"Software Choice" Campaigns Against Open Source 410
Verizon Guy writes: "News.com is reporting that a group called The Initiative for Software Choice, led by the CompTIA, but backed primarily by Microsoft and Intel, is lobbying against Open Source-only laws in for example, the State of California government and the government of Peru. While their goals don't specifically mention open source, they do mention that publicly-funded research should steer clear of licenses such as the GPL. Interesting read."
Software Choice! HA! (Score:3, Insightful)
No story here... (Score:4, Insightful)
Stop loading the headlines.
Open formats/protocols (Score:5, Insightful)
What I would like the goverments to do is to define open fileformats/protocols and only accept/buy software which supports these formats 100%.
Ofcourse this also means that ALL govermental communication should use these formats and nothing else. This may not be the end of closed source, but at least it levels the playing field and should brings competition back where it belongs: comparing price and quality.
Re:No story here... (Score:3, Insightful)
responsibility
Not true. Fiscal responsibilty in government institutions comes from extremely well written specifications and a closed, low bid system with underwriting. Not allowing a closed source shop to compete certainly does not help fiscal responsibility.
I'm all for open source, but I really don't believe anybody should be strong armed into releasing their code. Remember, freedom of speech should also be freedom not to speak as well.
Free help for "Software Choice" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Procure software on its merits, not through categorical preferences"
Maybe they could say "Please don't judge our product on the license agreement! Our license is designed to maximize our stranglehold on you... and if you disallow our software due to it's license, well, we won't be able to take advantage of you".
"Promote broad availability of government funded research"
Perhaps instead they could say "We'd like to package up taxpayer-funded research and sell it back to the tax payers! All for profit! Please don't take that away from us - because we'd hate to have to pay for more research."
"Promote interoperability through platform-neutral standards"
Perhaps they could say "Don't place standards on us, because we want to try to monopolize the industry. If the standards are open source, how can we lock in our customers?"
"Maintain a choice of strong intellectual property protections"
Maybe it'd be better to say "Don't weaken our intellectual property, because we spent so much money on research! We need to recover our research burden. Of course, much of the research came through tax-payer funded research grants, but we still want it all. After all, we're in it to make as much money as we possibly can, and a legal monopoly is our best approach."
The truth comes out (Score:1, Insightful)
And what does this mean... the primary maker of CPUs, along with AMD (ahem) which is hardly friendly toward Linux, are going to be making a 'security' encryption standard into their products which will likely be as hostile toward free software as get-awayibily possible.
Re:Software Choice! HA! (Score:5, Insightful)
Let the market rule. Some Open Source products rule. Some stink. Some proprietary products rule. Some stink. A law forbidding you from looking at Open Source products would be "bad". A law prohibiting you from considering non-Open Source products is just as bad if not worse.
You have it backwards... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No story here... (Score:2, Insightful)
Quite apart from the campaign trying to dictate how governments should release their research results there are three different things here. The campaign seems to avoid them in welter of vague sounding language.
1) Open file transfer standards
Governments need to be able to be sure they can transfer their data without being reliant on one company. And this has to include guarentees that all future versions of the software will use an open standard as well.But that's not the only factor that needs to be considered.
2) Cost
Laws that say government departments should look at the cheapest option seem reasonable to a tax payer like me.
and the biggy:
3) Security
How does a government know that the black box software it just bought doesn't have a backdoor alloing the CIA to read every file they store on it? They don't. So a law that says 'only use software where we can examine the code' is justified on the grounds of National Security. The Initiative for Software Choice doesn't seem to mention this at all.
If they want to compete in the government sector under 'pro-open source' laws nothing is stopping them, but any company that can't meet these three criteria shouldn't be getting government business in the first place.
I don't mind (Score:4, Insightful)
What I do mind however is if their document format are open or not.
If they are, it is "easy" to change from one application to another.
But if you have to reverse-engineer every document-type, it gets harder.
