Opinion on Brazil making Open Source mandatory in government [LWN.net]

From:		stanco <stanco@gwu.edu>
To:		stanco@gwu.edu, tony@egovos.org
Subject:		Opinion on Brazil making Open Source mandatory in government
Date:		Fri, 13 Jun 2003 06:52:37 -0400

According to the report below, Brazil is making Open Source mandatory for 80% 
of all computers in state institutions and businesses, setting up a "Chamber 
for the Implementation of Software Libre."

While I think that Open Source in government is a good thing and have been 
working towards that goal for many years, making it mandatory is an industrial 
policy that may not succeed, which will hurt Open Source in the long run.

It is much better for governments to set up a real level playing field in 
procurement policy and then let the market decide on merit. If a product can't 
make it in the market without government mandates, then history has shown that 
it won't make it with government mandates either. Brazil would have been 
better off to have a policy to buy the best software for its technical needs, 
whether it is Open Source or proprietary.  In my opinion, Open Source would 
succeed on the merits in most cases without the market distortions that 
government preference programs cause. Ironically, if Brazil buys Open Source 
just because it is Open Source rather than the best product, their citizens 
will likely suffer long term.

If governments want to create a culture of Open Source in their country to 
create an indigenous software industry (a noble goal), they are much better 
off working in the area of Education Policy, rather than Procurement Policy. 
To use a sports metaphor, Procurement Policy should be a race where the best 
win, so it needs to be a scrupulously fair competition for all. Whereas 
Education Policy is the practice and training exercises for the big race. 
Using Procurement Policy for Open Source, ensures that Open Source wins 
because they "knee cap" the competition, a morally unsatisfying "win". Using 
Education Policy for Open Source ensures that Open Source wins because it 
produces the best developers and software product.

Brazil should reconsider it strategy.

Best regards,

Tony Stanco
Founding Director
The Center of Open Source & Government
http://www.eGovOS.org
tony@egovos.org

Associate Director
Open Source and eGovernment
Cyber Security Policy and Research Institute
George Washington University
[NSA Center of Excellence in Information Assurance]
2033 K Street, NW, Suite 340
Washington, DC 20006
tel        202-994-5513
fax       202-994-5505
http://www.cpi.seas.gwu.edu
Stanco@gwu.edu


+++++++


The Brazilian Public Sector to Choose Free Software
Posted on Saturday, June 07 @ 01:24:07 EDT by yama


 Nameless Foo writes " Translated Summary by Gonzalo Porcel 
(http://www.gporcel.net)

Original Story can be read here:
http://www.hispalinux.es/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=209

http://www.pclinuxonline.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=6879 
(English)

Rio de Janeiro, 2 June (EFE) The Brazilian government plans to migrate from 
Windows to Linux 80% of all computers in state institutions and state-owned 
businesses, informed the daily newspaper "Valor". This will be a gradual 
migration, that will begin with a pilot project in one ministry and which will 
be completed over a period of three years, according to official sources cited 
by the financial daily.

The goal of the migration is to save money by finding alternatives to 
expensive proprietary licenses. Highlighting the gradual phase-in approach 
that the Brazilian government has adopted, Sergio Amadeu de Silveira, the 
president of the National Institute of Information Technology, stated that "We 
are not just going to do a hasty migration". He proceeded to say that "our 
main concern is the security and the trust of our citizens. The biggest 
resistance to any change comes from the existing cultural inertia".

The government, De Silveira explained, created two weeks ago the "Chamber for 
the Implementation of Software Libre" to pave the way for the upcoming 
migration.

A small part of the 2,095 million reals (about USD $700 million) that the 
Brazilian government budgeted for information technology spending goes to 
Microsoft, owner of the Windows OS. The government's decision to adopt Linux, 
according to De Silveira, will boost the popularity of the operating system 
among businesses and consumers. Moreover, it will foster the production of 
local software and "democratize access to knowledge", said De Silveira.

(Log in to post comments)

Wrong way to look at it

Posted Jun 14, 2003 0:10 UTC (Sat) by roskegg (subscriber, #105) [Link]

Free Software is about freedom, not about money. The government would not be buying the software unless it needed it for it's own use. Democratic transparency REQUIRES the use of Free Software by the government. I believe the use of the phrase Open Source obscures this fact, because it was promoted by people who don't care about our ideals of freedom, and were looking to promote free software as a "silver bullet". It isn't. It is an entirely different concept of how to live life.

Markets and "economic fitness" of software have nothing to do with Free Software or it's use in government. Whether government uses software or not is irrelevant to how well or poorly the software does in the proprietary market. As the Peruvian congressman pointed out, the government has no obligation to subsidize the software industry. As long as the software it pays for fits it's needs, that is sufficient to satisfy the taxpayer.

And finally, Free Software gives governments a lot more confidence in the security and fitness of the software, since spyware is more easily detectable.

