Slashdot Mirror
Brazilian Gov't May Pass Pro-Free Software Law
Kaufmann writes "More news from Brazil... this time it seems to be good news, though; this page describes a law project, already on Congress, which, if approved, will obligate all sectors of the Brazilian Government - agencies, public corporations, et cetera - to use only free (as in speech) software (unless there is none that provides the required functionality). This is rather surprising news, considering the incredible power wielded by Big Software Companies in Brazil (their puppet, the Brazilian Association of Software Corporations, is conducting a massive anti-"piracy" witch hunt, with some success). Email the author of the bill, congressman Walter Pinheiro, and show him your support! (Most links are in Portuguese; you might want to use your favourite text translation tool.) "
This is interesting... Slashdot is encouraging citizens of other countries to try to affect decisions in nations not of their immediate concern. Why should a Brazilian representative care about what some fool in New York thinks? Great, the rest of the world supports it, but his constituents just care about getting those damn strip miners out of their backyard.
The CD-R tax story from a couple days ago also comes to mind. Non-canadians are probably signing it with something like "Toronto, Ontario" so that the petition people can say "this many canadians voted for it" and then the officials can reply, "there aren't even that many people in that city."
I'm all for the ideals behind the story, but I'm curious as to what influence a non-national has over a delegatory representative...
-- adraken
This is amazing... so government agencies will be made to use free software unless free software doesn't have the required functionality? I must say, if this gets through it will be a big win for free software.
But I don't know if I like the idea of politics mixing into free software... we've seen some not-so-positive response with commercial entities getting into free software. I guess I'm just more confortable with a pure idealistic free software world. But I suppose anything that is worthwhile must prove that it can go beyond merely an idealistic context and usable in real-world applications.
mikre he sophia he tou Mikrosophou.
There's a big loophole there in the "required functionalty" clause, but Free Software is rapidly approaching the functionality of commercial packages. In some cases (Apache) it already exceeds the functionality of many commercial packages.
The cynic in me says that the reason is to help the balance of trade, but I don't even casr if that's the reason. It's just good to see governments supporting Freedom over commercial interests.
I have discovered a truly marvelous sig, unfortunately the sig limit is too small to contain i
Believe it or not, I think these two Brazil stories (banning of certain shoot-em-ups, and pro-free-software laws) are symptoms of the same problem. Both are a result of governments that are all-too-willing to mess with peoples lives and the processes of free markets* in order to create outcomes that they believe will be `best'. Sure, it's all fine and dandy when they do these things to help free software, but do we really want a government that decides what companies succeed and what companies fail on a whim?
*Please don't let the inclusion of that word start a holy war.
Required functionality usually means being able to use Microsoft Word documents. Since no vendor but Microsoft produces such a thing, this doesn't help any Open Source project. As far as web browsing goes, Netscape is barely functional when compared to Internet Explorer.
In other words, unless IBM decides to bribe some more south american government officials, Brazilian government workers will continue to happily use their Macs and/or Windows machines.
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
It makes use on the use of programs opened for the beings of public law and private law under shareholding control of the public management.
Article 1 - the public management, in all the levels, them To be able of the Republic, the state-owned companies and of mixing economy, the public companies, and all the too much public or private organisms under control of the Brazilian society, is obliged to use foreground, in its systems and equipment of computer science, opened, free programs of restriction proprietor how much its cession alteration and distribution.
Article 2 - that one Is understood for opened program whose license of industrial or intellectual property does not restrict under no aspect its cession, distribution, use or alteration of its original features.
Article 3 - the open program must assure to the using the unrestricted to its code source, without any cost, with sight to modify program, integrally, if necessary access, for its perfectioning. Only Paragraph. A code source must be the foreground feature used by the programmer to modify the program, not being allowed to dim its accessibility, nor neither to introduce any intermediate form as output of a daily pay-processor or translator.
Article 4 - the license of use of the open programs must allow modifications and derived works and its exempt distribution under the same terms of the license of the original program.
1 - the license will only be able to restrict the distribution of the code source in form modified in case that it allows to the distribution of programs modified jointly with the code original source, objectifying the alteration of the program during the compilation process.
2 - source Must allow also the distribution of program compiled from the modified code explicitamente, being able in such a way to demand that the derived programs have different names or version numbers, that differentiate them of the original.
Article 5 - it will not be able to have clause in the license that implies in any form of discrimination the people or groups.
Article 6 - No license could specific for be determined product, making possible that the extracted programs of the original distribution have the same guarantee of free alteration, distribution or use, that the original program.
Article 7 - the licenses of open or restricted programs, will not restrict other programs distributed jointly.
Article 8 - the licitatórios certames that objectify to do business programs of computer with the beings specified in the article 1 of this law, will have obligatorily to be conducted by the principles established in this legislation.
Article 9 - 1 will only be allowed to the use for the beings of the article, of programs of computer whose licenses are not in agreement with this law, in the absence of open programs that do not contemplate content it the solutions object of the public licitation.
JUSTIFICATION It has more than fifteen years argues in the whole world the free manipulation of the computer programs or " free software ". In 1984 proprietor, supplied by means of restrictive licenses of ample specter was impossible to use a modern computer without the installation of an operational system. Nobody had permission to freely share programs (software) with other users of computer, and hardly somebody could change the programs to satisfy its operational necessities specific.
The design GNU, that dates of the beginning of the Movement of free Software, was established to change this. Its first objective was to develop a compatible portable operational system with the UNIX that would be free 100% for alteration and distribution, providing to the users who contributed with its development and alteration of any part of its original constitution.
Technical GNU is as UNIX, but it differs from the UNIX for the freedom that if it provides to its users. For the confection of this opened program, many years of work had been necessary, for hundreds of programmers, to develop this operational system. In 1991, the last more important component of a similar system to the UNIX was developed: LINUX.
Today the combination of GNU and the Linux is used for million of people, of free form, in the whole world.
This program is only one example of as the freedom in the alteration, distribution and use of programs of computer to be able to transform still more quickly, and in more democratic way, the profile it social and technological development in the world. The State, as fomentador being of the technological development and the democrátização of the access the new technologies for the society, cannot be to steal its responsibility to prioritize the use of open programs or " free software / open source ". E if small, the average and great companies multinationals already are adopting opened programs, thus preventing the payment of hundreds of million of dollar in licensing of programs, because it would have the State, with a infinity of devoid social causes of features, to continue buying, and expensive, the programs of market.
