Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software Government Politics

Peru Passes Free Software Law 178

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the line-em-up-and-knock-em-down dept.
wlan0 writes "Peru has passed a law favoring Open Source in the Government (translated using Google translator) after some time and some fights thanks to the help of Peruvian Congressman Villanueva and APESOL(Peruvian Free Software Association). OpenSource.org also provides the full text of the Bill."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Peru Passes Free Software Law More

Peru Passes Free Software Law

Comments Filter:

  • Excellent. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Orrin Bloquy ( 898571 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:03PM (#13653629) Journal
    Free software In peRu; outSTanding PrOmiSe for The open source movement.

  • Voting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by karvind ( 833059 ) <karvind@NospaM.gmail.com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:06PM (#13653646) Journal
    From the translated article: With 61 votes to favor 0 in against and 5 abstentions from a total of 66 congressmen, ...

    I say, GO PERU !! No against at all.

  • WOW (Score:4, Interesting)

    by zappepcs ( 820751 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:08PM (#13653659) Journal
    I'm continually amazed that MS has such traction that F/OSS has to fight to get anywhere. If MS and Linux were cars (never mind old jokes) people would be buying magazines to compare, taking test drives, and asking their buddies which one to buy... but with an OS, OMG, if you don't use MS, you must be one of those Linux geek nutjobs... and surely FREE software can't be as good as stuff you pay an arm and leg for... righ?

    Why do we have to pass laws to compete with MS? That is the real story! I bet its an interesting read too... Shame that weather is the only thing that gets full coverage these days.
    • Shame that weather is the only thing that gets full coverage these days.

      There is a reason, thousands probably died and billions of dollars worth of damage. Can linux or MS match that level of damage?

      • Re:WOW (Score:2, Informative)

        by chphilli ( 885315 )
        Well, MS has viruses/bugs/etc that have probably caused billions of dollars of damage...

        ...and I know that at least thousands of people have wanted to shoot themselves after working with Windows!


        (Good thing for me there's not actually a "-1 insensitive clod" modifier! (I'm really not that heartless!))

        • But the bugs that cost billions of dollars to fix also have some interesting "unintended consequences:"

          1. More IT consultants find more work
          2. More F/OSS developers create more solutions to the Microsoft issues
          3. ???
          4. Profit!

      • Re:WOW (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Xarius ( 691264 )
        Thousands die every day. Just because these people happened to die in a more spectacular fashion than anyone else doesn't make them more newsworthy. And the unfortunate weather incident will affect a lot less people than Operating Systems that make the entire modern world go round.

        *waves goodbye to his karma*

    • Re:WOW (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Prof. Pi ( 199260 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:17PM (#13653721)
      If MS and Linux were cars (never mind old jokes) people would be buying magazines to compare

      And the mags would be totally worthless, as their editors would just praise the cars mindlessly, especially those produced by major advertisers. Better cars made by small companies would hardly ever be mentioned. And PHBs would decide which cars to use for their corporate fleets based on the magazines rather than their own mechanics, who actually understand cars.

      • Are you implying there are better cars made by small companies that we have all overlooked because of the car-industrial complex has manipulated the media into not telling us about it?

        Which cars in your opinion should we all be taking another look at?

        • "Are you implying there are better cars made by small companies that we have all overlooked because of the car-industrial complex has manipulated the media into not telling us about it?"

          Yes. Does that surprise you?

          "Which cars in your opinion should we all be taking another look at?"

          Well, how about the Bricklin, for one? I mean, sheesh, that little beauty could travel in time!

          • Well, how about the Bricklin, for one? I mean, sheesh, that little beauty could travel in time!

            There's just no way I would drive a 20+ year old car. I like to actually arrive at my destination. The second sentance in your post seems to refer to the De Lorean which is a different car (though similar looking).

            Now, if I could get a Peel 50 [3wheelers.com], that would be cool.
      • Bottom line, the free market only works properly when the market is informed and educated. 99% of people have virtually no knowledge or understanding whatsoever of how computers work, and thus have little way of properly evaluating the products they use. Worse, consumers today literally don't WANT to be informed, the emerging cultural trends compel one to not think but rather to just buy whatever is splashed in front of you --- thinking and being informed are nerdy and outdated concepts.

