French Parliament Votes To Give Priority To Free Software 98
An anonymous reader writes "The French Parliament just wrote into law the first instance of Free Software priority in a public service, by adopting the Bill on Higher Education and Research. [Advocacy association April], after extensively contributing to the debate, especially welcomes this vote and congratulates Deputies and Senators for recognizing the importance of Free Software in the Public Service for Higher Education, since it alone can ensure equal access to the future public service. April hopes that this first step will be followed by other legislation in favor of Free Software. It also thanks all the persons who mobilized and contacted the Parliament Members."
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:About time (Score:5, Insightful)
How so? Keeping their IT spending local is likely to improve their economy, at the expense of foreign countries that they would previously have bought software from...
Re:Free or open source? (Score:5, Informative)
Free software = logiciel libre. Libre => liberté.
In French, there is no ambiguity between libre and gratuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I use "libre-sex" all the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The business model of skype all along has been to get people locked in and dependent on the service, and then work out ways to make money from it... Wether that means jacking up prices, selling user information, or bombarding users with advertisements.
Either way, skype is a return to monopoly telco networks from years gone by, a huge step backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
Either way, skype is a return to monopoly telco networks from years gone by, a huge step backwards.
Not really. Nothing prevent me from using the exact infrastructure I use for Skype (my PC and ithernet connection) for other similar services. And with IPv6 implemented, all that will be needed is a directory service, because every device on the internet will have a unique IP address, fully enabling point to point communication. The current model where everything has to go through central servers will be obsolete. Of course Skype will want to be the directory service of choice, but anybody can build one. An
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, fellow naturalists, hark the shrill cry of the proprietary software apologist. It's an all too common feral creature around here, barely camouflaged in the detritus beneath the understory of Slashdot's troll layer. It uses its paradoxically nonsensical twirps to bewilder the unwary and confuse them into wasting precious resources and time.
Avoid it at all costs. While it's not really dangerous, it is VERY silly and annoying.
Actually, it's the wrong thing. (Score:3, Insightful)
If open source is so much better, it ought to win on merits. Of course, in civil service merits usually don't count, which is why they have lots of rules, and ultimately the whole doesn't achieve much of anything. So much so that bureaucracy is a byword for exactly that.
An example of how to do it is the LiMux project. There, the city of Munich stuck out its head, made a plan, adjusted as necessary (because, due to scope turning out much larger than expected, they needed a much longer timetable), and now has
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If open source is so much better, it ought to win on merits.
It does. Proprietary software wins on lock-in, licensing and legacy.
Re: (Score:2)
... and frequently bribery ... I mean marketing.
Re:Actually, it's the wrong thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
And just as importantly, it gives you someone to sue if it breaks down horribly.
Re:Actually, it's the wrong thing. (Score:5, Informative)
No it doesn't, the license agreement on proprietary software provides no warranty whatsoever on the software, you have exactly the same ability to seek redress from the vendor as you do with open source - none.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Proprietary does NOT win on ass-covering.
Nobody ever sued IBM and won - (not even SCO). Nobody ever sued Microsoft and won. "Not being fired for buying IBM" has nothing to do with blaming the vendor - it is merely the legacy argument. So many others uses IBM - at least we will not be worse off than them! Only a covard would actually use the legacy argument though. Using it implies that they are not capable of judging what software will fit their business best. So they loose out on any opportunity for somet
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Thus I predict that French governments will not see serious open source adoption for decades to come, if ever.
Your prediction is already false. The Gendarmerie Nationale switched to open source long ago, for example. Here. [slashdot.org].
Re: Actually, it's the wrong thing. (Score:2)
"If open source is so much better, it ought to win on merits"
You mean barring Microsoft and other Gorillas to pump dozens of millions in lobbying? I'm all for it.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
NSA the gift to FOSS that keeps on giving. You will see a lot of priority given to software that countries can more readily audit and control, rather than one particular brand of software that only the NSA gets to dick around with. M$ should seriously consider sending a multi-billion dollar bill to the NSA for the permanent harm done to M$'s cash cows windows and office. The NSA single handily will have done more to kill them than any other 'single' group, company or country - 'OUCH'.
Re: (Score:2)
because free software is better? not always. sometimes it's shite.