What really bothers me is the content, not the media.
public domain (Score:2, Insightful)
-Chuck
Re:US Government Copyrights (Score:4, Insightful)
Here it is... (Score:3, Insightful)
If you buy closed source products, you have NO idea if it has a fatal bug or security exploit, and you are at the company's mercy if you want something fixed. PERIOD.
I mean, Jesus people, THINK! What if you install the MicroBuss 5000 database software to store Social Security numbers and Drivers Licences, and then suddenly it gets hacked and all the data is compromised? Here's the quote from MicroBuss:
"Well, we knew about the exploit, but we didn't want to tell anyone until we found a fix for it. It's ready now, just purchase the upgrade to the 6000 series."
Don't laugh too much, this can really happen. Haven't any of you watched The Net? Granted, much of that was Hollywood, but backdoors are a reality. Is it really worth the risk for a minor economic boost? The answer is NO.
Of all the places, I didn't think I'd have to post something like this at Slashdot, but after reading the first dozen or so comments, I guess I was wrong.
Why use Open Source? (Score:2, Insightful)
Why should governments (and people) across the world choose Open Source?
Freedom - Linux and the General Public Licence (GPL) frees you from the chains of software licensing
Control - You are no longer forced into a never-ending cycle of "upgrades"
Growth - Linux makes available the tools and applications that enable you to expand
Security - Witness the hundreds of Windows Security Alerts at CERT
Stability- Up months at a time without a crash or need for rebooting
Customization - immense flexibility
Lower Costs - You can control costs by eliminating license fees, and reducing the cost of your software upgrade cycles.
Linux isn't free. Linux is Freedom.
Re:Call me a cynic... (Score:2, Insightful)
Security and Privacy supersede freedom of choice when dealing with MY Social Security number and MY Driver's Licence.
With Open Source software, the government can make sure that it's software is secure by keeping a staff of programmers. With non-open source software, the government is at the publisher's mercy. Since the publisher's best interests != the government's best interests, this is a situation we should never be in.
Blammo! Another argument falls to friendly fire (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't think the relative difficulty and obscurity of Microsoft "solutions" should count as a cost? I think it's disingenuous to argue that installation and training are costs but hours lost to dead-end surfing or on hold to tech support are not. Let's not even mention per-incident phone support!
Re:No story here... (Score:2, Insightful)
If the job requireds a certain function that a certain tool can't perform, don't select that tool for the that job. Simple common sense. The particular software licensing scheme or proprietary/non-proprietary aspect of it's design has nothing to do with it.
Similarly, if the job requires a certain performance that the license prohibits (even if the tool itself is capable) then the choice of that license by the tool's manufacturer leaves that tool out of the bidding for that job. The manufacturer can always choose to build tools under a different license, if he wants, and the choice of license should remain with the manufacturer. But if the manufacturer decides, for example, to use a license which does not allow his software to be run on mainframe (VMS) systems, and the job demands the software run on such a mainframe, then that particular software is not in the running.
I also don't hear any sane arguments against demanding that the protocols, interfaces, and file formats used in public sector systems be open. This was one of the key points the Peruvian Congressman made; democracy demands this much. This also seems to be one of the points the Software Choice people seem to gloss over.
The problem arises when discussing tasks in the public sector; functions performed on behalf of the taxpayer (that's me) or for the benefit of the taxpayer. Unlike private industry, every one of us is a stakeholder in our own government. We have both the right and responsibility to ensure that the tools we employ are capable of performing the tasks required by the job effectively, efficiently, and in a manner which meets our requirements for the task to be performed. The information (data) already belongs to us (collectively) and we need to ensure that we exercise due dilligence in our stewardship over that data. But in order to do that, we need to ensure that the processes (code) which operate on that data perform correctly, in the same was that we demand that civil service employees don't use governmental office supplies to run their own home businesses.
But with software, it's often difficult to seperate the code from the data. This is true even in systems where the design is to keep them seperate. Some manufacturers have chosen (and were within their rights to do so, IMHO) to blur the line between the data and the code. [One side effect of this is that email messages (data) have become viruses (code), another is that you can't tell where the operating system stops and the web browser begins.]
