Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Open source's new weapon: The law? (News.com)
News.com reports on a new legal proposal to be unveiled at LinuxWorld next week:
"Open-source software advocates will unfurl a legislative proposal next week to prohibit the state of California from buying software from Microsoft or any other company that doesn't open its source code and licensing policies."
(Log in to post comments)
Well, it would be nice, but... Posted Aug 10, 2002 14:55 UTC (Sat) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] ...it doesn't stand a chance in hell of passing. There are way too many powerful campaign donators in California who sell proprietary software.And, also, while I sort of like the idea of forcing the world to be free, I'm not sure that I really do agree with legislating this. Yes, I understand that it is just what the state government does, and that proprietary software isn't being *outlawed*. Still, this comes across as a heavy-handed tactic on the part of the open source world. I understand and agree with all their arguments, but there will be counterarguments galore about "the best tool for the best job", fairness to all businesses, people who *need* (or are most used to) a certain tool which only runs on Windows, etc. etc. etc. -Rob
Well, it would be nice, but... Posted Aug 10, 2002 15:37 UTC (Sat) by tawtao (guest, #3187) [Link] Well ... it seems to me every things are all about money in US politic.I think it is true around the world, including Peru. They turns to Open Source because they don't have money to by proprietary software. I don't want to see proprietary software being "outlawed". But I don't like when "money" from big companies drive some law, such as DMCA, or UITCA ... etc. Tom
Well, it would be nice, but... Posted Aug 10, 2002 22:45 UTC (Sat) by Strike (guest, #861) [Link] Heck, I think the fact that even such a thing is being considered is a major breakthrough (not to mention a minor surprise as well). Perhaps people are coming to their senses :)
Well, it would be nice, but... Posted Aug 11, 2002 8:05 UTC (Sun) by Russell (guest, #1453) [Link] And, also, while I sort of like the idea of forcing the world to be free, I'm not sure that I really do agree with legislating this. Don't think of it as forcing the world to be free, but instead removing the force put on your citizens to buy non free software to interact with your government.
Well, it would be nice, but... Posted Aug 11, 2002 11:59 UTC (Sun) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] Don't think of it as forcing the world to be free, but instead removing the force put on your citizens to buy non free software to interact with your government. Except that a law mandating that Open Source be used goes further than that. Mind you, I'm entusiastically in favor of legislation that all software used by the government must use open standards and open protocols, and that all protocols and formats approved as official "standards" for the internet must be open, documented, and completely royalty-free standards. That is what forces people to buy non-free software, since free software can't implement royaltied standards legally at all, and maybe not even proprietary standards any more (since the DMCA has all but outlawed classical reverse engineering). Any other legislation is oppressive and stupid. However, making the next step that the software itself purchased by the government must be Open Source is less obvious to me. As an extension to this: Microsoft was found to be a monopoly. As such, it should be forced to open and fully document its standards for Word and other file formts, and it should be legally prevented from marketing new versions of any of those applications without first publishing the file format. Additionally, Micorosft must ensure that those formats may be implemented by anybody in a royalty free fashion (even if that means Microsoft has to purchase patents so as to make them royalty free). Those formats are de facto standards, and if the government had any clue, any teeth, or any honor left, after it found Microsoft was a Monopoly it would recognize them as standards and ensure that the playing field was level. This won't happen, since Microsoft has more power, influence, and money than the concept of reasonableness and sanity does. It should also whack Microsoft around *really* hard for their recent strongarming of Dell and others preventing them from selling computers without OSes. If that's not monpolistic behavior, I don't know what is. -Rob
Well, it would be nice, but... Posted Aug 11, 2002 16:24 UTC (Sun) by pointwood (subscriber, #2814) [Link] Yes, I agree 100% - we/they should lobby for open and royalty free standards. That would also (IMHO) have a much better chance of becomming a law.
Well, it would be nice, but... Posted Aug 11, 2002 21:46 UTC (Sun) by Russell (guest, #1453) [Link] In the extreme I see it like this example. Let's suppose that a government makes a law that outlaws slavery. Is this a good law because it frees people? Or is this a bad law because it takes away the choice of the slave owners to have slaves? Or is this not wildly not applicable? I think it is somewhat applicable. But I do see your point that open, free, ... standards do accomplish the same thing without taking away government freedom. But consider this. It's your tax dollars, it's your government, and both should be working to meet your communities needs and desires. Shouldn't the people be able to craft the society they would like to live in?