        In the old days ther

    • Re:WOW (Score:5, Informative)

      by clueless123 ( 643205 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:19PM (#13653730)
      The law is not to compete with MSoft , the law is to have an open format. Something that will allow Peruvians free access to documents *we* (I am Peruvian) are entrusting our goverment to saveguard for us. If Msoft or any other company wishes to offer their products/services in Peru, all they need is to suport open formats. By your comments you demonstrate that Msoft FUD machinery is working, as only they present this subject as a competition between Open Vs Msoft. Hope this clears it for you.

      • Re:WOW (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Petrushka ( 815171 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @08:16PM (#13655314)

        The law is not to compete with MSoft , the law is to have an open format.

        That's very interesting, and not at all what TFA says: TFA mentions software constantly, and file formats aren't mentioned even once. Come to that, the text of the bill [apesol.org] doesn't mention file formats either, and does mention free software as opposed to proprietary software rather a lot. See for example article 1 [congreso.gob.pe]:

        La presente Ley tiene por objeto establecer las medidas que permitan a la administración pública la contratación de licencias de software y servicios informáticos en condiciones de neutralidad, vigencia tecnológica, libre concurrencia y trato justo e igualitario de proveedores.

        Translation (adapted from apesol.org's version, which is incomplete):

        This law has as its aim to establish the measures which permit the purchase of software licences and IT services by the public administration under conditions of neutrality, technological use(?), free concurrence, and just and equal treatment of suppliers.

        Or, less closely related, the start of article 4:

        Ninguna entidad de la administración pública adquirirá soportes físicos (hardware) que la obliguen a utilizar sólo determinado tipo de software o que de alguna manera limiten su autonomía informática.

        Translation:

        No public entity will adquire hardware which forces it to use only a determined type of software or in any way limits its IT autonomy.

        So, not that I'd doubt your word, but, er ... there really isn't any mention anywhere of file formats; it does indeed seem to be precisely about free/proprietary software. This situation really looks very different from the recent Massachusetts decision. So, unless someone can provide some more information to clarify the present post, I'd suggest modding the parent down.

        • Re:WOW (Score:3, Informative)

          by clueless123 ( 643205 ) *
          The law just passed is the latest adjustment to a series of laws with the objectives that I mention (Open-nes of the software and fiscal responsability)

          If you look at the last paragraph of TFA , you can read:

          "El proyecto aprobado resume las iniciativas legislativas 1609, 2344, 3030, 7389, 8251 y 9026 que tienen el mismo propósito a favor del software libre."

          Nowhere in the law it says that you may not use a propietary software. (As long as they are willing to give you the source code for exam

          • Now this summary does appear to be accurate. A reading of the law as a whole seems to me to encourage consideration of free software strongly (the careful definitions of what free software is and how its should be approved suggest that to me); but as you say, the law certainly does not require it. But where did this business about file formats come from?

        • The language is so vague that you can interpret it in any way you want.

          the interesting article is 4:

          "No public entity will adquire hardware which forces it to use only a determined type of software or in any way limits its IT autonomy." (parent poster's offered translation).

          Does this mean for example that hardware manufacturers stating their product is "for Windows only" will be screwed? I would hope so.

          "In any way limits its IT autonomy" fall neatly in file formats. If you are looking for a solution and yo
        • I'd suggest modding the parent down.

          ...because GOD FORBID anybody else should stumble upon this thread after us and have the opportunity to make up their own minds about it.

    • Direct link to Guardian translation here [theregister.co.uk].

    • Make it better, image if OS'es were trucks (Score:5, Insightful)

      by SmallFurryCreature ( 593017 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:46PM (#13653900) Journal
      This particulair tale is nothing new, I heard it relating to many different logistics companies, in fact any company that buys cars in large numbers.

      I do however know for a fact that some are true because I seen the result.

      The story is simple, large trucking company A finds it is time to replace its fleet of trucks from brand B. However the salesrep from B is for some reason not all to willing to give the discount company A wants. So company A makes sure when the salesrep visits that there are a couple of trucks just parked outside the company of brand C. If the salesrep still doesn't get the message, they usually do, then brand C will be the brand company A drives around in for the next 3 yrs (average truck live) unless salesrep C is smart enough to give a company buying a 100 trucks a big enough discount.

      There are plenty of versions of this story from big to small. Everyone knows you can always talk down the price when buying even the smallest car. When your purchase order comes into the millions the sales people WILL have to bend over backwards, plenty of other truck manufacturers.

      But I noticed something very strange, when talking to some smaller transporters who pulled the same trick but with a mere 10 or so trucks being part of the purchase order and therefore getting far smaller discounts, I found that it was very difficult to get them to accept the idea that a similar stunt could be pulled when it comes time to upgrade their PC's.