We all love free software... but personally I don't like the idea of forcing it. I'll admit forcing people to use free software does have some useful applications... no backdoored programs for example. I wasn't able to make much sense out of the article... I speak spanish, english, german, not portuguese. Anyway I don't think that "forced" and "free software" should be in the same sentence. The idea of free software is freedom, isn't it?
Restating the obvious since nineteen aught five.
Heh! Slow down!
Open Source Software is a wonderful thing, for innumerable reasons, but I'm not sure upper management(i.e. Congress/Parliament/Whoever) should be mandating its usage any more than it should be mandating its avoidance.
Res Ipsa Loquitar--Let The Facts Speak For Themselves. In this case, let the value of the software speak for itself--I'm a hardcore advocate of Open Source, but let the engineers on the front lines make the technical decisions, not someone whose top priority is to Cut The Budget. It's one thing to have a policy that explicitly states that it's acceptable--even encouraged--to use (L)GPL'd code for your projects. It's quite another thing to demand it, and to stigmatize the use of anything else.
Closed Source code shouldn't be presumed better because it costs many; Open Source shouldn't be presumed better just because it's free. Let the engineers be free to make their choices regarding what to use--hopefully, the track record of our development model, the quality of our code, and the immutability of our support(hi, RSA) will convince them to operate within the system we've created.
I'd rather convince the engineers than threaten their jobs. But that's my opinion.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
The support of things like this is showing me that you believe that free software can't compete on merits alone. Supporting government-mandated actions like this is anti-free market and will result in worse software in the future. Consider - would software choices be better or worse if all software was free? The biggest irony here is that the supporters of things like that are often the same people who scream against monopolies because they prevent choices. Hello???
Like if the gap between the rich and the poor isn't already large enough. The government isn't there to enrich the rich, it should be to the service of everyone! Therefore going to free software is the way to go.. and all governments should do the same - of course the software should be trusted too.
Engineers need funding. I work in the private sector, and in order for me to buy software for my network, I must first accrue(sp?) the funds.
In a government model, these same funding decisions are made by the Government (i.e. Congress/Parliament/Whoever).
I would like the funding and the freedom to make the decision that best solves the problem, and this kind of legislation (passed or defeated) calls attention to a software development model that we all should be using.
proving once again that the slashdot community consists of .00001% programmers!
In our public university, the witch hunt has began. Last month, there was a big shift of operating systems on machines. A lot of machines changed from NT to Linux. Our lab, was the only which used mostly linux for research, and so we gave a lot of support to the other people. It was a lot of work, but we did meet a lot of new people. :)
Sorry for the bad translation of the law, but I hope you can get the idea.
I would like the funding and the freedom to make the decision that best solves the problem, and this kind of legislation (passed or defeated) calls attention to a software development model that we all should be using.
I'm not sure we're disagreeing at all.
I want you, as an engineer, to have the funding to best solve a problem. Maybe that funding means that you'll devote five man-months to improving the SCSI stack on Linux, or maybe it means you'll just buy a farm of Solaris machines.
Whatever you do, the decision should be made on technical grounds, based upon available resources and the ability for you to amortize the value of the project across multiple tasks, departments and maybe even agencies. Open Source has some definite advantages here! But those are advantages for the engineers to evaluate, not for the long-disconnected politicians to order them to choose, unless they're willing to put their jobs on the line saying what's out there Just Isn't Good Enough.
If Microsoft got a law passed ordering departments to only use the most popular closed source software available, it'd be wrong. The opposite, in my mind, is also true.
That being said, there is assuredly resistance at the direct managerial level above the engineers that makes free software a touchy subject. That resistance should also disappear, but not by mandate of law, but by sheer fact that the reasons behind that resistance are antiquated and just no longer valid.
I'll admit, this is a very strange side for me to be taking, and actually feels kind of out of character, but I just don't feel it's right to speak of freedom and higher quality software out of one side of my mouth while mumbling about forcing the use of free software unless there's nothing that even comes close to finishing the job out of the other.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I'd be happy to offer assistance to the people who are pushing this bill, if anyone can put me in touch with the right people.
Thanks
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Those darn Brazilians... they're going to legalize themselves back to the stone age of computing.
Silly them.
BTW, people keep mentioning StarOffice -- it's not open source, is it?? The Barzillian articles clearly (well, as clearly as I can understand from the babelfish translation) mean "open source" the way we know and love it here on
If a government wishes to use Free Software for itself, then go for it. But they have no business whatsoever mandating non-governmental groups to do the same.
If the only way Free Software can get marketshare is for governments to require its use, then it's not really free anymore. What happened to the free choice in Free Software? Or are we sacrificing our principles for the "greater good".
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Staroffice works okay with .doc files, but it still has problems, especially with VBA/macros. You'd agree, right?
My point is that since MS Office itself is a "required functionality" in many government offices, that free OSes (or more specifically, non-Mac/Windows machines) will be out of luck in these places.
I'll admit that I was a little hard on Netscape -- you can get stuff done with it, but I'm just way beyond frustration with using it. (In fact, you can blame Netscape for the fact that all my Linux boxes are headless now -- I use the web so much in my work, and Netscape has fallen back so far, that Linux had fallen into almost complete disuse for me as a desktop OS. Nowadays, I do all my Linux programming and server stuff from an X-Server running on Win2K, so that I can still do the stuff on my Linux box while being able to just pop open IE anytime I want. I know that it's causing me to not see the latest KDE and GNOME desktop developments, although I can at least still use the KDE apps that I need to via the X-Server.)
I've gotta say that I'm a bit mystified that someone scored my original post as a troll. I'm presenting a view that this bill is a lot less meaningful than it looks on the surface, not going after anyone. Oh well, I guess it's "caveat poster" for anyone who doesn't go along with the rah-rah boosterism...
