MESSAGE
| DATE | 2002-05-05 |
| FROM | Ruben I Safir
|
| SUBJECT | Re: [hangout] *ASTOUNDING* Statement by Peruvian Congressman on Free
|
This certainly does cover a great deal of the issues before Free Software,
and does so in a very orthodox style. I'd like to make a similar case for
the private sector
Ruben
>
>
> (Simply breathtaking! What could be more inspiring news
> than this? [other than that an American official might one
> day offer such a awe-inspiring statement] -- Seth)
>
> > http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:TvfSi6UFJpQC:www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html+resmseng.html&hl=en&ie=utf-8
>
>
> A letter from Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñez, Peruvian
> Congressman, in response to a complaint from a General
> Manager for Microsoft in Peru.
>
>
>
> Lima, 8th of April, 2002.
>
>
> To: Señor
> JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
> General Manager of Microsoft, Perú
>
> Dear Sir.
>
> First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25 2002
> in which you state the official position of Microsoft
> relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public
> Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire
> for Peru to find a suitable place in the global
> technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced
> that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of
> clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply
> to the commentaries included in your letter.
>
> While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a
> significant contribution, it would have been even more
> worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of
> a general nature (which we will analyse in detail later) you
> had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that
> proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and
> to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a
> more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our
> positions.
>
> With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume
> that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill
> defines as "free software", since there exists software for
> which the source code is distributed together with the
> program, but which does not fall within the definition
> established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial
> software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or
> "unfree", given that there exists free software which is
> sold in the market for a price like any other good or
> service.
>
> It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the
> Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount
> of direct savings that can by made by using free software in
> state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate
> value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The
> basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the
> basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:
>
> Free access to public information by the citizen.
>
> Permanence of public data.
>
> Security of the State and citizens.
>
> To guarantee the free access of citizens to public
> information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data
> is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and
> open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if
> necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
>
> To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary
> that the usability and maintenance of the software does not
> depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly
> conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs
> systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to
> the availability of the source code.
>
> To guarantee national security or the security of the State,
> it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without
> elements which allow control from a distance or the
> undesired transmission of information to third parties.
> Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are
> required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by
> the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts
> throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security,
> since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the
> growing number of programs with *spy code*.
>
> In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of
> the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of
> information managed by the state, and in their role as
> consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a
> widespread availability of free software not containing *spy
> code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
>
> In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the
> conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software
> in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic
> principles.
>
> >From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
> -the law does not forbid the production of proprietary
> software
> -the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
> -the law does not specifiy which concrete software to use
> -the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software
> will be bought
> -the law does not limit the terms under which a software
> product can be licensed.
>
> What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to
> be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is
> technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further
> the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of
> requirements reguarding the license, without which the State
> cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his
> data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and
> accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical
> aspects for its normal functioning.
>
> We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication
> technology have a significant impact on the quality of life
> of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We
> surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out
> above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we
> are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing
> these principles, other than through the use of free
> software in the terms defined by the Bill.
>
> As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to
> analyse them in detail:
>
> Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it
> compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software,
> that is to say open source software, which breaches the
> principles of equality before the law, that of
> non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise,
> freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the
> constitution."
>
> This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects
> the rights you list; it limites itself entirely to
> establishing conditions for the use of software on the part
> of state institutions, without in any way meddling in
> private sector transactions. It is a well established
> principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of
> contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited
> in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency
> of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the
> greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the
> matter.
>
> The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural
> or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these
> goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill
> and without more limitations than those established by the
> Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. por Decreto
> Supremo No. 012-2001-PCM).
>
> The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever,
> since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be
> provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to
> provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if
> restrictions based on national origin, race religion,
> ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the
> contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is
> so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions
> for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from
> using software which has a license including discriminatory
> conditions.
>
> It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that
> the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the
> latter can always choose under what conditions it will
> produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the
> State, and others will not be since they contradict the
> guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free
> initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of
> industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in
> which the State can exercise the latter). Any private
> subject can produce software under the conditions which the
> State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is
> forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to
> provide software to the State, they must provide the
> mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which
> are those described in the Bill.