      That just forking over whatever MS demands is like just forking over what your truck seller wants.

      Business men who would think nothing of buying a handfull of different brand trucks (trucks are EXPENSIVE) just to make a point could nonetheless not understand that having a handfull of linux machines might make the next purchase from MS a little cheaper.

      Directors who would never EVER allow their operation to become locked into ONE truck brand nonetheless happily say that they can't switch from MS because of lockin.

      It is amazing, it is like when it comes to IT, the best brains in business suddenly loose their intelligence, as if different rules apply when it comes to computers.

      So I have the following suggestions to any business leader:

      • When a salesrep visits and sees competitor brands being used, salesrep will instantly offer extra discounts just for you. This works ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE. Even in IT, I know for a fact that some of the biggest companies on purpose have both SUN and IBM servers just to keep the sales people on their toes.
      • If your excuse against using non-ms software is that your locked in then you got only 1 choice. UNLOCK NOW. The longer you wait the more locked in you will be. If it is bad business sense to be locked into one supplier for ANY other need be it your trucks, your supplies, your employees, your customers then why would it be good sense to have your IT, often the glue that holds everything together, be dependant on just one company.
      • If your excuse is that your employees would find it hard to adjust, FIRE THEM AND GET BETTER ONES. Would you consider hiring for one second a truck driver who can only drive MAN trucks? A repair mechanic who can only handle DAF? Of course not. So why hire IT people who can only handle windows?

      At the moment MS has a chokehold on business. It can demand whatever it wants and you will just have to cough up. It is insanity. Install a few macs, install a few linux boxes, then call your IT salesrep and tell him to give you a discount or to get out.

      Get out of the lock-in and make IT subject to the same rules as you do all your other purchases.

      • ``It is amazing, it is like when it comes to IT, the best brains in business suddenly loose their intelligence, as if different rules apply when it comes to computers.''

        But different rules do apply. Your choice of operating system largely determines what appliciations you can run on it. If you get lots of documents in proprietary formats that only certain software can run, this might limit your choice of operating system (might, because there's always emulation). You would also need system administrators wi

    • Re:WOW (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:50PM (#13653931)

      I'm continually amazed that MS has such traction that F/OSS has to fight to get anywhere. If MS and Linux were cars (never mind old jokes) people would be buying magazines to compare, taking test drives, and asking their buddies which one to buy.

      If Ford made an exclusive deal with every home builder and renter in the country so that whenever anyone bought a home or rented a apartment they were given a free Ford car rental (included in the price of the dwelling and with no option to opt out) people would probably all drive Ford cars. They would also consider anyone who went out and bought or built another car to be some sort of weirdo. Most home manufacturers would not be able to escape from this deal either since not getting a "free" car with your house would be a deal breaker, and no one would want a chevy since it could not use ford parts (the only kind sold in parts stores), could not get repaired anywhere (since 95% of repair places only worked on fords), and since there is a huge PR campaign spreading rumors that Ford brand gasoline (the only kind easily available) may not work properly in Chevy engines (even though it does).

      Once a company, like MS or Ford, has that kind of monopoly or monopolies it is very easy for them to maintain that position, especially given how corrupt our legal system is. They can buy out, price out, or lock out any new competitors. It is illegal, but politicians listen to campaign contributions more than laws. Luckily we are not in that position with cars and hopefully we will not stay in that position with OS's and office applications. I don't care who is making the money, but I do care about the cost and quality of products and without competition one goes way up while the other goes way down. I'll leave it to you to guess which is which.

      • Yes, and eventually the market would do what the market is slowing doing to Microsoft. Someone would come out with a line of houses that were considerably less expensive than the houses that came with a car rental. They would probably also come out with a line of inexpensive cars. In more affluent areas people might still buy houses that came with car rentals (especially if there weren't quality control problems with the Ford cars), but more frugal types (and car fiends) would gravitate to the option tha

    • Re:WOW (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:52PM (#13653953) Homepage Journal
      Well the honest answer is free software is NOT always the best solution for every problem. I know that people are going to flame me but sometimes the best current solution is a closed source program.
      CAD is a good example. I have heard a lot of good things about a new open source cad program but what if you have a lot of vendors that use Solidworks or Autodesk?
      Office is another good example. Our local government used applix or Star office on Sun systems for a few years. The day that they got rid of it and went to office the county workers where over joyed. They had a terrible time with sending files to and getting files in Office format. I tried to tell them that it would improve and they they shouldn't sign away their life but they needed something that would just work. For them Windows and office just worked.
      If you look at a lot of the studies of who uses and gets the most benefit out of open source it tends to fall into two categories.
      1. REALLY BIG TECH COMPANIES.
      They have their own support and development staff and can contribute back to open source projects.
      2. Really tiny startups with a good techie or two.
      They are not big enough for the big vendors to care about. So the support they get for a lot of open source tools is as good or better than what they get from big closed source vendors.
      In the middle you have a lot of medium companies that really don't want to manage software developers or handle support in house.