Cheers,
ZicoKnows@hotmail.com
well, yea sure why not. I want free cars too, free beer, free paper, free food.. hell lets make a low that forces govt organizations to use free stuff only. But this isn't surprising, of course they would prefer free software, 3rd world countries can't afford the skill or money to buy expensive ones. So let those damn americans make all the free software and we (the third world guy) would love to use it for free. This whole thing reminds me of economics 101. Why do people pay for things? Because they can't make it themselves. Because they require somebody be on the phone to help them when something breaks and they require somebody be held accountable when the software does something bad. (Economics 102. Always have somebody to sue, just in case). In the final analysis this is what people pay for. If the brazillian govt thinks they hit the jackpot here, the are SOOOO wrong. hehehe
Here are some issues to consider:
finally free software that works. Now if all software was free, we wouldnt have Warez. And if there were no Warez, hrmm, I actually couldnt imagine life w/o Warez. That would be interesting. Now all we need is free music :)
Fascinating! Unless one cops the plea that libraries aren't programs, so aren't covered by this bill, it sure sounds to me like only LGPL'd libraries would be permitted, not GPL'd ones.
Unfortunatelly, the brazilian government makes important decisions based more on politics than on money/technical subjects.
:-(
In such a scenario, the technicians have no voice.
------
If you use free software, there is no public money to reroute to your pocket
The day before that, Bruce saw the Pokeman first movie with his kids and proclaimed "That's a translation of the OSD"!
It would seem that Bruce is claiming credit for the language in this document without there being any common language.
Bruce, please take credit where credit is due, but not in this case.
One fo the major reasons for the creation of the open source movement was to create alternatives so that people wouln't be obligated to buy M$ crapware or other stuff that they didnt want, there is no reason for people to be obligated to use open souce.
Obligation and the freedom for which the open-souce movement stand for simply cannot coexist.
--Ed
You aren't free to pass a law that removes your freedom to vote, but that's because it's a blackhole kind of event. :-)
Let's start a Brazilians vs Americans flamewar...
It was Santos Dumont who invented the airplane (I'm Brazilian).
By the way, I'm running around with a 2+ threshold because Slashdot seems broken when a critical-mass threshold of messages is passed. The comment page gets cut off mid-way; the high threshold is just to keep the pages short, not to avoid reading. Is there a fix in the works for the html problem?
If you use free software, there is no public money to reroute to your pocket :-(
Or to reroute to improve the development of OSS! So you end up with just a crew of government leeches, underfunded to improve but mandated to use...
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
For all of you that have some interests in this law (particularly brazilians), I strongly suggest e-mailing the Comissão de ciência e tecnologia, comunicação e informática - CCTCI (brazilian congress' science, technology and informatics comission) and all its components. If you decide to only send an e-mail to the CCTCI, make clear that you'd like to have a copy of your e-mail sent to all people inside that comission.
Also, I suggest that you make a brief statement on the e-mail explaining what this law means and what effects it will produce, since most people in the CCTCI are really clueless about technology.
In fact, brazilian congressmen love to pay attention to e-mails and letters, although most of you may think they trash everything they receive, so it's actually a very good idea to e-mail these people.
OSD: The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Law: The license of use of the open programs must allow modifications and derived works and its exempt distribution under the same terms of the license of the original program.
OSD: The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Law: The license can restrict the distribution of the modified source code only if it allows the distribution of the modifications along with the original source for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
OSD: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time.
Law: The license] must also allow the distribution [in binary form] of the program compiled from the modified source code, and may require a different name or version number [to make it clear that it's a derived work].
OSD: The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
Law: the license can't discriminate a person or group of persons
OSD: the license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
Thank you for pointing this out. :)
I stand corrected
not brazilian anymore...
besides the main CCTCI e-mail:
p osella@camara.gov.br,dep.cesarbandeira@cam ara.gov.br,dep.coraucisobrinho@camara.gov.br,dep.l uizmoreira@camara.gov.br,dep.pauderneyav elino@camara.gov.br,dep.paulomarinho@camara.gov.br ,dep.santosfilho@camara.gov.br,dep.vicpi resfranco@camara.gov.br,dep.francistoniopinto@cama ra.gov.br, dep.jorgepinheiro@camara.gov.br, dep.lamartineposella@camara.gov.br, dep.marcalfilho@camara.gov.br, dep.marcelobarbieri@camara.gov.br, dep.mattosnascimento@camara.gov.br, dep.pedroirujo@camara.gov.br, dep.pinheirolandim@camara.gov.br, dep.pinheirolandim@camara.gov.br,dep.josedeabreu@c amara.gov.br,dep.juliosemeghini@camara.g ov.br,dep.luizribeiro@camara.gov.br,dep.narciorodr igues@camara.gov.br,dep.pedrocanedo@cama ra.gov.br,dep.salvadorzimbaldi@camara.gov.br,dep.s ampaiodoria@camara.gov.br,dep.baba@camar a.gov.br,dep.nelsonpellegrino@camara.gov.br,dep.pa dreroque@camara.gov.br,dep.walterpinheir o@camara.gov.br,dep.antoniojoaquimaraujo@camara.go v.br,dep.augustofranco@camara.gov.br ,dep.ricardobarros@camara.gov.br,dep.yvoniltongonc alves@camara.gov.br,dep.irissimoes@camar a.gov.br,dep.linorossi@camara.gov.br,dep.silascama ra@camara.gov.br,dep.dr.helio@camara.gov .br,dep.euripedesmiranda@camara.gov.br,dep.givaldo carimbao@camara.gov.br,dep.luizaerundina @camara.gov.br, dep.bispowanderval@camara.gov.br,dep.lincolnportel a@camara.gov.br
cctci@camara.gov.br
you can e-mail everyone there:
dep.narciorodrigues@camara.gov.br,dep.lamartine
I just downloaded Opera for windows98, and OH MY GOD - IT IS AMAZING. I can NOT until the version for Linux comes out. Hopefully before this christmas. I am completely shocked. This is incredible. This is how web pages were designed to be viewed. Ok, sorry :)
Excuse me, but running and supporting this is just as bad as doing the same for "closed source only software" The "choice" option is eliminated.
He even went back to Brazil some time after getting the fame in France.
Slashdot goes into "overload" mode when there are too many top level comments (50 IIRC). You can view the next pages by choosing the "2" link from the bottom of the page.