>
> By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would
> prevent your company offering the State bodies an office
> "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and
> setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did
> not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law,
> but to business decisions relative to the method of
> commercializing your products, decisions with which the
> State is not involved.
>
> To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use
> of open source software compulsory, would establish
> discriminatory and non competitive practices in the
> contracting and purchasing by public bodies..."
>
> This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one,
> and so the response can be found above. However, let us
> concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding
> "non-competitive ... practices."
>
> Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets
> conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or
> service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers
> from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them
> "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles
> determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so
> the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in
> the Bill it is established that *no-one* is excluded from
> competing as far as he guarantees the fullfilment of the
> basic principles.
>
> Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it
> tends to generate a supply of software with better
> conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a
> model of continuous improvement.
>
> On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the
> chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is
> impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a
> neutral role when the product is offered on the market
> (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that
> firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that
> therefore a significant expense under this heading can
> influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of
> marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we
> are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed
> is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on
> the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in
> this sense, competitvity is increased, since the smallest
> software producer can compete on equal terms with the most
> powerful corporations.
>
> It is necessary to stress that there is no position more
> anti-competitive than that of the big software producers,
> which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in
> innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems
> raised by users: "update your software to the new version"
> (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is
> common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for
> products, which, in the provider's judgement alone, are
> "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance,
> the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions
> (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware
> platform are often involved). And as the whole
> infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the
> user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products
> from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change
> to another environment (probably also proprietary).
>
> You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favour a
> business model based entirely on open source, the bill would
> only discourage the local and international manufacturing
> companies, which are the ones which really undertake
> important expenditures, create a significant number of
> direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the
> GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which
> tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it
> mainly creates jobs in the service sector."
>
> I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what
> you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter,
> regarding the relative weight of services in the context of
> software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your
> position. The service model, adopted by a large number of
> companies in the software industry, is much larger in
> economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the
> licensing of programs.
>
> On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the
> widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which
> best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is
> often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate
> expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary
> software.
>
> In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the
> conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential
> for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that
> the choice made by the State in this bill would completely
> eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we
> can deduce that the State must be subsidising the
> proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that
> this were true, the State would have the right to apply the
> subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social
> value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that
> if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to
> do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering
> its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.
>
> In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in
> countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of
> little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians
> who provide support for proprietary software produced by
> transnational companies do not have the possibility of
> fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical
> capability or of talent, but because they do not have access
> to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates
> more technically qualified employment and a framework of
> free competence where success is only tied to the ability to
> offer good technical support and quality of service, one
> stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of
> knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of
> greater total value and a higher quality level, to the
> benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations,
> and consumers.
>
> It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local
> software industries obtain the majority of their takings in
> the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software.
> Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the
> Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated
> by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are
> carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational
> software companies decide not to compete under these new
> rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some
> decrease in takings in terms of payment for licences;
> however, considering that these firms continue to allege
> that much of the software used by the State has been
> illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be
> very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be
> determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be
> avoided; many firms traditionally associated with
> proprietary software have already set out on the road
> (supported by copious expense) of providing services
> associated with free software, which shows that the models
> are not mutually exclusive.
>
> With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to
> preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this
> based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the
> constitutional guarantees. If these values could be
> guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic
> model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial.
> In any case, it should be clear that the State does not
> choose an economic model; if it happens that there only
> exists one economic model capable of providing software
> which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this
> is because of historical circumstances, not because of an
> arbitrary choice of a given model.
>
> Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open
> source software without considering the dangers that this
> can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and
> possible violation of the intellectual property rights of
> third parties."
>
> Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring",
> without specifically mentioning a single one of these
> supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge
> of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.
>
> On security:
>
> National security has already been mentioned in general
> terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of
> the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security
> of the software itself, it is well known that all software
> (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in
> programmers' slang). But it is also well-known that the bugs
> in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly,
> than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that
> numerous public bodies reponsible for the IT security of
> state systems in developed countries require the use of free
> software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.
