Brazilian Gov't May Pass Pro-Free Software Law 242
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.) "
Unnational law (Score:5)
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...
WoW! (Score:1)
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.
The Future is Free (Score:1)
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.
Symptoms of the Same Problem (Score:1)
*Please don't let the inclusion of that word start a holy war.
"none that provides the required functionality" (Score:1)
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
Re:Unnational law (Score:1)
Also, who says there are no Brazilian Slashdot readers?
Translated Design of Law Protocolled Software (Score:4)
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.
Free Software (Score:3)
Re:Unnational law (Score:3)
So, you're right, a politician's immediate concern is the people who get them elected. However, this doesn't mean that they can't be influenced by voices on the other side of the world, given the right conditions.
Falsifying your city of residence or nationality is no way to advance a cause you believe in. If you think that the national policy level is a good place to promote OSS (note this is an "if" - there is bound to be a spectrum of opinions on whether this is strategically/ethically right), then go ahead, make your best arguments to whoever will listen.
--
This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:5)
Open Source Software is a wonderful thing, for innumerable reasons [doxpara.com], 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
Re:"none that provides the required functionality" (Score:2)
Last time I checked, Staroffice worked fine with
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:3)
Imagine if Microsoft refused to provide the U.S. Government with licenses or support for any of its software, or planted back doors in the software ir provided. The government would only have three choices: cave in to Microsoft's demands, seize whatever it needed, or spend the time and money converting and retraining to another system.
Can't compete on merits? (Score:1)
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:1)
The big thing about open source is CHOICE. By forcing the open source (or closed source or any other decision on people), you're defeating it's purpose.
Go read those manifestos and cathedral essays again, boys.
-Chris
Why should governments buy from private industry? (Score:1)
Re:Open Source . . . and the money to buy it (Score:3)
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.
A better translation (Score:3)
Re:Unnational law (Score:1)
Re:Unnational law (Score:1)
The law does not force the use of free software (Score:3)
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.
Re:Open Source . . . and the money to buy it (Score:5)
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
That's the OSD! (Score:2)
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
Chuckle... (Score:1)
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
The World's Tyrants at Work... (Score:2)
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".
some more clarification... (Score:2)
That's exactly my point (Score:1)
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
Fascinating. Some thoughts. (Score:4)
Here are some issues to consider:
free software (Score:1)
Re:Unnational law (Score:3)
Cool.
Bruce
Contamination (Score:2)
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.
Re:Unnational law (Score:1)
Re:Unnational law (Score:3)
JEEZ. Talk about national solipsism.
Re:That's the OSD! (Score:1)
Well, since he seems to understand it, he must know how to speak English (well, most people here know Spanish or English as a second language, since it is a requisite in many jobs). And if he knows all those things about the OSD, he might also know you're one of the ones that created it in the first place. So write to him yourself. Tell him who you are. And ask if he might want some help. Though I can't see how you could make a difference, it's always nice to try.
Re:That's the OSD! ....and other halucinations (Score:1)
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.
No! This is bad! (Score:2)
Obligation and the freedom for which the open-souce movement stand for simply cannot coexist.
--Ed
Sorry. (Score:2)
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?
Re:Open Source . . . and the money to buy it (Score:2)
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
Re:"none that provides the required functionality" (Score:1)
See, the problem is that people confuise functionality with the product. I love StarOffice, but I will admit it loves memory (to eat it that is). It handles most word docs just fine. If they want a new infrastructure, they are going to have to change their way of business as well. Stop doing things with WOrd Macros left and right. If they can do the equivfalent of what they are doing with the word macros in another product, then that is equivalent functionality, but it does not have to be compatible. Sure, it helps reduce the cost of transitioning and training, but that is another issue.
And of course, this is where MS has been winnig all along, get people using their products, reliant upon them, because of some functionality that they feel is necessary, and lock them into a product. Which is why standards are nice, because you can use whatever product you like and be assured that it will inteface properly.
Ripping out an infrastructure is no mean feat. It requires lots of training of people, implementation of new software, and development of new procedures. Sometimes it does not justify the cost. You do not have to upgrade everytime a new thign comes out...
Is there a word processing standard? I am not talking about ASCII here. it has to do fonts and macros and all that stuff that makes document production such a production.
Re:The World's Tyrants at Work... (Score:2)
Re:Unnational law (Score:2)
Stuart Eichert
U. of PENN student/FreeBSD hacker
Comparison between the law and OSD (Score:2)
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.
Re:Comparison ..I stand corrected :) (Score:1)
I stand corrected
Re:Free Software (Score:1)
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.