--
"L'IT c'est moi!"
Mmm... that is the Open Source Definition. The retranslation to English was pretty inaccurate, but the wording in Portuguese is a near-unchanged translation of the OSD - it may even have been copied from one of the OSD translations in Portuguese without changes at all at some points. Yes, Bruce is Right and You are Wrong.
Equivelent functionality?
Hmmm... so if I say I need software that is fully windows(tm) compatible then the answer is that only windows can do it... thus, I can use the commercial stuff.
Then let's see some half assed government comittee try and decide what software is "equal".
Ken
--> Fight tyranny and repression.... read
as soon as they regulate it, for better or worse, they will ruin it.... you see, regulations to 'help' something are actually attempts to control it. so people will just have to go around them again.
this is good, and the USA should follow suit. It NEEDS to be mandatated legally that only OPEN SOURCE software (specifically only GPL) be allowed to be used by the american people.
commercial software is not as good as open source, it is funded by evil corporations, and it is a direct assault on our personal liberties.
using commercial software should be classified a felony when an open source solution exists.
i see this coming, its all part of the linux revolution.
Morse didn't invent telegraphy first, Edison hasn't invented the ligth bulb or the grammophone first, Bell not the telephone (AFAIK not even as third!) and the Wrights not the flying.
But who cares?
For that reason, the use of Free Software should be mandated for all government agencies. Period.
Teach those Bill Gates-lovin' blasphemers a lesson! Rob, can't you just alter the Slash script so that it will just automatically delete the post of anyone who refuses to bow down to Open Source? That way we won't have to waste our moderation points marking 'em down.
I can't see removing choice when there is a much bigger issue -- interoperability.
Can you imagine if radio or television was allowed to mature the way computers have? Only apple radios could recieve apple signals, only microsoft tvs could decode mirosoft signals.
I would much rather see governments demand that all I/O (network or file formats) be open and standardized so any client software can utilize and server packages or files.
I know we're talking standards organization here, but in this case it could be worth it.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
(Moderators: Just ignore this post.)
Could whoever gave me my first Flamebait rating *please* comment as an AC as to...umm...WTF?
I'm not annoyed. I'm actually *curious*.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
This is truly stunning news. The first set of eyes from the Other Side to truly open and understand our message. Finally. They hear us; that closed source; secret source; can never truly be trusted. The safest, most secure, most uncrackable software is the one who's inner workings are KNOWN TO ALL. Remember this day my friends 18 December 1999. The end of closed minds. The beginning of the new future. The beginning of the New World Order. Welcome to Open Source Software. Join us... or die.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
So, the government's gonna vote itself a huge budget and then use only free software? Sounds about right.
But wait, what if Doom or Quake are free? Can government officials use them?
Brazil seems to be having some minor software weirdness today. Can you say "we finally got a reported down here that understands portugese and the internet at the same time?" Good, I knew you could.
Such a measure would be a terrible blow to Brazil's software industry and to programmers everywhere.
--Brett Glass
No problem. I really didn't write those Brittany Spears songs... And I'm not really bigger than Cher :-)
Bruce Perens.
Thank you.
Deal with it. Contrary to popular opinion among libertarians, people who buy stuff have a right to decide which stuff to buy. They're not morally obligated to kowtow to the bizarre and unrealistic dictates some cretinous adolescent theory of economics shat forth by a reductionist idiot.
And your little dog, too.
OSD == more jobs, more freedom, better software
OSD != unemployent, communism
Get, like, a grip, dude. Most programs have nothing to do with word processing. Even if you are talking about a word processor:
As far as web browsing goes, Netscape is barely functional when compared to Internet Explorer.
Have you used Netscape? Can you quantify the alleged drawbacks? It displays HTML, it does Javascript, Java, and plugins, what more do you want? If it does ActiveX controls, I damn well want to know about that so I can tell it not to. That's executable code, bro, with no security. No thanks.
From a developer's standpoint, the only salient fact about IE is that it fucks up the common control libraries. They're releasing OS patches on a toy-application rush-rush development schedule, and that is not wise. Each new version has different bugs. Everything has to be tested on an ever-expanding variety of different "versions" of windows, each of which (pre Win2K) can have any given version of IE, or none. Windows development has always been partly a matter of deducing when the documentation is incomplete or wrong, and when the API is buggy, and yadda yadda, but IE has made this much, much worse, because the number of versions has exploded and the machine I'm debugging on is not even relevant to half the users out there. And guess what -- we pass the problems on to you, the consumer! Where I work, we're very damn careful and we test like madmen (and even so, we still goof now and again). Not everybody is so careful. Not everybody is willing to slip a release date by a week to make sure it all works, all the time.
Of course, since every Windows user now "freely chooses" to use IE in precisely the same way that geese in France "freely choose" to produce foie gras (but with less desirable results), there's absolutely nothing anybody can do about it. Except of course use an operating system that's not hopelessly fragmented. Which the Brazilian government seems to be considering. What was your point again?
Anyhow, this is a bill before the legislature, and it will not pass. Don't worry, nobody's going to hurt poor little Bill. You can go back to sleep now.
Dear Friends: Chef Serotonin *loves* you! Don't be shy, don't *ever* be shy!
bla bla bla bla bla bla
"Being alive is a crock of shit." --Kilgore Trout
government's place is not to get involved in this sort of thing.
The government should not get involved in its own decisions about what software it will buy? Who, then, will decide what software it will buy? You? Me? The vendors? Are you an idiot? Yes, you are indeed an idiot.
Fucking read the fucking article, you fucking moron.
THE BRAZILIAN FUCKING GOVERNMENT IS TALKING ABOUT FUCKING DECIDING WHICH FUCKING SOFTWARE IT WILL FUCKING BUY. THIS HAS ABSOLUTELY FUCKING NOTHING TO FUCKING DO WITH THE FUCKING PURCHASING DECISIONS OF ANY FUCKING ENTITY OTHER THAN THE FUCKING GOVERNMENT OF FUCKING BRAZIL.
Pull your fat, empty head out of your stinking ass and smell the coffee, you goddamn jabbering anthropoid. The people who buy software have a right to decide which software they will buy. A government has a responsibility not to waste public funds.
