the documentaries and evidence you will know that the swiss were hitler's bankers and have quite a nazi streak in themselves. hell they just voted in some right wing fascist rulers. it doesnt surprise me one bit that they want to force you to act in a particular manner.
how do you know 'open source' will be cheaper than 'closed source'? most of the computer project cost breakdowns i have seen place the costs like so: People, around 75%. Hardware around 20%. software around 5%. now im sure there are places where thats different, i would like to see them... but your assumption that its 'cheaper' is un convincing.
first this project does not come from the government but from a senator. second, you have to realize that the senate is a rather marginal institution in France. The so called chambre des deputes is the most powerful assembly and always takes precedance over the senate. This senator has therefore found a nice way of getting publicity (which isn't so bad actually) but it remains to be seen whether this is more than a quick fire and will have real consequences. now regarding the law project itself, it seems that if a particular free software is well suited to do what an administration has to do, then it has to be used: if you want to use a commercial software, then you have to give good reasons (article 4 or 5 I don't remember). I think that when you are using public money you would indeed have good reasons to do a more costly choice, and that these reasons should indeed be reviewed carefully. Therefore this is not really socialism at its worst but rather common sense: if you go to let's say word 99 to produce administrative documents then the users of the administration have to be also word 99 users. Anyway slashdot readers are already aware of that. Last, I am not entirely sure if the senator is really familiar with computers and it seems from the accompanying texts that you can find on the french senate web site that the usual confusions about the meaning of free are being made. But there are also geeks already enligthening everyone. PS. the same law project is also dealing with administrative procedures being conducted by e-mail. too cool for expats. I would never have to go to the LA consulate again.
> I think this is a misquote. DEMANDING source is
:)
;-)
> a consumer's right.
Yep, I owe you an apology on that one; I misread your post. My bad.
(I still stand by the comments
Making source availiable is valuable: the company may go under, you may need to solve a critical bug, the source may be easier than the docs :-), or you may need to add a proprietary feature.
But there's a large step from making the source available to giving up redistribution rights. Giving up distribution rights is like telling an author she can't make money off her novel, but "you can always make money working in a bookstore or on the lecture circuit."
We make the source to our product, Resin, available to the user for the reasons above. But you can't snag our code and sell it or incorporate it in your product without our permission.
My understanding of the slashdot ideology is that we're just as evil as a closed source software company because we're not giving away all our rights for free. I've never understood that.
Scott Ferguson
Scott Ferguson
Caucho Technology
Don't read the text literally, since it is an unofficial translation. "Whithin" might as well mean that is should only apply within the government.
As is customary in the Senat, this will be completed by auditions and everything will be examined with a sense of responsibility, rigorousness and analysis of the various consequences. This conforms the tradition of the role to the Senat at the heart of the French Parliament.
This sure is different than here in the good ol' US where this sentence would read:
As is customary in the Senate, this will be completed by auction and everything will be examined with an eye toward campaign contributions and rigorous analysis of the likelihood of landing a cushy consultancy job after my political stint. This confirms the tradition of the role of the Senate as a receivership of graft and corruption.
Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
Any time any government infringes on people's rights to do whatever the heck they want, this is a VERY bad thing. Even if the outocme is considered "good", you cannot assume to be high enough on the universal totem pole to force your opinions on others through the government. You don't have to buy non-Open Source software, but for god sakes, don't forbid the creation of it.
It's by way of services adapted to the customers rather than by selling proprietary software that money should be made.IBM and SUN are of this opinion and MICROSOFT seems to me ready to follow this path.
Did I miss something? If he thinks Microsoft is going open source, maybe his definition of "open source" is different than ours.
...a proposal within the French Government to require use of Open Source software wherever possible... "Requiring" anyone to use Open Source is as bad as "requiring" anyone to use Microsoft products IMO. The freedom to let people choose which platform, software, etc. fits a particular application is the way to go, not simply assume that people are too stupid to use Open Source when it's warranted and use other software when it's warranted. To what extent are they proposing "requiring" aka "forcing" Open Source software anyway? Government agencies only, the whole country, companies? I couldn't quite get that out of the posted speech. As far as the French government attempting to reach out electronically, I think that's a Good Thing, but just don't make technical decisions for a whole country, the government is lousy at doing so. Just because a lot of us are proponents of Open Source, doesn't mean we, or others, should be required to use it. Be careful what you ask for...
Zed's dead baby. Zed's dead.