Re: (Score:2)
Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Free, open source software is much more educational by its very nature than closed source shit. One can't learn from source that one can't read.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)
No. It only makes sense if you're hawking proprietary software and want to hide how it works.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Who cares?
Even if it's available to the merely curious, at least it helps demystify some of the most ubiquitous tools of our time. Children should be encouraged to know what's happening behind the scenes as well as how to use their apps.
Kids don't magically morph into CS students overnight.
Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)
The root cause of this is that those who learned to program before college did so because they were interested in the subject and usually sought out the information themselves...
Those who first learn in college generally have no personal interest in the subject beyond getting a job, and so they invest the minimum required effort in order to get paid and not fired, same as anyone else who's doing a job they don't enjoy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
On the contrary, basic (as in simple, not the language) programming should be taught to all students at a young age... It will help them understand logic and how computers work at a lower level. Computers influence virtually every aspect of our lives today, so it makes sense that everyone should have some level of understanding as to how they work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
I think they mean that Open software guarantees that, no matter what, any student will be able to afford access to required software.
Not just people whop can afford Winows/OSX/Office/etc.
Re:What about on its own merits? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Also, due to limited budget, some police stations have Word installed on some computers and Excel on others.
Want to copy/paste? Too bad.
Re: (Score:1)
If they switch to open source, I hope they'll set aside some fraction of the money they currently use on licensing to fund further development.
You often see this kind of initiative ending with everyone switching back after a couple of months because the new software couldn't support some specific use case, seemingly without considering one of the great benefits of open source: the wide range of options you have for getting the problem fixed yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Proprietary doesn't allow choice on merit (Score:1)
Which is exactly what FOSS will allow them to do, choose between alternatives on merit alone.
Proprietary software doesn't allow winning on merit, because salesmen/lobbyists for business interests ensure that comparison on merit is replaced by whatever it takes to seal a deal, from simple bias and misrepresentation to backhanders and other shady dealing or worse. There is no shortage of evidence for that.
And then in later
Re: (Score:2)
Hoooray! (Score:2)
One nice thing that might come out of the NSA .... (Score:3)
What changed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
What changed is that the PS (left-wing) won the presidential elections against UMP (right-wing). Democracy works sometimes...
Re:What changed (Score:5, Informative)
Not so long ago corporate shill Sarkozy was voted out and leftist Hollande was voted in.
In some countries a change of government does mean a change of policy.
Re: (Score:2)
*cries into his ballot box*
Re: (Score:2)
Not so long ago corporate shill Sarkozy was voted out and leftist Hollande was voted in.
In some countries a change of government does mean a change of policy.
He's probably from the US so he's excused for being unfamiliar with the concept.
Re: (Score:3)
They got a socialist president. Not saying the guy alone changes everything, but it's a sign of a shifting mentality: they had it with Murrica trying to boss them around, and just don't give a fuck anymore.
Change of party (Score:1)
This reminded me to check on Munich... (Score:5, Informative)
Started in 2004, it still seems to be going well at first glance:
http://www.zdnet.com/no-microsoft-open-source-software-really-is-cheaper-insists-munich-7000010918/ [zdnet.com]
Nevertheless, French Army confirmed MS contract (Score:5, Insightful)
Words, but also actions? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oops (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laughable, hollow vote-winner (Score:1)
....that won't change the commercial market place (or the number of government systems that run under MS).
Of course, the back-doors are a hot-potato - at least, they are to anyone that hasn't been aware of them since NT4.
Intentions, not reality (Score:1)
It's total bullshit. It's a legislation requiring to "prefer" open source, it's no legal obligation. And with alluring Microsoft offers, these laws are usually blatantly ignored. As there are often discreet corruption cases or conflicts of interest, it's just meaningless not to enforce open source usage.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft might give free licenses to France for 2 yrs, then decide that was a bad business choice - change the price in France to $5000/ea.
While you main point is valid (F/LOSS is needed and free of cost is not free), the example you give indicate a total lack of contact with the business world.
If contract people are as incompetent as you seem to think, they get what they deserve. Any (potentially) long term contract would include restrictions on price increase. For an online service it would also include agreements on phase out.
Also, apart from Office365, Microsoft sells perpetual licenses, so if you stop paying (lots of companies run MS wit
Re: (Score:1)
Well Shit! (Score:2)