As for you, may I recommend learning to read? There's a whole world of information out there that you're missing out on.
Here's a question: why do you insist on not putting you sig in the sig space like everyone else? I have sigs turned off because I don't want to be bothered by other content besides the meat of the post. The meat is usually worthless enough as it is, I don't need people's stupid quotes and email addresses. By putting you sig in manually every time, you force me to read it when I really don't want to. I have no problem with you personally, and I don't particularly mind your sig, but I wish you would use the standard method of attaching it.
(Written as AC to avoid the inevitable flamebait moderation, and because it's a personal question.)
I have no problem with you personally, and I don't particularly mind your sig, but I wish you would use the standard method of attaching it.
:-)
If Taco gave me enough room to have both a quote and a sig, I'd gladly use the standard method. It's annoying retyping it every time
That being said, I sign my name because, as the WELL saying goes, You Own Your Words.
Didn't know the retyping was annoying anyone but me. I'll try to do something about this.
You're bigger (intellectually) than ESR. That's all that counts.
And oh yeah, Tom Christiansen sucks.
natalie!
i want to send you an aibo, please post your address!
thank you.
Since they have to create a law to make free software their policy, I wonder what is the current law regarding software purchases. Do they currently require the use of MS products ?
Now let's see... They are going to use FREE
software..
a) FREE - does not mean Open Source. I can
write proprietory soft all i want and give it
for free..why is another story.
b) Well, it is great money saving strategy for
Brazilian government. So let's say all governments
of the world follow the suite. Now most of us (people working for software companies etc) are
pretty much out of work?? I know my company and
my salary depend 100% on someone being ready to
pay fo rfunctionality we provide. Practically
anything today CAN be achieved with some level
of pain with free software, so if it is mandated
obviously many many computer professionals will
be out of work. How is that good i hardly can see.
In fact since i am also writing some open source
stuff - if i (or someone like me) will have no
for-profit soft to write and get paid with - no
open source stuff will come out of this either.
c) So before rooting for a law like that think
about the hand that feeds you:)
It is also not in the citizens' best interest. The people will be best served if government procures the best software for the job. And to insist that government boycott native businesses in favor of almost entirely foreign products is an idea that only Richard Stallman -- who spitefully wishes to see all commercial software companies destroyed at any cost -- could love.
--Brett Glass
Right from the submission, and also in the article, FREE as in free speech.
Well, first of all, I would like to make a few comments, as KGBear does sometimes :):
1) We are not talking about explicit open source software. It is FREE. The source is closed? It doesn't matter. If they can give us, we will use it. That's the idea.
2) Probably that will save huge amounts of money, of course. But there is a lot of piracy, even into the government (many agencies have illegal copies of very expensive software). That will keep going.
3) The lack of supervision will probably throw this law into complete dust. Who will be assuring people are using 'as much as there is possible' of free software? What will be the _penalties_ for people running commercial software? Those questions intrigate me.
Now to the good point. This will lead to something very very good, and completely new: thousands of people using software like *nix. That will make the understanding of such systems much more common between everyone. And, we all know no jobs will vanish from such acts. Software bought was bought. Future software running will be free, and programmers won't have to work more (or less) so they can sell his new applications. If the functions of the program are very needed, like, let's say, PhotoShop (there is always GIMP =D), the program will be bought. What I mean is, good programmers will always have their places.
So, concluding: why not? less budgets, and, besides, just wonder how much people will begin using real os'es? how many people will get to know the real possibilites his computer had but he never experienced?
I think some other countries should take a look at the idea.
natalie! I WANT TO SEND YOU NAKED PICTURES OF MYSELF!!!! GIVE ME YOUR e-mail address:
I am constantly amazed at how narrow-sighted some people can be on Slashdot. Some people have mentioned that this law should be passed because it is the "right" choice. Unfortunately, forcing free software instead of the "better" solution is censorship. How many freedoms have been trampled on based on the right choice? Should we burn copies of computer games because it's the "right" choice? Should we stop genetic research completely because some people feel it is the "right" choice? AD&D, Internet pornography, ... The same arguements about Open Source being the "right choice" could be used against different causes popular to the Slashdot crowd.
Yet
Another
Freakin'
Brazilian
Software
Article
There, I got to go trolling in context. Where is that guy? I haven't seen that post in a while...
This doesn't make sense. There's idealism, and then there's practicality. The government of Brazil seems to be just a little too much of the former.
Free software is just that -- software. The (sigh) MONEY comes in when you sell related "services". Obviously, they aren't free. To paraphrase jwz, free software is only free if your time (or someone else's) is worthless. Depending on the situation, you may spend (more || less) for (better || worse) software.
It's a good idea to look at all the options. Perhaps free software alone does suit your needs, but there are many, many "Ask Slashdot" questions that seem to suggest that OSS can't do everything for everyone.
--
E2 IN2 IE?
Try playing a video tape bought in Europe on a US VCR.
What, with the high cost of living in silicon valley and total lack of nightlife, wouldn't you rather be hacking code on your laptop on some beach in Brazil? Carnaval is coming!
Viva Brasil!
This is what I've always wanted to see:
(1) Very strict enforcement of copyrights (no one, but absolutely no one uses illegal copies)
(2) The government, as an IT-consumer, must investigate first if Open source can do the job, before spending taxpayers' money on proprietary software.
It totally changes the ballgame. If, for example, the government standardizes their word processing requirements an open source package, it will raise a very serious challenge for MsOffice in that country.
Governments worldwide spend easily up to 50% of the gross domestic product. As IT consumers, they can definitely set the tone.
Combined with better law enforcement, aimed at stamping out the illegal use of Microsoft software, an open-source-first policy will make a significant difference.
I heard you're meant to move it to /dev/null. This means all the copies you have.
:-)
:)
hehe, why don't you go troll Micros~1's tech support dept. I'm sure they'd love the entertainment you'd bring to their lives
#define X(x,y) x##y
#define X(x,y) x##y
Peter Cordes ; e-mail: X(peter@cordes ,
Yeah the free market works, but only in the longer term. Stop being against the Brazilian government on the principle of non-interference. Who says they're forcing anyone to use anything?