I would like to suggest to Mr. Tony Stanco that he re-read the letter of the Peruvian congressman to Microsoft, where all the above items and more are described in sufficient detail to convince anyone that Brazil has made a great step forward, leading the way into the future for the rest of us.

Viva Brazil!

A Debian Developer

The other side

Posted Jun 14, 2003 0:29 UTC (Sat) by hmh (subscriber, #3838) [Link]

Here is a healthy dose of Brazilian reality: The only thing that doesn't result in export of US$ (the hard currency, which we DON'T have nearly enough in Brazil, mind you) sooner or later is software (may be proprietary) running on top of free software.

There are no "proprietary OSes" made in Brazil (of notice anyway). And we sort of have a strong monopoly on OS rooted deeply in here, which makes it an uneven playing field for any other OSes (proprietary or not).

Now, explain to me why, given our current economics and US$ reserves, we should even consider trying for a "level playing field" for software? We are NOT talking long term concerns here, but medium term ones, and the current software market is anything but a "level playing field" anyway.

Also, most of the time, proprietary software in government means your well known Microsoft Office + Windows combo, which also results in a lot of US$ leaving the country as licenses for no other reason then the fact that people don't know how to use something else for an office suite. Oh, maybe 1% of those people DO need something the free office suites and OSes won't provide, but that's why nobody is mandating 100% of the software to be free software.

You need a top-down aproach to get your usual government worker to switch away from the "market standard" due to the extremely heavy social inertia, you see. Otherwise, things just move too slowly.

On that light, it makes a LOT of sense to use a heavy hand on forcing the public servants (government workers) to switch to Free Software where possible.

Maybe in a few years no such measures will be needed, but right now it is not a matter of technical excelence. It is economics. We are probably better off if the government ends up spending twice the money it is spending now with licenses in indirect software costs (training, etc) as long as that money won't leave the country.

Opinion on Brazil making Open Source mandatory in government

Posted Jun 14, 2003 1:17 UTC (Sat) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]

One serious problem with trying to use Opensource software in this type of environment is that managers tend to want to do the 'safe' thing and get something they know (the whole 'nobody ever got fired for buying ___' argument)

even in an officially level playing field this sort of attitude will result in a lot of propriatary software being purchased when there is no need for it. As a result mandating special consideration for Opensource software is a valid short-term approach.

at the risk of hitting eople's hot button, the situation is similar to racial tensions in the US in the 1950' and 1960's, even when the law stated that there was no different treatment for different races, practice proved that there was, at the time implementing Quotas got the ball rolling, nowdays people augue that quotas have outlived their need and are now causing more problems then they solve and quotas are being scaled back.

in the same way in many situations Opensource software needs an 'unfair' advantage in the short term, even though in the long run such policies will need to be eliminated

Opinion on Brazil making Open Source mandatory in government

Posted Jun 14, 2003 9:40 UTC (Sat) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]

Tony's concerns presume a level playing field which does not exist. It is the job of government to create a level playing field. The fact that the Brazilian government has set a target of 80% free software (a market which allows for a level playing field between suppliers) over a period of a few years simply indicates to me that this government is doing the job which it is elected and empowered to do, unlike most other governments who have not yet fully appreciated the monopolistic implications of having a closed-source software supplier with an entrenched market position.

This decision only exludes proprietary suppliers who choose not to compete within the terms of supply which a large purchaser can reasonably choose to apply to those tendering for large public purchases. If Microsoft chooses through its business policies to exclude itself from this market that is Microsoft's decision and problem.

Opinion on Brazil making Open Source mandatory in government

Posted Jun 14, 2003 13:22 UTC (Sat) by iksrazal (guest, #5184) [Link]

As someone who is a software engineer for the Brazillian government, I feel compelled to reply.

Open source is widely used and discussed as an option in almost every reguard. Yet virtually all server-based apps are run on solaris. In most cases you can choose to run linux on the desktop - some even choose bsd. Open source development tools such as eclipse are fastly becoming standard for even those running Windows.

However, proprietary software has many staunch supporters. All the managers run Windows. Though Crossover demonstrations has raised some eyebrows, none I have seen have 'crossed over.' Support contracts with IBM mean using their tools such as Websphere instead of JBoss, though tomcat is used sometimes. Java is pretty open for a closed standard, but still not open source. Often tools such as PVCS revision control somehow have strong allies.

That all said, I have a hard time taking this announcement seriously.

1) There are lies, damn lies, and statistics. That %20 will be a very wide %20.
2) Pirated software is available on half the street corners for little more than the price of the cd. This means there is a low barrier for getting it in the door - no accountants are going to stop you. No BSA here that I am aware of.
3) No one really thinks these announcements have the credibility required to change anything.

Still, I believe a far more powerful element for software livre is the developers themselves. Its 'legal' (kool), and has a lot of enthusiasm that is growing rapidly. In the last six months alone I've seen a lot of converts.

As a side note, the whole SCO affair has zero visibility here. Not a single person has mentioned it and the media has completly ignored it.