As far as my interpretation of this goes, it looks like they are trying to make the Governments use of technology free, not necessarily the peoples. The aim of this law is to replace all proprietary software with free software, cited here as GNU/Linux, and make all software developed for the Government free as well.
No choice (Score:1)
Slashdot Overload (Score:2)
--
Re:That's the OSD! ....and other halucinations (Score:1)
Re:No choice (Score:1)
Re:"none that provides the required functionality" (Score:1)
Re:Slashdot Overload (Score:2)
And who defines.... (Score:1)
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
Re:WoW! (Score:1)
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:1)
Documents for download are
And don't forget we're talking about a country with many social & economic problems, and wich is paying lots of money for this.
By the way, it's been anounced that the receita federal (our IRS) servers will be down since some hours before midnight and 'till 3am of January 1st, to avoid problems with hackers, and still with a special team taking care of the (turned off?) servers.
And also the law project says the public administration will be "obligated to preferably use", so I don't think it will be forced in the case there is a good justification.
What I hope is that the folks start realizing
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:2)
Rolling on the floor, laughing, crying. The engineers NEVER get to choose, except perhaps for their home systems or if they have graduated to management, at which point they are not really engineers any more. Senior IT management choses WinTel not for technical reasons, but because Nobody gets fired for buying {IBM, Microsoft}. Senior management has one overriding aim. Keep their high paying jobs. This is why FUD *WORKS*.
If you think that there is a government IT purchasing process in action anywhere on the face of the earth that operates on the basis of choosing the best engineering alternative, you are hopelessly naive. IBM is famous for the phrase 'choose my system or I will get your boss to fire you."
The same principle operates for Microsoft now. People are AFRAID to recommend anything else.
Now we have the {Brasilian, Chinese, Mexican, French} governments talking about Linux. Fine. That is their perogative. Will wider use be good for Linux. You bet.
But don't kid yourself. There is no way such decisions are going to be made at the level of the implementor. It doesn't happen that way. It's why the Challenger blew up.
The best we can hope for is that Linux gets recognized as a safe choice so people will not get fired for choosing it.
Microsoft is doing it's best to cloud the issue, and if it weren't for the DOJ it would be REALLY ugly right now.
disagree. (Score:1)
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.
Re:Open Source . . . and the money to buy it (Score:1)
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
Re:The World's Tyrants at Work... (Score:1)
What an excellent sentiment, and I agree wholeheartedly, of course the converse should apply as well, shouldn't it?
Well, in the US, many of the businesses that have contracts with the US, were/are required to submit all documents in certain specified formats. For many government agencies the required formats have been MS Word, Excel, Powerpoint, etc. and always the latest version. Because there are few products that import/export MS formats completely (and even more so in years past), numerous government contractors have been forced to purchase MS products, and update to the newest versions.
Thus a tyrany of Closed Source software... Personally all formats required by any government should be based on standards instead of proprietary formats, so that the choice of software can be left to the individual/company...
Thanks,
LetterRip
Re:Unnational law (Score:2)
Bruce
Re:Unnational law (Score:4)
While I don't even think it's a bad thing as we do it in so many other areas for good, (ie: Save the Rainforest, etc) I think you're quite farsighted. Not everyone who reads slashdot is from the states, and to say that they are would be complete arrogance.
Why should a Brazilian representative care about what some fool in New York thinks?
Because that "fool" just might be an expert on the subject.
Great, the rest of the world supports it, but his constituents just care about getting those damn strip miners out of their backyard.
What? I thought we were talking about government software choices here?
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."
Or perhaps real Canadians like me who read slashdot every day see the story and find the link to the petition, (where, BTW, we'd never find elsewhere, good luck finding it through "conventional" sources) and signs it?
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...
And who are you to say the submitter wasn't Brazilian? Or for that matter, that Brazilians don't read slashdot?
-- iCEBaLM
Re:That's the OSD! ....and other halucinations (Score:3)
Bruce
Re:Unnational law (Score:2)
-- iCEBaLM
Re:That's exactly my point (Score:1)
As far as I can tell, Netscape 4.0x (on Win95 and Linux) works perfectly with almost all pages; Netscape 3.x doesn't like PNGs or style sheets, but it works most of the time.
Conflict of interests? (Score:1)
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.
Re:The World's Tyrants at Work... (Score:2)
This is a different thing than a government run corporatoin. Examples of public corporations include Redhat and VA Linux.
This is very sad. (Score:1)
Such a measure would be a terrible blow to Brazil's software industry and to programmers everywhere.