For use in the public sector therefore, software should not only have clean, clear and well defined interfaces, use only open and public protocols, and require fully defined and specified file formats, (so that the data is always open and accessible) but the functions and procedures of the programs themselves (the code) should be open to verification and scrutiny as well.
This is not to say that all software used in the public sector should be Open Source, but we should certainly demand that the sources be open. If Microsoft can figure out how to both open their sources and build tools which meet the requirements of the task to be performed, they should not be barred from bidding on that contract (except perhaps under the "felons can't bid on government contracts" doctrine, but I digress...) but if they can't (or if they choose not to) then we shouldn't change the task requirements to suit them. Other companies (such as Apple and IBM) have figured out how to meet the openness requirements.
We need to demand openness from our government in every case where secrecy is not critical to national security; the tenets of democracy demand that. As the governed, we should require our contractors to disclose the methods they use to perform the tasks we've hired them to do. If they want secrecy, then they should be content to earn their living in the private sector. In the same vein, since we demand openness, we may have to be willing to settle for a little less efficiency (that has not been proven) or a little more cost (unproven as well). When you consider how much our forefathers gave to obtain the freedom we enjoy today, I think you'll agree it's a small price to pay for continued freedom.
Re:So -- you want the government to set the standa (Score:3, Insightful)
Governemnt should be transparent... (Score:4, Insightful)
The people have the right to know what code the government is using to protect confidential information, criminal records, driving records, manage taxes, etc etc. Closed-source software destroys the possibility of transparency in the government, and denies people that right.
Furthermore, its OUR tax dollars which are paying for this stuff. Thus, more cost-effective solutions -- hence open source software / free software / public domain software -- should be used by the government.
Furthermore, the government should not use any standards which lock/force people into using any particular kind of software. That means no proprietary standards (like MS
Now, regarding government development of software. In all cases, government-funded projects should produce something which is freely available to the public. That means public domain, GPL, or Open Source Licenses. These licenses (or lack thereof) make the results of government-funded projects available to the public. In regards to the GPL, it requires that you GPL any modifications. But this is a good thing. It is good that the government promote recipricol relationship communities, as the GPL does. This is in the public interest. It is in the public's interest that any software produced or funded or supported by the US Government become public domain, GPL, or covered under any of the OSI certified licenses. It is not in the public's interest that such fall under a proprietary license: that means that citizens pay TWICE for a product. Once to support its development, then again to buy it.
The simple fact that in 99.99% of cases using Open Source/GPL software saves money should be enough to justify its use. In the few cases where it doesn't, that's b/c its not as good as the proprietary equivalent, but that can easily be fixed by government-funded development.
Even in the very few (0.01%) of cases where you save money by using proprietary software, that still doesn't justify using it in those cases. Because the public has the right to know what the code is the govenrment is using (as this affects their lives), any code the government uses should be transparent.
Re:not quite so simple (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally I don't appreciate giving money to the government in the form of taxes so that it can be used to compete against my free market corporation.
but consider their reasons aren't just financial: in the case of Peru, they were very much interested in having the ability to fix code themselves, look through it for spyware, and write their own
It's important to note that all of these legitimate goals can be accomplished without the use of the GPL.
Basically the Open Source community has distorted the argument. If you read the Redhat proposed bill it all sounds very good until you get to the anti-commercial software clauses in Section 3, items e and f which demand that all software must be free as in beer as well as open source.
so it's not completely loaded -- it is against open source, partially, under the veil of being pro-choice
Similar to how the Redhat proposed bill is anti-commercial software under the veil of being pro-freedom?
Re:Shoehorning the wrong tool (Score:3, Insightful)
The problems you mention are true but are a little exaggerated.
1. MS word is a bit of a learning curve if you come from Wordperfect(which in it's day rocked). But all of those items you mentioned that cannot be done with Word, can be. MS is quite big on the Healthcare front. I have implemented key expanders for word since 1995.