      I am all for open source but their are a lot of issues yet to be solved.
      1. Education. I can not take a course on Linux at my local Community College. I can get my MSCE or Cisco cert there.
      2. Support. Yea I can make Linux work for me and my company but not every company can. Where is the Linux Geek Squad? Yea all those scan-disk, defrag, run adaware and scan for virus "techies" give me the creeps but they seem to fill a need. Where can the mythical grandmother go to get a DVD installed in her Linux box or find out how to fix Thunderbird if the mail folder blows up? I will not even go into the poor state of some documentation for open source programs.
      3. Teaching. If you are going to send people out in to the real world as sysadmins and or programmers they will have a better chance to find a job if they know Windows and Linux. Heck they should know as many different systems like Z/OS and OS/400.

      • Or they should have.

        Openess and accountability are much more important, or should be, thus a goverment may decide to put up with a solution that is perhaps second best from a technological or systematic point of view, but the concerns about accountability and price (we are talking about other people's money here, the taxpayers') may completely override any technical or design merits.

    • Re:WOW (Score:3, Insightful)

      by at_slashdot ( 674436 )
      if parking spaces and roads (read closed standards) were made only for one type of car (or had "only MS cars" signs), if all the major car saleseller would have made contract with the same car manufacturer and were not allowed to sell other car models (and they didn't want either since the other car would not find parking space and road to drive on -- nor the public would desire such a car) that would be a closer analogy.

      Fortunatelly MS monopoly starts to crumble.
    • You are, as they say, not even wrong.

      The law isn't passed to "compete with MS", infact the law doesn't mention Microsoft in any way shape and form, and nothing in the law prevents the state from buying all software and all it-services from for example Microsoft.

      The law says open source software should be choosen, where adequate alternatives exist. Where that isn't the case, exceptions are given and proprietary software can be used. In most cases such exceptions will be for two years, but will be renewed

  • "Favoring" law? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:09PM (#13653665) Homepage Journal
    Here's a complete waste of a politician's time -- laws that only make a statement, but don't actually change much. I see so many laws (daily) that don't actually do anything, they just say things:

    H. RES. 99: Expressing the condolences of the House of Representatives to the families of the victims of the terrorist attacks in Madrid that occurred one year ago

    H. RES. 59: Providing for consideration of the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 36) expressing the continued support of Congress for equal access of military recruiters to institutions of higher education.

    Expressing? Providing? Favoring? What exactly are these public figures DOING?

    I don't think this law is honestly going to create more open source usage by their government, nor is it really going to change much. Even laws requiring the use of open source are only as good as the government can enforce, which is probably nil. I did some consulting a dozen years ago for a government organization, and I couldn't get one office to settle on a single application -- everyone had favorites they wouldn't give up.

    Good luck.

    • Re:"Favoring" law? (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Resolutions aren't laws. Everything uttered by a group of politicians isn't a law, you know. What you're looking at there is just a fancy of way of saying "Here's something.. do we agree? Okay, we do."
    • I see so many laws (daily) that don't actually do anything, they just say things

      Oh well, you're right. In fact, from your POV, NO LAW ON EARTH CHANGES ANYTHING. Noticed how racism exist, despite of the existence of laws that forbid it?

      You can be pretty sure that Peru will adopt free software, gradually, and never 100%, but it'll be quite high I hope. Having a law which promotes it helps quite a lot to it - much better than some politician promising he'll adopt it if he wins the next elections.
    • Part 4 states that no hardware which forces to use a specific software should be used. Part 7 states that the compliance must be certified by a local authority. Failure to comply must be sanctioned.
      • I see. It still doesn't mandate open software or free software.