--Brett Glass
Re:Comparison ..I stand corrected :) (Score:2)
Re:Symptoms of the Same Problem (Score:1)
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?
Actually I have a different take on this. I think that by mandating free software, they are doing exactly the correct thing. When they buy proprietary packages, they lock themselves into a single company due to compatability issues. By standardizing on MS-Office, for example, they make it very difficult to change over to another package down the line. Users don't want to convert files, and conversions are never as good as the original files, and sometimes lose important elements. By using free software, even if you decide to go with another alternative in future, the fact that source code is open and can be incorporated in future products from whatever vendor you choose promises to make changes much more simple. And if they are missing functionality, they can hire developers to improve the product, a difficult, if not outright impossible task in the closed source world. Consider the educational possibilities: computer science students in Brazil working on government sponsored open source projects during the school year and on internships. The government could award prizes to the students and their CS departments based upon performance. The money they save on proprietary software and license policing could probably fund the program. I think this sort of move is long overdue for governments. I would never trust my company/government to run software which I had no hand whatsoever in the production of and no legal recourse if the vendor changes licensing agreements. In short, I think it very responsible that governments limit themselves wherever possible, to software that they own, rather than that which the license. That notwithstanding, go for the most flexible license you can get.Re:Unnational law (Score:2)
Last I looked, we had readers on every continent except (AFAIK) Antartica.
I get e-mail from everywhere. It's very cool to realize how far and fast open source is spreading. We could use more stories about Linux and open source in places other than N. America (hint, hint), especially features that draw on personal experience (BIG hint).
- Robin
Word compatibility? Only if it's a word processor. (Score:1)
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.
Re:Open Source . . . and the money to buy it (Score:1)
Re:No choice (Score:1)
If free software has to resort to force, then it is no longer really free, now is it? The freedom of choice is a much more basic right than the freedom to duplicate.
Non-free software hurts no-one. If you don't like it, don't use it. What about software that isn't "open source" in the OSD sense, but does come with source code? (ie: you get the source when you buy it, but you're not allowed to distribute it) How does that hurt anyone? All it does is ensure that the developers actually get paid for the work they did.
Re:Unnational law (Score:1)
Re:Open Source . . . and the money to buy it (Score:2)
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.
What is the current Brazilian law WRT software ? (Score:1)
Not a troll; just the truth. (Score:1)
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
Re:e-mail all that people in the congress (Score:1)
I'm all for communicating with representatives, but treating each member of the CCTCI to a slashdotted inbox probably won't make them feel warm and fuzzy inside.
What it will teach them is that when they deal with Microsoft et al they end up dealing with one contact that obviously is supported by a very large organization. When they deal with the free software community they end up being overwhelmed by a slew of redundant emails having a very low signal-to-noise.
I like your intentions, but I'm afraid the effect could be counterproductive. A thousand proponents won't be able to convince a congressman nearly as effectively as one proponent will.
Re:No choice (Score:1)
Sorry, but -- bzzzt! -- I think that folks are learning your true motivations at last. The fact is that it's the GPL which hurts others, by turning open source software -- which was originally free for all to use for any purpose -- into a weapon against business. For the sole purpose of fulfilling your spiteful grudge kindled some 15 years ago.
--Brett Glass
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:1)
Media company make money by controlling the distribution channel and leverage, not the "product." They can have you pay 14.99 for a cd that have one song in it and still feel like the luckiest person on the world, as far as they put only one song in every CD.
CY
Obviously you didn't read (Score:1)
Let's see the good, bright side. (Score:3)
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.
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:1)
Add in the economic damage that takes place when countries like Brasil import billions of dollars worth of software -- the trade imbalance is a serious problem for countries like Brasil and their money could be put to much better use at home than in Redmond.
If this bill passes it will help their economy immensely and should be a good model for a lot of other countries with a large support base for Linux users (India, for example, could benefit in much the same way that Brasil could).
Then there's the savings per system -- making computers more affordable for home users ("I need to get the same thing we have at work") will contribute to education and computer literacy...
Re:No choice (Score:1)
We should all stand on one another's shoulders. As Brian Reid once put it, scientists stand on one another's shoulders, but programmers seem intent upon standing on one another's feet!
Civilization can never advance so long as we take personal profit from the good works of others.
Not true at all. When we make a contribution to the state of the art by building on what has been done before, we should be rewarded for having done so. And the more one contributes, the more one should be rewarded.
--Brett Glass
P.S. -- Since I'm not posting as "Anonymous Coward," I hope you'll own up to your own ideas and do likewise.
YAFBSA (Score:1)
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 [jwz.org], 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.