>
> What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is
> more secure than free, without the public and open
> inspection of the scientific community and users in general.
> This demonstration is impossible because the model of
> proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that
> any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good
> intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer
> itself, or its contractors.
>
> It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing
> conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the
> user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the
> licensed proprietary product.
>
> In respect of the guarantee:
>
> As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the
> "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in
> the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to
> replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in
> no case is compensation given for direct or indirect
> damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a
> security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by
> yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State
> systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would
> your company make in accordance with your licencing
> conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch
> as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state
> in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the
> provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those
> normal with free software.
>
> On Intellectual Property:
>
> Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of
> this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws.
> The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of
> these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software
> is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this
> question in your observations shows your confusion in
> respect of the legal framework in which free software is
> developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of
> others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that
> has been noted in the free software community; whereas,
> unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietry
> software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial
> Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of
> Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages
> and interest, for violation of intellectual property
> (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly
> uses in its publicity).
>
> You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open
> source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily
> imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so
> arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings,
> with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position."
>
> This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of
> cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is
> proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office),
> software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS
> Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for
> (RedHat, SuSE etc Gnu/Linux distributions), software which
> is free and not charged for (Apache, OpenOffice, Mozilla),
> and even software which can be licensed in a range of
> combinations (MySQL).
>
> Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge.
> And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be
> so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions
> included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be
> considered free software, at no point referring to freedom
> from charges. Although the possibility of savings in
> payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned,
> the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental
> guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local
> technological development. Given that a democratic State
> must support these principles, it has no other choice than
> to use software with publicly available source code, and to
> exchange information only in standard formats.
>
> If the State does not use software with these
> characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican
> principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total
> costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved)
> that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the
> simple existence of an effective free software tool for a
> particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not
> by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles
> we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very
> essence of the lawful democratic State.
>
> You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source
> Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group
> (an important investigator of the technological market
> recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of
> purchase of software (operating system and applications) is
> only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take
> on for a rational and truely beneficial use of the
> technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs,
> enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and
> down-time."
>
> This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and
> partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we
> refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me
> to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even
> if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on
> average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in
> any way deny the existence of software which is free of
> charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.
>
> In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that
> the service components and losses due to down-time make up
> the largest part of the total cost of software use, which,
> as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the
> small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the
> use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the
> remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of
> installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in
> the first place, the competitive service model of free
> software, support and maintenance for which can be freely
> contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the
> grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for
> installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for
> maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive
> characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an
> application is easily replicable, without incurring large
> costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same
> thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be
> incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the
> huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens
> of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans,
> exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known
> problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable
> software; and it is well-known that one of the most notable
> virtues of free software is its stability.
>
>
> You further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the
> bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source
> software, compared with the costs of commercial software,
> without taking into account the fact that there exist types
> of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the
> State, as has happened in other countries."
>
> I have already pointed out that what is in question is not
> the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of
> information, accessibility, and security. These arguments
> have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to
> which I would refer you.
>
> On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume
> licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does
> not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly
> pointed out in the immediately precding paragraph of your
> letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component
> which makes up no more than 8% of the total.
>
> You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by
> the bill (i) is clearly more expensive, due to the high
> costs of software migration, and (ii) puts at risk
> compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms
> within the State, and between the State and the private
> sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source
> software on the market."
>
> Let us analyze your stament in two parts. Your first
> argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality
> an argument in favour of the Bill. Because the more time
> goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology
> will become; and at the same time, the security risks
> associated with proprietary software will continue to
> increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and
> formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific
> suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been
> established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on
> the contrary migration from one system to another becomes
> very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On
> the other hand, migration to an open software context
> implies no more costs than migration between two different
> proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your
> argument completely.
>
> The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability
> of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State
> and the private sector" This statement implies a certain
> lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is
> built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on
> a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of
> proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free
> software distributions, and numerous programs which can be
> used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed
> as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the
> bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable
> software given the availability of the source code.