        I can't think of many hardware devices that force specific software anymore, although the ones that do are REALLY specific hardware devices. My brother owns a recording studio that uses very proprietary programs -- if a Peruvian government has its own recording studio, will they be limited to using OSS software? Eek, scary. How about large-scale accounting programs used by the State? Is there an inexpensive way for the State to transfer to
        • The entire point is that Peru wants to be able to have the Four Freedoms [gnu.org], and to not be controlled by a foreign corporation. That's more important than any amount of money!
        • How about 3D graphics?

          Maybe if a few more countries follow Peru, we will get Free NVidia and ATI 3D drivers.
        • Most hardware boxes have prominent stickers stating "Windows required" or any similar blatter.

          In some fewer instances MacOS or whatever it is called is also deemd OK or even mentioned as the only OS supported.

          A few iluminated companies will include a penguin, or goodness forbid, a little red devil.

          So I frankly don't know in which planet you live where software is not required by hardware manufacturers. They should require none, provide drivers for popular OSes and provide access to the API to program their

  • The law says "Free Software", not "Open source" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Andy Tai ( 1884 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:10PM (#13653678) Homepage
    In both the text translation (of Google) and the English text posted at opensource.org, the term used is "Free Software", not "open source." I wonder why the title and the text here at Slashdot use the term "open source"?

    • Re:The law says "Free Software", not "Open source" (Score:5, Informative)

      by fireduck ( 197000 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:21PM (#13653749)
      read further in the Opensource.org text. Near the bottom of the bill you'll find the following:

      Article 4 - Definition of Free Software

      Free Software shall be defined for the effects of this law, that whose license shall guarantee the user without additional cost the following:

              * Unrestricted use of the program for any purpose.
              * Unrestricted access to the respective source code.
              * Exaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the program.
              * Use of the internal mechanisms and arbitrary portions of the software, to adapt them to the needs of the user.
              * Freedom to make and distribute copies of the software.
              * Modification of the software and freedom to distribute said modifications of the new resulting sofftware, under the same license of the original software.


      while the term open source isn't explicitly used, I think the intent from article 4 is that open source software is what is desired.

      • Their definition of "Free Software" is in fact very close to that of the FSF due to the requirement that modified versions shall be redistributable under the original license (cf GPL). The subitter of the article was modest when translating it as Open Source, since Free Software is a stronger requirement.

      • The actual law (the one they have on the untranslated link in the summary) says (paraphrasing):

        - Unrestricted use of the program for any purpose (first item of parent post)
        - Exhaustive inspection of the working mechanisms of the program (third item)
        - Creation and distributing of copies of the program (basically the 5th item, but they don't mention freedom, change to "it allows", but in esense is the same)
        - Modification of the software and freedom to distribute said modifications and of the new resulting sof

      • No. Software freedom is desired. (Score:5, Informative)

        by jbn-o ( 555068 ) <mail@digitalcitizen.info> on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:47PM (#13653909) Homepage

        [W]hile the term open source isn't explicitly used, I think the intent from article 4 is that open source software is what is desired.

        Actually, Congressman Villanueva is very clear that software freedom is what he was after, what the bill seeks, and why he asks for free software by name ("software libre"). Read Villanueva's letter to Microsoft's rep [dewtronics.com] who tried to reframe the debate in the same way.

        The reason why Microsoft tried to reframe the debate away from software freedom and why Villanueva was so insistent that Microsoft not do so is clear—the open source movement dismisses software freedom [gnu.org]. The open source movement does not stand for the same philosophy as the free software movement. Software freedom is what proprietors fear. They have no argument against it. As we see with Microsoft's reps talking to Massachusetts, they are constantly trying to frame the debate around the cost of software. As if what you pay for software is the single most important issue to consider. Congressman Villanueva and the rest of the free software movement know that this is not so ("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."), therefore they don't stand for such misrepresentation. Properly, Villanueva also insists on calling proprietary software "proprietary" and not "commercial" as so many (even on /.) will do.

        The theme here is on what rights users have with the program, not how quickly it can be developed, how much money one can save, or how few bugs there are in the software. The free software movement has nothing against the development methodology that the open source movement stands for, but the free software movement says that the open source movement's philosophy isn't enough.

        • Great post! But, to clarify even further...

          Free Software involves more than just "open source." You can easily have open source software that's not Free: it would be the case where you have access to the code, but don't have permission to distribute it, make derived works, etc. (RMS's "four freedoms"). If you want an example, just ask Microsoft.

          • You can easily have open source software that's not Free: it would be the case where you have access to the code, but don't have permission to distribute it, make derived works, etc. (RMS's "four freedoms").