The public bodies still get a choice of _which_ free software to use, there's still competition between different projects.
Also, they'll have to pay money whatever software they use. Either they can pay a lot for the software, and that money will go abroad (closed software), or they can pay their own citizens for support and customising the software. Given that choice, it's easy to see why they're trying to boost their own economy by mandating that they keep the money in their country. After all, it's in their own interest as the Government to do so.
For the rest of us, we should be glad that such a large organisation as a government is prepared to invest in free software, which benefits everyone.
Which influence ? The project _ALREADY_ is in congress and for sure were a Brazilian initiative.
Beyond any SlashDots encouragement there is the reality: We do not have money. You certainly would realize if you ever see one of our Uptown Hospitals, which hasnt room for half of the people (even those who are actually one step to death). No beds, No medicine, No doctors, Nothing, that this decision should be made not based on a fool opinion from a foreign fool, but on the real need of the Government. What should they buy ? A shiny new copy of Win2k or some medicine ?
More yet: Ill be very happy if other under development (tah certo isso?) coutries could be influenced by our attitude. Free software is a viable, no-cost option that wont just make the SlashDot readers proud by being a free software defender, but will give some money to us instead to Bill Gates. He already has enough.
And besides, What makes you think that we had foreign influence ? We have some good ppl here. Did you ever checked WindowMakers Info Panel ?
Go check the Linux kernel CREDITS file and get ready to see that Free Software doesnt obey frontiers.
Think about it.
PS: Please ppl, forgive me for my bad english.
Don't you just hate that?
Looks like you got moderated back up, though.
I bet that the moderator won't post their reasons, sadly. The same thing happened to me a couple of days ago, and I did what you did, and my question to the moderator got marked Off Topic which, while I guess was true was a little annoying considering the number of "Grit" posts still with a Score of 1 and 0!
Someone (I'm assuming it was the same person) disagreed with my views enough to burn 2 moderation points on it! I should be flattered, I guess.
It's a perfect example of why moderation should not be anonymous.
I agree with your post, BTW.
Edison in fact did invent the grammophone afaik, but ther have been electric light bulbs in N.Y. a little bit before he went into that business. They have been invented by a german immigrant to light his shop's window. In fact Edison perfectioned this invention and did clever marketing.
The telephone was invented by the Prussian teacher Phillip Reis in 1867, some nine year before A.G. Bell did his part.
The aeroplane is a little bit difficult. Several countries claim "ownership" to that invention. The German claim Otto Lilienthal as the first pilot, he did fundamental aerodynamics research and built the first sailplanes, the French claim that Ader did the first motor-driven flight in 1898 with a steamplane (it flew some 50 meters) and the brazilians claim the same for Santos-Dumont.
Usually it works like this: a government agency asks companies to show them their solutions to a specific problem the agency is having, and then a technical board chooses the best solution for the least money. Since usually the "problem" is to read MS Word documents, well, there isn't really much choice. In technical government companies, however, things are much better: Petrobrás, the state-owned oil company is a heavy user of Linux servers and has quite a few, high-powered Beowulf clusters to analyse geological data. Obviously, there's no such a law like "we can only buy from MS".
The purpose of this law is quite clear: to mandate that whenever a Open Source solution is available, it will be preferred.
This to avoid a case that happens during the process of choice of the software. The law determines that government agencies and sobe state-owned companies must ask software companies for their suggestions in solving a particular problem and then a technical board will decide the best solution.
However, this technical board may decide not to review everyone's software, when it considers that a certain company has a clear advantage over the others. If the agency is a Microsoft shop, I wonder what operating system would have a "clear advantage" over the others.
This law forbids this when Open Source software is being reviewed. It forces the technical board to review the OSS anyway, because it is preferred by law. This has the purpose of putting OSS in the mainstream of government software purchases.
And why is it so? Because OSS means open standards, and the government doesn't want to be locked in by a single vendor. While it is expected that such priority for OSS will drive costs down, this is not the point. In the process of choosing software, there must be a corporate backup for the offering, and that won't be free. Someone has to offer OSS, it won't appear out of nothing for the technical board. And this someone will be responsible for it.
Who knows? This might even drive costs UP, if the Open Source solution is more expensive. The government is trying to promote free standards, not to cut the costs.
And by no means it forbids the acquisition of proprietary software. It only gives priority to Open Source software should two solutions be of similar functionality. And it doesn't affect anyone's freedom to use any software. This law doesn't enforce lack of choice, it is a statement of choice made by the government.
Trust me, if marketing, advertising and sales techniques didn't work, capitalism would have saved that money and stopped using them a LONG time ago.
So, point 1: superiority based on the merits of the software is not enough; it is perception and business relationships that matter, and point 2:even with these big old market caps, I can see no way for free software to fund the marketing and sales forces needed to compete with the closed alternatives, since per-seat licenses generate so much revenue so quickly. Only Apache and some infrastructure software is exempt from this situation, because infrastructure software is sourced and implemented by IT people, who are more likely to be informed of the actual options.
I see the strongest model for free software development in the public sector as coming from a commission model: the water utility needs to upgrade its systems, it looks for bidders to design an open/free solution, and then pays them to do it. The product of that work remains public and available for peer review and improvement, and available to other water districts. Software development becomes a service industry with a collegial environment - and, without all the detritus from trying to ape a manufacturing model replete with sales and marketing forces (above a bare mininum) I think you could expect developers to make a LOT more.
Until 1992, brazilians were not allowed to buy any computer or peripheral that was not made in Brazil, by brazilian manufactures. And that meant paying five times more than in USA. Seven years later, we are still paying the price for such studid policy.
And now this. Our beloved congressmen want force us to use software that we don't like, taking away our freedom to choose and in the process killing lots of software companies that make a living selling to the government.
I guess we brazilian have a problem with FREEDOM.
Please note that I'm not against open source (it's pretty much the opposite), but I want open source products to shine by their own value, not by a government policy.
(By Mr. Walter Pinheiro)
Disposes on the utilization of open source programs by public and
private entities under stockholder control of the public administration.
