Peru Passes Free Software Law - That's Free as in Free Speech (Groklaw) [LWN.net]

Groklaw reports that Peru has passed its law encouraging procurement of Free Software by the government.

The law defines free software and proprietary software by means of the licenses, as per my own translation:

1. Free Software: is software whose license guarantees the following: unrestricted use of the program for any use; unrestricted right to study the code and figure out how the program works; to make and distribute copies of the program; to modify the program and freely distribute the modifications under the same free conditions as the original program.

2. Proprietary software: is software whose license does not permit you to do all or any of the things listed in the above definition.

to post comments

Peru Passes Free Software Law - That's Free as in Free Speech (Groklaw)

Posted Sep 27, 2005 22:05 UTC (Tue) by mepr (guest, #4819) [Link] (2 responses)

This has gone without comment for a day or two
But the article is good news

Hooray

There
I feel better

Recommendation or Requirement

Posted Sep 28, 2005 13:21 UTC (Wed) by man_ls (guest, #15091) [Link] (1 responses)

While it is a positive step, I think that we can do better. It makes sense for governments to require delivery of source code along with their software projects; and in those cases where it is in the public interest, to make it public under a free software license. It can also be reasonable for governments to use or purchase only free software, for multiple reasons we all know: convenience, choice of suppliers and maintainers and so on.

It is good news for a government to encourage procurement of free software; but a recommendation can be ignored, overheard or arm-twisted. When free software is a requirement, then it will really be time to rejoice together.

Recommendation or Requirement

Posted Sep 28, 2005 16:12 UTC (Wed) by darktjm (guest, #19598) [Link]

Even a legal mandate can be bypassed. Ada was required for military contracts for a while, but the mandate had giant loopholes, like "where cost effective" and "unless specially exempted by a designated official". Contractors could bypass this law by implementing in the language of their choice, and then saying upon submission that it would be too expensive to change to Ada. Or, they could just get their friends in high places to waive the requirement. Nonetheless, the mandate did promote greater use of Ada far more than a recommendation would have, so a free software mandate would probably have the same effect.

Peru Passes Free Software Law - That's Free as in Free Speech (Groklaw)

Posted Sep 28, 2005 11:13 UTC (Wed) by toufeeq_hussain (guest, #25235) [Link] (5 responses)

<quote>
Free Software: is software whose license guarantees the following: unrestricted use of the program for any use;</quote>

Does that mean "Free" software can be used for proprietary purposes like software under the BSD Licenses ?

Peru Passes Free Software Law - That's Free as in Free Speech (Groklaw)

Posted Sep 28, 2005 11:58 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link] (2 responses)

What is a "proprietary" USE?? The problem with proprietary software isn't
how it is USED, but how it is restricted from being distributed (especially
its source code)... The GPL, for example, places no restrictions on USE;
so whatever you mean by "used for proprietary purposes" would be allowed
equally under the GPL as under BSD or anything else (short of an EULA type
thing, which adds use restrictions)... Unless you didn't really mean "used"
but rather "distributed as closed-source proprietary software", in which
case you shouldn't be studying the "use" portion of the language, but rather
the "distribute" portion...

Proprietary uses

Posted Sep 28, 2005 13:40 UTC (Wed) by Max.Hyre (subscriber, #1054) [Link] (1 responses)

What is a "proprietary" USE?? The problem with proprietary software isn't how it is USED [....]

How about those licenses which prevent you from using the software to compare its performance with other benchmarks (at least in public)? Obviously, any application for which this restriction is feasible has many other strikes against it, but...

Proprietary uses

Posted Sep 28, 2005 13:47 UTC (Wed) by RobSeace (subscriber, #4435) [Link]

Um, yes, but what has that got to do with my post or the one I was replying
to?? I agree such EULA terms are stupid and evil... But, that's really
got nothing to do with what's being discussed... The parent post tried to
claim that the wording that said free software must be usable for any use
was bad because it meant it could be "used for proprietary purposes",
whatever THAT means... And, I was just pointing out that USING the software
can't really be "proprietary"; it's DISTRIBUTING it that matters...

Peru Passes Free Software Law - That's Free as in Free Speech (Groklaw)

Posted Sep 28, 2005 12:32 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

I think "use" means "running" or "executing" the program. I don't think it means copying or modifying. Copying and modifying acts on the software, but it is not "using" the software. That's just my interpretation, but it seems intuitive.

Peru Passes Free Software Law - That's Free as in Free Speech (Groklaw)

Posted Sep 29, 2005 7:17 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

Read the Groklaw article.

The consensus seems to be that it's not copyleft.

BSD is "Free as in I *can* pass on the freedom", GPL is "Free as in I *must* pass on the freedom". Those people who understand Spanish seem to be of the opinion that the BSD version is fine according to the law.

Cheers,
Wol