Re: Well, it would be nice, but... Posted Aug 18, 2002 4:11 UTC (Sun) by BobRobertson (guest, #2048) [Link] There's no "but". People get the government they deserve.California politicians do what they do because it gets them re-elected. If they thought that mandating 100% OpenSource software would get them re-elected, they would do it in a heartbeat. It has nothing to do with the "will of the community", unless or until that "will" translates into votes or bullets. The citizens of California have been decieved, robbed and murdered. Do you really think they're going to stand up for "software"? As individuals, they certainly do. That independence is being actively crushed, it should be intersting to see which breaks first. Bob-
Open source's new weapon: The law? (News.com) Posted Aug 10, 2002 18:55 UTC (Sat) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] Hmmm... Is this meant to promote open sourced and "free" software, or is it meant to promote Linux? In other words, what if Microsoft, Apple, whoever, wanted to open up access to their source code? Would Red Hat be so happy to jump on the bandwagon? What about LI? IBM?Also, consider the track record of open source and "free" software developers when it comes to support. And don't tell me "there's great support on the Internet free of charge". Until Joe and Jane Clueless can get on a newsgroup and ask questions that have been answered one or more times already without being mercilessly flamed by techies, this "great support on the Internet" is not sufficient. The irony of Internet tech support is that the folks who don't need it seem to be the only ones allowed to utilize it. Then, consider who would be the group to determine what is allowed and what is not allowed. Judging by the wording of the article (which I know I should take with a few grains of salt) it sounds like any *company* that does not open up its source code and licensing policies is out of the game. In my view, any application that a company produces and distributes in a manner consistent with OSI's policies would qualify; on the flip side, folks like Richard Stallman would probably consider the company in general to be out of it if it distributes any of its software in a proprietary manner (case in point: Caldera, who opens up some of its software but leaves the rest proprietary. Stallman labels Caldera "parasites", and I can only guess he'd do the same with any other company that has not adopted a 100% GPL policy toward its software). Sorry, but I don't think this legislation should fly. There's too much about this that's arbitrary, and in my view it's just as bad to force people into using open sourced and/or free software as it is to force people to use proprietary software. I don't like this at all...
That will suit Microsoft tactics perfectly. Well thought! Posted Aug 10, 2002 22:00 UTC (Sat) by nan (guest, #710) [Link] This is great news! Whoever thought of this should be given a price. Yes, there is little chance that this will pass, but the effect of this going to the press is fantastic. Why? Well, consider Peru and Villanueva's proposed laws to force the government there to use free software. This is nothing like outlawing proprietary software, not at all. Just that for the Government it just makes sense. It opens the market for more players. It allows everyone, proprietary and free software, access to the protocols to work with the government. And everyone has to work with the government one way or another. And what does Microsoft do? Well, if it wasn't enough with a letter from the Microsoft Chief of Peru, they invite the president of Peru to Seattle to meet Bill Gates. And Bill gives half a million dollars for education programs in Peru. Sure, it will benefit the kids in the short term, ripping off the parents, the society and the government in the long term. It will make the government dependant on proprietary software. It will educate kids on the use of Microsoft products, getting ready to milk (a euphemism) Peru not just this generation, but for as many as they can. Keep the local economy from growing a software industry, something that, otherwise, is well within their reach. And yes, there is the chance that Peru's governing bodies also see this, so, Microsoft decides to make use of the money they paid to the US Government and sends the US ambassador with a missive. The missive, no matter how you look at it is obviously pro Microsoft. As someone wrote in Slashdot and someone else mentioned here, US Democracy: where every dollar is fairly represented. All in all, that's ok. No problem with Microsoft being a company that looks for its own interest. The problem is that as a convicted monopolist that Microsoft is, been for years now, it has gathered amounts of money far beyond many small countries gross product. And its influence, by many means, is far from something that can be dealt by any other player in fairness. Yes, free software might be the best for a country like Peru if the government there or its people find that so, but going against Microsoft, who can buy anything or anyone if it so desires (did already -- US ambassador, remember? and not counting the buy out of the US Government itself, but I leave that for Conspiracy Theorists better than me ;) ) needs any help in can get to succeed. And guess what? Yes, this announcement does it. It does it because now someone in Peru will be able to point to it -- "You see, even the state of California is thinking about this". They are already able to point to Norway, Germany and possibly others, but every little helps. It helps because even the greatest ideas take time to permeate in society. And this is just another seed that will keep on growing. Yes, push it forward. Make out of this a good PR campaign. Keep attacking Microsoft in as many fronts as possible. Let's not forget that Microsoft is a monopoly, a world wide one. The courts said it.