Re:Burn Quake and Doom! It's the "right" thing (Score:1)
If you point out -- rightly -- that the proposed law mentioned above denies freedom, they'll do the old "pivot word" trick and say, "No, you don't get it! It's not free speech, it's free beer! Or is it the other way around? Doesn't matter.... Whichever meaning of free you're talking about, we mean some different one, so your argument's irrelevant."
--Brett Glass
Will geeks flock to Brazil? (Score:2)
Viva Brasil!
Re:Symptoms of the Same Problem (Score:1)
The effect is good, but I don't like the method. Free software should win on its own merits, not by being forced down people's throats. Keep in mind that Corel recently _successfully_ sued the Canadian government over an unfair tender for office software. What I would like to see is the government pointing out that free software needs to be considered alongside the tenders from commercial companies. I imagine it would win much of the time, given the excellent price point
I guess whatever happens, the average office dude still has the software choices of his superiors shoved down his throat in many cases.
Hmmm, now that I think about it, the above might be not quite true. Having access to source code does make good sense as a tender requirement. We all know how much that matters. (hehe, I guess I just forgot about it for a sec...). So, I guess this is all well and good after all. I imagine there will still be tenders from OSS companies to provide "solutions" for various things, though. Hmm, I wonder if any companies do *BSD, because if not, it could lose the consideration it deserves for the things it is good at, if the selection process involves tenders and support contracts. I bet if many other governments or even [non-tech] companies start doing this, companies will spring up that will install and support pretty much everything. (not everything by each company. you know what I mean.)
I just hope there isn't too much backlash against this from the working dudes in all the offices. (kinda like Torg in UF the last few days...
most bloated thing I've ever seen^Asecond (after windoze)^E.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Re:Can't compete on merits? (Score:1)
The government is free to set out the requirements for tenders to provide a software "solution", and in this case they've decided that all tenders must come with source.
I think the "required functionality" clause will take care of cases where closed source software is significantly better, so this really is a good thing for them to do.
#define X(x,y) x##y
Not bad ... (Score:1)
(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.
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:1)
No.. if piracy stopped, the prices would stay the same, but the record companies would find another excuse for keeping them there. CDs cost $12-$15 not because that's how much it costs to cover losses due to piracy, but because they know that people will keep paying that much if they have no choice.
Also, there is no book piracy to speak of. Ever try finding the text of a novel on the net? Ripping and encoding audio from a CD is easy, but no one wants to type in an entire novel by hand, or tear apart his copy of the book and scan each page.
Re:Translated Design of Law Protocolled Software (Score:1)
Which is a good thing, IMHO. The GPL attempts to turn open source into a weapon against business, and this is not a good thing.
--Brett Glass
Will all the Americans stop being anti government? (Score:2)
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.
Are you serious about that ? (Score:2)
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.
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:2)
But I would argue the Brazilian government, presumably working in the interests of the Brazilian people, have the right to choose policy on procurement for software used by the government, which is what this appears to do.
There is a practical issue here for one thing. Interoperability and upgradeability are both greatly enhanced by a monolithic solution. Open source has advantages in both areas, and provides more choices at the same time. Think about the money and time required for a government to switch to W2K for a minute. If the taxpayers revolt against that, you think the government should ignore them?
More importantly, open source is a little like the freedom of information act. It allows the software infrastructure to be examined by anyone who wishes to. As software becomes more and more critical to our way of life the risk of closed software doing unknown things becomes more and more of a real threat to privacy and democracy.
Just for example, if internet voting is adopted I think a law requiring the sources for the voting software to be public would not be unwise. Otherwise the designer of the voting software could exert political influence, or datamine voters, without anyone realizing it. Such an argument could be made for almost any government agency's use of computer software. Software purchased on behalf of the public should be open to public scrutiny -- not really that radical is it?
It's called "I don't agree, so I'll mod you down" (Score:2)
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.
The problem with the "own merits" attitude. (Score:2)
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.
Full Translation of the original law project (Score:2)
(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
Re:Newbie needs help! (Score:2)
HTH.
Re:Post From a Parallel Universe? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Let's see the good, bright side. (Score:2)
Re:This Might Not Be A Good Thing! (Score:2)
For example, closed-source solutions hide what is going on. There is no real way to tell if Windows NT is sending your E-mail back to the NSA.
But beyond any practical advantages of free software, there is also a moral issue at stake. If we really valure the freedom that free software gives us, then mabye someday Microsoft will come out with a better OS than Windows. (I know, work with me on this) I would say that if there is a Free Software solution that does the job, then go with it.
Re:That's exactly my point (Score:2)