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
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
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