That will suit Microsoft tactics perfectly. Well thought! Posted Aug 10, 2002 23:03 UTC (Sat) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] ...let's also not forget that "Government" does not necessarily equate "Microsoft Prisoner". Every time I've had to deal with any government organization I've had to do so through a 3270-like terminal connected to a mainframe. No Microsoft to be found. Ditto for state run schools; no Microsoft in any system I've ever interfaced with. Sure, there are probably offices in the government that use Windows, but there are many who do not who would be forced to start migrating OSes to something like Linux or *BSD. If you've ever had to replace operating systems on thousands of computers you'd know why people are so hesitant to do so. This supposedly "good thing" would be a nightmare to implement, and in the process those who made it all happen would quickly fall out of favor to many folks that are much better off as allies. As nice as this may sound on paper, it's not so nice in practice.Of course, I -- like you -- have no faith in this passing so I'm not overly concerned... I'm going to guess this entire ordeal is an opportunity to squeeze out some free press, something I wouldn't blame anyone for trying to get. More power to 'em...
Open source's new weapon: The law? (News.com) Posted Aug 11, 2002 4:15 UTC (Sun) by bender183 (guest, #3203) [Link] Hey man open source gets bullied enough its about time we started bullying back.
Open source's new weapon: The law? (News.com) Posted Aug 11, 2002 16:31 UTC (Sun) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] "Open source" doesn't get bullied any more than proprietary software does. In fact, if I had to guess I'd say proprietary software is bullied more. You're just sensitive to the times when "open source" is bullied.Playing the same games as the Microsofts, Oracles, etc. of the world will do little more than cause them to fight harder, and believe me they have much more effective resources than we do. You can't win playing that game, period. If "open source" is going to win, it must win on its merits, not through foolish legislation, going to court with 800 pound gorillas, staging silly public DMCA-defying stunts, through flaming reporters, or any of the other things I see people in our "community" either doing today or mumbling about doing tomorrow. If we can't sell people on using open sourced and "free" software without foolishly going head to head with the Microsofts of the world, we don't have much of a chance of succeeding IMHO. Any group that feels it can only succeed by either bad mouthing the competition or by eliminating competition altogether is a group that has little of value to sell. If the goods were valuable, they could be sold to people using other methods. Fighting dirty diminishes the value of the goods being sold. I don't see Intuit (the Quicken folks) playing dirty tricks on folks in an effort to push them into using their software. Nor do I see this from Apple, Cisco, Macromedia, Palm, etc.
Re: Open source's new weapon: The law? (News.com) Posted Aug 11, 2002 19:19 UTC (Sun) by HalfMoon (guest, #3211) [Link] Oh puhleeeze. The point is that the merits need to address basic constitutional virtues of free and equal access by all citizens ... and certain kinds of closed source software are at war with those principles. Not that I know anything realistic about the proposal yet, but I'd think a fine solution would be to just place the issues identified by our favorite Peruvian Congressman into to formal evaluation criteria for all CA State government contracts. So for example no vendor could "own" the data format (or ideally, distribution channels) used with public records or forms. There's another "open source" issue lately ... tax filing software! It turns out that (local) companies like Intuit are for some reason opposed to the state having software that lets citizens file California taxes directly on-line, rather than having to go through Intuit or an accounting firm (Arthur Anderson or whoever). Gee, go figure: within two weeks of each other, two bills are discussed that can have serious market-opening effects. I can only hope these both go beyond the "discuss" stage ...!
Re: Open source's new weapon: The law? (News.com) Posted Aug 11, 2002 21:03 UTC (Sun) by erat (guest, #21) [Link] | The point is that the merits need to address basic constitutional| virtues of free and equal access by all citizens ... and certain kinds | of closed source software are at war with those principles. Great. Then have the legislation remove any limitations proprietary software vendors are trying to impose. That will open up the market for all players, not just proprietary OR open source vendors. What the forementioned proposal is trying to do is completely lock out proprietary software. In my view, that's just as evil as locking out open sourced and free software. Again, eliminating the competition is not the right way to go about this. Level the playing field, allowing all players to participate. Let the market decide what's good and what isn't. | Not that I know anything realistic about the proposal yet, but I'd think I see nothing wrong with this. Only allowing open file formats or file formats that are supported well by applications on just about any OS (i.e. RTF, Office 95 formats, SGML, plain text, etc.) just makes sense. Any OS -- proprietary or otherwise -- could be used with these formats. Enforcing this does not require the "only open sourced and free software" limitation it sounds like the proposed legislation is pushing.
If Intuit or whoever wants to lock in a proprietary format, I wish them luck because I don't see any way they'll succeed in doing so. That's an example of a battle that's worth fighting. Keeping markets open is my goal. That is, "open" in the true definition of the word, allowing anyone and everyone to participate. Laws that cover freedom are not put in place to protect those who agree with you; they are there to protect those who differ with your view of what's right and wrong. Closing off either side of the issue by simply legislating it away is not what I consider a viable solution to what I agree is a potentially serious problem.
|
|
||||||||||