Article 1 - All levels of the public administration, the Powers of the
Republic, the Government owned and/or controlled companies, the public
agencies and all other institutions under control of the Brazilian
society are obligated to use preferencially, in its systems and
informatic equipment, open source programs, free from proprietary
restriction as to its licensing, alteration and distribution.
Article 2 - Open source programs are those which adhere to a license of
industrial or intelectual property that doesn't restrict in any aspect
the licensing, distribution, utilization or alteration of original
features.
Article 3 - The open source program must assure users unrestricted
access to its source code, without any cost, with the intent of
modifying said program, in its entirety if needed, to promote its
development.
Paragraph: source code must be the preferential resource used by the
programmer to modify the program, not being permited obfuscating its
accessibility or introducing any intermediate form of output from a
pre-processor or a translator.
Article 4 - The utilization license for open source programs must allow
modifications and derivative works and their free distribution under the
same terms as the license for the original program.
1 - The license may only restrict distribution of a modified form of
the source code if it allows for the distribution of the altered
programs together with the original source code, aiming at the
alteration of the program during compilation.
2 - It must explicitly allow the distribution of the program compiled
from the source code, and it can require that derived work have
different names or version numbers so as to differentiate it from the
original work.
Article 5 - There must be no clause in the license that implies in the
discrimination of persons or groups of persons.
Article 6 - No license shall be specific to any one product, so that
programs extracted from the original distribution have the same
guarantee of free alteration, distribution and utilization as the
original product.
Article 7 - The licenses of open or restricted products shall not
restrict those of products in the same distribution.
Article 8 - Bodies intending to commercialize computer programs with the
entities described in Article 1, shall mandatorily be regulated by the
principles established in this legislation.
Article 9 - Entities described in Article 1 shall mandatorily use
computer programs distributed under licenses not in agreement with this
law only in the absence of open source programs contemplating the
solutions required by the acquisition process.
JUSTIFICATION
For more than fifteen years the free manipulation of computer programs
or "free software" (in english in the original) has been discussed in
the whole world. In 1984 it was impossible to use a modern computer
without the installation of a proprietary operating system, distributed
only under broad spectrum restrictive licenses. No one was allowed to
freely share computer programs and it was very hard for anyone to change
the programs to satisfy their specific operational needs.
The GNU project, dating from the beginning of the Free Software
Movement, was created to change this. Its first goal was to develop a
portable operating system compatible with Unix that would be 100% free
for alteration and distribution, making possible for users to contribute
with its development and to modify any part of its original
constitution.
Technically GNU is like Unix, but it differs from it in the freedom it
allows its users. Many years of work by hundreds of programmers were
needed for the development of this open source operating system. In
1991, the last major component of a Unix like operating system was
created: Linux.
Today the Linux/GNU combination is used worldwide, freely by millions of
people. This program is just an example of how the freedom to modify,
distribute and use computer programs can influence in a faster and more
democratic way the profile of social and technological development in
the world. The State, as a facilitator of technological development and
of the democratization of access to new technologies by the society, has
a responsability to prioritize the utilization of open source programs.
If small, medium and large multinational companies are already adopting
open source, thus avoiding paying hundreds of millions of American
dollars in program licenses, why should the State, with its infinite
social causes in need of resources, continue to buy - and at premium
prices - commercial programs?
Sessions Room, December 15 1999
Congressman Walter Pinheiro
Read the ninth article of the proposed law. Other alternatives can only be considered IF (and only if) open source products do not meet the requirements.
has anyone here remembered how the US trade deficit climbed to another record high this month?
how much worse would it become if everyone started using Free Software alternatives to US produced software (Microsoft would account for a good portion of that...)
I'm a /. reader, I'm a programmer, and I'm Brazilian. And trust me, there are companies in Brazil hiring programmers (i.e. paying them) to write Open Source software. All the proprietary software programmers will still have plenty of work selling their proprietary products to anyone except the gov.
Like you, troll.
HTH.
As a government employee in Brazil, I totally support this proposed bill which, in short:
- States that all government agencies and companies must only purchase, from the date of effectiveness on, open source software;
- Describes (fairly well) what open source is;
- Demands source code to be shipped with the packages;
- Mandates all derivative software occasionally created to be open source too;
- Grants permission to use non open source software in case there are no open source products that fullfill the requirements in each case.
Just to clarify, there is no mention at all regarding purchases made by private companies.
Some have stated their points of view here about this being a measure that would take their jobs. Well, it is the role of the public administrator to spend taxpayer money in the wisest possible way, and if you have two alternatives that do the same job, not choosing the cheapest would be immoral, to say the least. If one looses his/her job because of evolutionary changes in the industry, then one should apply for social service help in case of hardship, instead of lobbying against open source.
Think of an array of public schools in a small-budget town, where the City Administration has some 40 plus 386's without much future use perspective. Imagine that you want to integrate IT fundamentals into the educational process. Either you scrap those, buy PIII's to run Win2000 and proprietary apps or you buy one Linux distro, gets someone to write the apps you need and spend the money you saved in something else.
You probably wouldn't have to hire extra people to do this. The better half of software use by government offices is written in-house (I think the same holds true for the U.S. too) and most programmers are experienced with open source software and would be glad to be allowed to write open source code in their work hours!
It is about time this safety net (government purchases) is taken away from commercial companies.
-------------------------
"People ask FAQs all the time". - David Allen
Having personally been to South America and seeing what a mess a major commercial outfit in the US has made of SA, I see this and the Argentine approach as valid answers to a pressing problem. Argentina simply decided to legalise all 'pirated' software. This makes it very fair on the part of all, unless you work at a monopoly software house.
Back to Brasil, (Brazil is NOT the proper spelling) it is surely wonderful to see something that will enrich their ecconomy as to not require them to pay anyone with any Unix experience atleast $200/hr. Brasil (and the rest of SA) got into computing late, and therefore suffer at the hands of a US company. They want *any* way out of this US caused mess.
I personally chose not to make $250/hr while children beg and get killed in the streets to the benefit of the class I would be part of there. Brasil: teach your children Unix and be ahead. It is high time people everywhere realise what a computer does and that is does so much more than allowing you to click a mouse and be force fed advertisements! Shall the horror of the ninties end in 2000? Can we stop Windoze2000? If you buy into this trap, are you aware of what harm you are doing to the whole of humanity? Even if you only use pirated Micro$oft warez, you are still a pon of the marketeting efforts of an illegal US enterprise.