Software livre ou morte!
iksrazal

Opinion on Brazil making Open Source mandatory in government

Posted Jun 14, 2003 18:13 UTC (Sat) by lpbbear (guest, #4827) [Link]

A level playing field in the software industry does not yet exist.

When US Ambassadors can intervene in Microsofts behalf as in Peru,

http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=3268

When members of the DOJ can "visit" the EU on Microsofts behalf

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/archive/25348.html

When members of the Microsoft elite can be ushered in to the inner circles of various governments and companies while their only competitors
are forced to wait in line for an audience.

http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/1832381
http://www.corpwatch.org/news/PND.jsp?articleid=4859
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/1997/Mar97/johan1.asp
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nb20030226a1.htm
http://www.cw360.com/Article120798.htm

We do not have a level playing field and as long as money and influence are allowed to out shout common sense we will not have fair
competition in the marketplace.
Unfortunately rules mandating balance, even if they go to the other extreme for a short period, will be required to restore fairness in the
marketplace.

Losing focus

Posted Jun 14, 2003 19:41 UTC (Sat) by jneves (subscriber, #2859) [Link]

In my opinion, Tony Stanco doesn't understand the issues at stake. The issue here is not competition, nor price, nor reliability. A government is not a company. The issue is that my government (in this case Portugal) has my signature in systems they don't know how they work and they can't know how they work (reverse-engineering is illegal for security auditing).

If anyone accesses the systems that manage either the passport, identity card or driver's license processes, someone can simply put me in a lot of trouble, including, getting me in debt with banks and signing contracts in my behalf without my authorisation.

This is a real problem, and one that they can't fix without refusing proprietary software.

Necessary to limit liability

Posted Jun 16, 2003 18:02 UTC (Mon) by iabervon (subscriber, #722) [Link]

I subscribe to the pragmatic "use the best tool for the job, regardless of license" view. On the other hand, the best tool for the job depends not only on the technical merit of the software but the license; a tool which is illegal or impossible to use for the job is never best. If you cannot get a license which permits you to use the software in the way you require, it should be excluded even if it is technically better for your purpose. Furthermore, it may be important to choose software which you can prove that you are using legally (rather than simply such that it would be impractical to prove that you are using illegally).

So it seems plausible and likely that Brazil's use of software depends on some uses which are possible but illegal with non-Free software. License management for a country's worth of low-paid government workers is basically impossible. Unless a vendor is willing to license the software such that Brazil is not required to prevent government workers from copying it, Brazil cannot be sure they are safe from prosecution. How exactly would you prove that software installed on more machines than any individual will ever see in person is properly licensed without necessarily trustworthy people? By making sure that the installed software is licensed for use by anyone anywhere, without any usage restrictions.

Demonstrating a GPL violation requires an end user (who got a program without the source and license) in addition to the copyright holder, and a GPL violation is generally easy, safe, and cheap to fix (unless you've built modifiy binaries and lost the changes without giving the source to anyone, I guess). This makes it much safer from a user licensing perspective than anything proprietary.

Opinion on Brazil making Open Source mandatory in government

Posted Jun 17, 2003 9:42 UTC (Tue) by borges (guest, #12054) [Link]

I'm sorry Mr Stanco but I think you better at least pay a little more attetion on what is being done __before__ starting to say that a federal government decision is wrong and should be reconsidered.

I'm honestly amazed by your capacity to say somebody is wrong without knowing the subject you are talking about.

Please understand that:

Brazilian Government is __not__ making the use of __OpenSource__ __mandatory__ for 80% of all it's computers.

Brazilian government is going to migrate 80% of it's installed computers to FreeSoftware.

Now please observe two mistakes you made:

1. There _is_ a difference between Free Software and Open Source (as I'm sure you know <wink>); note that in the text you cited yourself there is no mention to the word "Open". Hint: Jose Dirceu "ministro da casa civil" (e.g. "minister of the civil house"), which is BTW perhaps the most porwerful man in the gov. after the president, talked these days on the subject and he was using the words "Software Livre" (e.g."Free Software") (http://linux-sc.opens.com.br/noticias.php?codnot=12 <- this is in portuguese).

2. No one is talking on _mandatory_ use. Where did you came up with that from?? There is no proposal by the part of the federal government of making laws forcing the next federal government or any state or city governments to adopt one or another type of software based on it's license. They (fed. gov.) just decided to migrate part of the (fed. gov. owned) existing base system to FreeSoftware.

--------------------

Some comments on this decision: AFAIK this had been decided from day one of this government, since from the early beginning (of their mandate) IBM was hired to study how feasible this migration would be (I think that this study should now be finished in order for gov. people to be talking like this).

The Worker's Party (currently holding federal power) has already made trasitions of this type in several cities where they had mayors in previous years (I believe that at in least in one state as well); so this move does not surprise anyone paying attention to what was being made by them.

Connectiva's web site (www.connectiva.com.br) used to carry a list of cities (in Brazil) where the use of FreeSoftware had been made _mandatory_ by law. Don't know if it's still there.

Regards,
Borges.