            Sorry, but that's not correct. Take a look at the open source definition (OSD) [opensource.org]. It requires a compliant license to permit "Free Redistribution" (criterion #1), and to permit "Derived Works" (criterion #3).

            Open source software and free software means almost the exact same thing in practice. They only

      • Sounds exactly like stallman's free software definition to me. 2 and 3 go together, as do 4 and 6.
    • The original text says "libre", which is free as in freedom, as opposed to "gratis".
    • In both the text translation (of Google) and the English text posted at opensource.org, the term used is "Free Software", not "open source." I wonder why the title and the text here at Slashdot use the term "open source"?

      The spanish text [nyud.net] says "Software Libre", which means "Free-as-in-speech Software".

      In Article 3, section 1, we read that "Software Libre" is one whose user license guarantees faculties to:
      - Use the program for any purpose without restrictions,
      - Inspect exhaustively the program's functioning m
      • No, they aren't talking about open source software. They're talking about Free Software. Open source is a lesser version of the idea, and not all Open Source licenses protect the ideals of Free Software.

        • The parent poster gets it exactly right, and the grandparent poster managed to give important and interesting evidence then reach the wrong conclusion.

          To build on the parent's article, one specific example of a practical benefit free software gives us that open source software does not is the freedom to make private derivatives. Private derivatives are changed versions of programs one never distributes. The open source definition has nothing to allow users to make these, but the definition of free softw [gnu.org]

      • Just to be sure we're talking about the same document the official law is published at
        http://www.congreso.gob.pe/relatoria/documentos/ PROY1609Software.pdf
        I'm assuming the Peruvian govt servers can withstand the demand for spanish pdf from /. readers ;-)

  • translation (Score:2, Interesting)

    by jzeejunk ( 878194 )
    from TFA To present that TO COPY he is legal (if is free software of course)

    shouldn't this be
    To present that TO COPY him is legal (if he is free software of course) ;)
    talking of google translation this is something a friend forwarded to me
    Step 1: Go to http://www.google.com.my/language_tools?hl=en [google.com.my]

    Step 2: Enter the following line into the translate textbox:
    Aishwarya's mom is nice and cool

    Step 3: Translate from english to spanish.

    Step 4: Copy the translated text, and translate it back fro
  • The translation of the bill showed in Opensource.org is the translation of one of the first proposals that were passed to the Congress. The bill that has been approved i different from that (beta) version.

  • In other news... (Score:4, Funny)

    by k4_pacific ( 736911 ) <k4_pacific@yahoo . c om> on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:22PM (#13653751) Homepage Journal
    Prior to the vote, Steve Ballmer testified on the issue before the Peruvian Congress. During his testimony, he removed his shoe and banged it on the podium, while announcing that he was going to "fucking kill" them if they went with Open Source. For his closing statement, Ballmer said nothing, but fumed a bit, then tossed a wooden chair across the stage.
  • Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job and save the tax payers money. You must evaluate each package independantly against your requirements, keeping in mind future needs and considerations.

    I am not saying anything for or against OSS, nor proprietary solutions. It is entirely likely that OSS stuff will end up on top if you follow an established and well thought out evaluation scheme. I am merely saying this is as fo

    • Re:This is not the way to do it (Score:4, Informative)

      by clueless123 ( 643205 ) * on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:34PM (#13653839)
      Willing or unwillingly you are spreading FUD.

      The Peruvian congress is just guaranteen that Peruvians have free and unrestricted access to their information. (i.e. no propietary formats)

      Microsoft (or any other company for that matter) is welcome to compete for the market by supporting open formats.

      Now that this is clear, to counteract the mis-information your comment may spread, please say outloud 100 times: "This Law Has Nothing To Do With Microsoft"
      • Willing or unwillingly you are spreading FUD.

        No, I'm merely pointing out what should be the obvious.

        The Peruvian congress is just guaranteen that Peruvians have free and unrestricted access to their information. (i.e. no propietary formats)

        No, what they are doing is giving preferential treatment to open source software. Which, i admit, is better than giving top billing to proprietary, but not by much.

        Microsoft (or any other company for that matter) is welcome to compete for the market by supporting open f
        • "But they won't get the same treatment. What if, by whatever stretch of logic, some proprietary software package will do the job better than an open source package will? "

          It doesn't do the jobs of file exchange, competitive development of even better software, and future accessability of files as well. The bill contributes to ensure that this is looked after instead of short term gains.