>
> You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does
> not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from
> recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of
> the users, which has led various public organizations to
> retract their decision to go with an open source software
> solution and to use commercial software in its place."
>
> This observation is without foundation. In respect of the
> guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to
> paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible
> to use free software without them (just as also happens with
> proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can
> obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from
> international corporations, again just as in the case of
> proprietary software.
>
> On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our
> analysis if you could inform us about free software projects
> *established* in public bodies which have already been
> abandoned in favour of proprietary software. We know of a
> good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but
> not know of any where what you describe has taken place.
>
> You continue by observing that: "10. The bill demotivates
> the creativity of the peruvian software industry, which
> invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in
> ranking among non-traditional exports, more than
> handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment.
> With a law that incentivates the use of open source,
> software programmers lose their intellectual property rights
> and their main source of payment."
>
> It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize
> their code as free software. The only thing to take into
> account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be
> sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main
> market for the national software industry. We covered some
> questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the
> generation of employment which would be both highly
> technically qualified and in better conditions for
> competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this
> point.
>
> What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one
> hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual
> property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his
> work in the public domain. The free software movement has
> always been very respectful of intellectual property, and
> has generated widespread public recognition of authors.
> Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido
> van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell,
> Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed,
> Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized
> world-wide for their contributions to the development of
> software that is used today by millions of people throughout
> the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for
> authors rights make up the main source of payment of
> Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular
> since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration
> of how the use of free software by the State would influence
> these payments.
>
> You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it
> can be distributed without charge, does not allow the
> generation of income for its developers through exports. In
> this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to
> other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of
> the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary
> to stimulate local industry."
>
> This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the
> mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to
> claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for
> use (sale of licences) is the only possible one for the
> software industry, when you yourself pointed out several
> paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one.
> The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a
> supply of better qualified professionals, together with the
> increase in experience that working on a large scale with
> free software within the State will bring for Peruvian
> technicians, will place them in a highly competitive
> position to offer their services abroad.
>
> You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open
> source software in education was discussed, without
> mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a
> country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who
> founded the project now state that open source software did
> not make it possible to offer a learning experience to
> pupils in the schools, did not take into account the
> capability at a national level to give adequate support to
> the platform, and that the software did not and does not
> allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist
> in schools."
>
> In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar
> (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact
> that the driving forces behind the mexican project used
> license costs as their main argument, instead of the other
> reasons specified in our project, which are far more
> essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a
> result of the lack of effective support from the SEP
> (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption
> was made that to implant free software in schools it would
> be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD
> ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it
> couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories
> fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget
> for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our
> bill is not limited to making the use of free software
> mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable
> migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical
> transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the
> advantages of free software.
>
> You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source
> software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why
> do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market
> which decides freely which products give most benefits or
> value?"
>
> We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must
> be the market that decides which products to use, and no
> state interference is permissible there. However, in the
> case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as
> we have already established, the state archives, handles,
> and transmits information which does not belong to it, but
> which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no
> alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this
> legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to
> safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility
> of this information. The use of proprietary software raises
> serious doubts as to whehter these requirements can be
> fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so
> is not suitable for use in the public sector.
>
> The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of
> the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area
> of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an
> ideal homogoneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies
> with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given
> that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the
> fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the
> personal discretion of any state employee from putting at
> risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above
> all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in
> relation to the means of management and communication of
> information used today, it is based on the republican
> principle of openness to the public.
>
> In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the
> citizen has the right to know all information held by the
> State and not covered by well- founded declarations of
> secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information
> and is itself information. Information in a special form,
> capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to
> execute actions, but crucial information all the same
> because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for
> example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated.
> And for that he must have free access to the source code and
> be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for
> electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.
>
> I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat
> that my office will always be open for you to expound your
> point of view to whatever level of detail you consider
> suitable.
>
> Cordially,
>
>
> DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
> Congressman of the Republica of Perú.
>
> ____________________________
> New Yorker Linux Users Scene
> Fair Use -
> because it's either fair use or useless....
>
____________________________
New Yorker Linux Users Scene
Fair Use -
because it's either fair use or useless....
|
|