No one know about google at the hospital?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=
2. A WELL PLANNED ROLLOUT.
This goes for any software implentation that is in a production enviroment such as a hospital. Have 25 percent of the staff begin to switch at first, have em use it for half a day, but slowly roll it out and ease the new product it. ANY change of software will cause downtime in production. AND all employees when switching from something known to something new create a lotta FUD. They are scared, don't want to learn something new, and in many cases they know the new stuff might bring to light some of their faults. Sounds like the hospital IT staff was a little clueless.
Then which brings me the the point of TCO and standards.
Word in the longrun would probably be cheaper than open office and easier to support because people have it at home, can pick up a a dummies book, go to New Horizons, call a friend, many venues for support. And the more widely spread the product on the market, = less calls I get because many people know it and can lean over and help their coworker.
We do need an open standard for documents. I totally agree. BUT when medical records and forms need to be sent in formats that cannot change and need to print on your printer like I look at them on my screen. Insurance claim forms adhere to a certain standard and if they are 1 millionth of a mm off, then the companies wont take em.
Then I am going to choose the most widely accepted format, which in this case is Word.
Word has an 85 percent saturation in the medical industry, and sadly enough I have to go with it but cause it will be around in the long run, TCO. I train em on Word now, the industry supports it, and it will be around.
Word Perfect has been floundering since the 90s. They actually were going out of business and Novell bought them. I have a CD that says Novells Word Perfect. The widespread use is that it has always been bundled free with systems.
This is not a Microsoft ad. As an IT director I choose the least painful route and the less costly in the long run. And in the medical industry word fits the bill.
I use Unix, I like it. I use open office. I use Office, I like em both. Office is a good product
Puto
Re:Software Choice! HA! (Score:2, Insightful)
Besides, it seems unlikely to this free software zealot that most users know much about "open source" or even care... just like most Slashbots don't care about the MPAA when their favorite sci-fi film comes out on DVD.
I believe the idea is to get government to use software that is open, not to force everyone to use it. Do you think the military should buy vehicles from GM if they can't see schematics for the trucks? Do you think intelligence agencies should use software without *full* access to the source code?
I heard a story once about how cameras were installed in Xerox machines sold to the Russian embassy, and the result was some great spy work-- technology is complicated and easily made to work against you.
While Microsoft is certainly a US company, what's to say that one of their programmers is, shall we say, less loyal to the cause, and might insert a backdoor in some server software? What's to say there isn't a glaring security flaw that some Russian hacker's found because the government there pays him to spend all day every day looking for such flaws, but which would have taken an American hacker five minutes to find during a review of the source code? That the source code is available isn't a guarantee of safety, but flaws are a lot easier to find than by guessing.
There is also the issue of taxpayer dollars spent. Not just on shrink-wrapped software, but on custom development. When a government agency develops an application in a proprietary fashion, that money is a sunk cost. When that development is prepared for release to the public, that expense is diluted, without detracting from the utility for that agency. Also, as a taxpayer, I feel I have some right to audit whether custom development funds are being spent wisely-- one way to verify that is to see if the code looks like crap.
Finally, government is a shared resource of the citizenry, as such it should be as efficient as possible. I just read the "Don't Repeat Yourself" chapter of "Pragmatic Programmer", and one of the examples in there was a routine for validating SSN that had been custom written by each departement and application group in an agency. That's wasting taxes. Had there been a spirit of "open source" development, surely this type of code would have been developed as a library that everyone could then rely on. The result would be more likely to be correct (wider review of code), and it would save each group that needs to verify SSNs that much development time. Most importantly, the results would have been uniform across the agency.
But should such software be GPL? I don't think that's necessary. Public domain or BSD licensing is sufficient, nothing prevents Free developers from GPL'ing their own derived works, thereby putting their own efforts into the "share and share alike" realm.
Re:Stalmann told me it wouldn't happen (Score:3, Insightful)