          The bill will help open software. If Microsoft wants a piece of the pie, they can have it. But they'll have to compete by q
        • Then You should RTFL = Read the freaking law :

          The law tittle is : Ley de neutralidad tecnologia en la contrataciones de licencias y servicios informáticos
          Badly translated reads : Law for the technological *NEUTRALITY* on the contracts and services of information systems.

          Neutral = Nobody is being favoured here.

          If your software, meets the conditions of "openen-nes" & fiscal responsability we don't care who made it.


          Further more (From the freaking article) :

          "El proyecto aprobado resu

        • I R'd TFA, and the full text of the law as well (in both Spanish and English, my Spanish is decent enough I could catch the general meaning of it). There is no mention, whatsoever, of any vendor being "favored" or "disfavored".

          Have you ever looked at a government contract for something, like, say, a road? It sets out exacting specifications for what you must, may, and may not do, and as to what the end result must be. Any company who wishes to build roads, for that government entity, on that project, MUST

        • Nobody cares which particular piece of software is technically superior; the issue at stake here is the sovereignty of the state. They MUST have full control over their data and IT infrastructure, or else they don't really have control over their country.

          Not mandating Free Software is functionally equivalent to giving Microsoft the keys to the kingdom. That's not a choice at all, for any country with even a shred of self-interest and patriotism.
    • Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job and save the tax payers money.

      However, insisting on source code access saves money in the long run by ensuring the taxpayer is not locked in. It's not like insisting on a single vendor, if MS wants to they're welcome to open their source and sell to the Peruvian government.

    • "Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job"

      Actually, yes it is...

    • Re:This is not the way to do it (Score:5, Interesting)

      by SharpFang ( 651121 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @05:00PM (#13654020) Homepage Journal
      Yes. And they did.
      The governments of several South American governments have realized this already, that software used for all the government purposes should follow these guidelines:
      - Be transparent to the government. The government MUST have a way to verify if no malicious code, country-hostile elements, backdoors or other such insecurities exist. Without source - impossible.
      - Be transparent to the citizens; any citizen of the country should be able to analyse and examine how the government handles the data, verify that no illegal activity is being performed using the software. Required: Access to sources, access to specifications.
      - Countrywide Integration: Any citizen should be able to integrate systems used in government with systems they use privately, (e.g. in private business - taxes) to increase efficiency, removing need of manual conversion between two closed standards or such. Req: Open standards, access to hooks/API.
      - Free access for citizens to the software. No need to sign NDAs, no fees to access the sources, freedom to use and examine the software at will. If they pay taxes to fund the software for government, they shouldn't be forced to pay again to use it themselves. Req: Free as a beer, no "don't copy" style licenses.
      - Indepence from vendors. The country can't be held hostage by any vendor because they are the only entity that can implement/change/fix some essential feature. Any developer should be able to come along the way and continue the work, where the previous one left it. Req: Access to sources.
      - Supporting local economy: Making development of software for government, easy for local businesses, no matter what their size. Because anyone can develop the software, the government isn't tied to a single corporation creating the subsystems and won't be locked with expanding underperforming system because cost of total replacement is too high and there's nobody else besides the corporation that could fix the software (and the corporation lacks skill/resources to do this). Req: Access to sources for everyone.

      As for now, Open Source/Free Software fulfills all these requirements "out of the box". Getting them all from any commercial vendor would be near-impossible, or at least a true torment in the means of negotiations.
      Also note it doesn't lock out any commercial vendors. It just changes what the government buys: They buy THE software (binaries+sources+specs+IP) and not just license to use the "borrowed" binaries which they wouldn't really own.
      What the government does with the purchased software shouldn't be your concern, you got paid for selling all rights to it to them. Well, they open-source it. For the better of the nation.
      • As for now, Open Source/Free Software fulfills all these requirements "out of the box". Getting them all from any commercial vendor would be near-impossible, or at least a true torment in the means of negotiations.

        Proprietary you mean? What would some company have against providing some Free Software solution for money?
        • well, what I meant was "any modern day big software vendor." They are all proprietary and they have heads too high up their asses about remaining such to ever agree for producing open-source. Thing is, if you write a program, then sell it, source and all, you get money for what you did, hard-earned and honest. But if you write a program, then license it out, money keep coming and you don't do any real work anymore to deserve them - well, that's a parasitic hole in the network of mutual dependencies of the s
      • - Be transparent to the government. The government MUST have a way to verify if no malicious code, country-hostile elements, backdoors or other such insecurities exist. Without source - impossible.