Yeah dude, how could you be so inconsiderate, I can't believe that I have look at those few extra lines. I'm obvously too distracted by them to even read your post
Besides, for such a Linux-centered community, it can be downright ridiculous to assume all members of this community are US nationals.
(8-DCS)
Sorry to disagree with you here, Bruce.
Obviously this "representative" has a son (or cousin, or...), probably a university CS student, which is a recent convert to the Linux "movement", and who is poised to get a big government contract for Linux tech support. Assuming that Walter Pinheiro has even heard of you (or even touched a coomputer in his life) is just wishful thinking. There's an abundance of legislation here in Brazil with similar underhanded purposes, some of which thankfully didn't pass - more out of a general cluelessness of Brazilian Congress, rather than a wish to curtail such sleaze - and this is simply one more example.
I'm amazed how the general /. response, usually a knee-jerk response against government abuse of "free speech" or "free enterprise", becomes a knee-jerk response in favor of any harebrained government initiative which happens to pay lip-service to "open source" for its own purposes.
Interesting that /. is asking /.ers - most of which probably are Americans - to write to a Brazilian congressman in support of legislation which certainly will benefit only a few American companies like Red Hat. I'm all in favor of breaking the stranglehold Microsoft has on the Brazilian Government. If you don't run Windows you're practically locked out of any web site or data interchange with any public agency - official documents are in Word format, official databases are in Access format, income tax software is Windows-only. But, kicking Brazilian software companies in the nuts in favor of "open source" software, which is just starting to find a viable commercial model in the US, and has none at all here, will just add to the massive unemployment figures.
I have the proposal here in front of me. Article 9 clearly states that any public agency (this includes govt. companies, public schools, and universities) will be forced to use "open source" software in preference to other options unless none at all is available for the intended use. This clearly opens the way for all sort of shenanigans, as any such acquisitions are approved by local committees - and the proposal nowhere spells out any requirement that the software should work at all for the intended purpose. And, let's face it, to assume that any agency will go, every time, through a months-long rigmarole of examining source code, is to be completely unfamiliar wih the way these things are done here. Either some "consultant" will be hired at an inflated salary to approve some package which interests himself, or another "consultant" will be hired to recompile something which has been bought already by some other agency, since the source code will be publicly available.
I have personal experience with selling software to the Brazilian government. The first package I did (on spec) had no copy protection - I finally managed to sell one in every major city, and then, no more sales at all. And even for these half-dozen copies I had to go to court to see my money... I've been looking into writing a legal dictionary - where presumably at least half of the sales should go to government agencies - but if this thing is approved, I'll be out of business.
I'm cautiously in favor of "open source" for operating systems, for a limited number of cases - but to extend this to application software is madness. This effectively legislates a well-established business sector - non-"open source" software companies - out of existence.
Consider the education sector. Public schools here are often constrained to install Windows-based systems, which end up underused or even scrapped because of huge support problems. I've worked for over a decade to open up more schools to Macintoshes, which are much easier and cheaper to support. If this legislation passes, do you think schools will be able to use Linux systems? This is just ridiculous.
Well, I'll be e-mailing lots of people next week and lobby to get this nonsense scrapped.
#1 License Kook Brett Glass has been spotted in the vicinity. STAY IN YOUR HOMES!!! Do not attempt to argue with him, as it will only encourage him.
The GPL affects linking. It does not affect mere aggregation.
That is leeching. Earning an honest wage by doing creative work and licensing it is not.
--Brett Glass
Open Source != Free I recommend you read ESR's essay on the matter and you'll quickly see the error you made.
Do not spread "09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0" over the internet, thank you.
And you are confusing GPL'd software with free software.
thats right moderators, waste your fucking points on me.
But this law is great for Brazilian gov't and Brazilian people because...
Free market is great - if you're leading the pack. Remember that.
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)
This is dull and anglocentric. There is more outside the USA. "Third World" people are partcipating. They will become very important, especially as i18 n is so poor.Still there is no system for high-quality arabic typesetting, for example. I think the success of TurboLinux is no miracle, and the sucess of the spanish, portuguese, arabic, french, german distributions will show that people are fed up with developers which have mental frontiers implanted. Linux is a world-wide movement. And this is good so, because it permits freedom.
TV started in the late forties. There were no VCRs. There was, however, a single standard for television signals on the major continents.
All manufacturers made TVs that could decode the signal and view the program content.
This is not the case at all with PCs. Sure, we all use TCP/IP (for the most part) but the programming is completely alien between manufactuers of warez.
Treatment, not tyranny. End the drug war and free our American POWs.
See my user info for links.
I didn't express well my thought: :-(
I work for the Brazilian Government, and I know how they think.
My boss even told us that " our department have money, and we must spend it. So, we WON'T use any free software..."
The problem is bigger than you outside think
BTW, the lemma you quoted applies to the politician's little mind. Some politicians DO steal money from the government.
Free Software create new jobs , with local company and local , good skilled programers much more aware of local software necessity , unlike some distant company in Redmond that we will never work for.
We ? we who ? Quotes: "software that we don't like" (win95); "...taking away our freedom to choose..."(IE only sites); "...killing lots of software companies..."(Remember WordStar, Lotus123, 4pro); "Please note that I'm not against open source..." (I see, u are RMS right?)
Some "corporations" belong to the Brazilian Government. Only that companhies are affected by the law.
Proprietary software also creates jobs for "Local, good skilled programmers", and it additionally gives jobs to the developers of the software -- the authors of free software work for free...
Shrinkwrapped proprietary software suits about 90% of people's needs right out of the box, and they have the added feature of being a known quantity -- the code hasn't forked, so it only needs to be reviewed once. Y2K wouldn't be the big deal it was if there wasn't 20 year old, custom COBOL code needing auditing on thousands of corporate/government mainframes. These days, it's called "integration" or "solution development", and it's no different.
It's important to decide which way you want to go -- free software isn't always the cheapest, custom software isn't always the safest, and shrinkwrapped software isn't always the best...
--
E2 IN2 IE?