        It is widely believed that this has happened [tommcmahon.net].

        There is serious debate about whether this story is apocryphal, and of course only insiders at the CIA know for sure. But the story is very widely circulated outside the US, and is one of the canonical examples used to illustrate why one should never trust a computer w
    • Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job and save the tax payers money.

      One person's Creed is another's Heuristic. Since it's impossible to evaluate the whole tree of possible near-term outcomes, choosing open-source's long-range advantages and certainties seems common-sensical... a bit like betting on gravity.

    • Re:This is not the way to do it (Score:5, Insightful)

      by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF ( 813746 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @05:03PM (#13654049)

      Giving preferential treatment to software just because it follows some creed is not the way to choose the best tools for the job and save the tax payers money.

      What are you talking about? The Peruvian government just passed a law that says one criteria of software is important to them and if at all possible software should meet that criteria. It is a functional specification, not a creed and it is well defined in the law.

      If the U.S. government passed a law that said, "to insure the safety of government employees all garments purchased by the government for employees should be flame retardant, unless there is a good reason to use flammable garments" would you complain that they were unfairly favoring the "inflammable" creed of clothing manufacture? Now maybe other factors like cost, warmth, resistance to small arms fire, etc. are more important for a given application, but there is nothing wrong with trying to get all clothing that does not easily burn.

      This law is the result of lots of publicly owned information being available only by paying a toll to one foreign company. It addresses a real problem. It is giving preferential treatment to software that is better in one specific way (that they deem very important to them). It is just like making sure government clothing buyers don't skimp on clothing and buy unsafe garments to save money in the short term. Peru, and many other countries are tired of getting burned and are taking action. I applaud them.

    • This is a government. In their evaluation they've decided the best software for goverment use is one available to all their citizens, not just those who can pony up the coin. This is especially important for a country like Peru, one without a G7 GDP. Your implied definition of "best for the job" is good for a business but far too narrow for a goverment.

  • Slashdot: THIS IS NOT THE BILL THAT WAS APPROVED (Score:4, Informative)

    by tabo_peru ( 582809 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @04:43PM (#13653884) Homepage
    This is the old version of the law. The bill that was approved is: http://www.congreso.gob.pe/relatoria/documentos/PR OY1609Software.pdf [congreso.gob.pe]
    This is not strictly speaking a free software law. It is a law that norms the use, adquisition and adjustment of software in public administration.
  • Isn't that too dragconian and extreme to the other end? Does that mean somebody may go to jail if they choose to use paid software? Ok maybe not, but what's the point? It could be government spending guideline or whatever, but law??? It's like talking about outlawing unhealthy food. Government shall never tell us or even suggest what we should do. Unless they make it a law lol.

  • Misses the point completely. (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Personally, I think the data format is far more important than the software used to manipulate the data. If they want to "preserve the state's data", they need to use a free and open standard. As long as the software can handle the data, what else matters? I suppose there will always be worries about covert activity (backdoors, spying, phoning home, etc), but I think that risk is valid for open source software, too. I mean, you find tons of pirated software in government computers. If they can't be bot
    • I mean, you find tons of pirated software in government computers.

      Source please. I work entirely with government computers, and we have very strict policies about the acquisition of ANY piece of software to ensure all licenseing requirements are met, in addition to verifying that it will be safe in a secure environment. In fact, those same policies have been hampering the uptake of OSS, as some of the requirements are impossible for a "bazaar"-style release to meet.
  • Cue the pedants who claim "It's not about open or proprietary, people should pick the best tool for the job..."

    Guys who claim that are wrong. They don't see the big picture and are ignoring secondary effects. Free software is all about "standing on the shoulders of giants." When you spend money on Free Software, you guarantee that the work done with that money is available for everyone to make use of. When you spend money on Proprietary Software, you guarantee that the work done with that money is only

  • Wrong bill text (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The text of the bill is not what is in opensource.org. The real bill approved (at http://www.congreso.gob.pe/relatoria/documentos/PR OY1609Software.pdf [congreso.gob.pe]) does not mandate any use of free software at all, just makes sure the government is "neutral" when procuring software. Microsoft should be happy with it.

    Other interesting thing - this law defines "free software" as the ones covered by the GPL license. BSD-licensed software are considered proprietary software under this law. Stallman should be happy with it

  • Actually, it will change nothing. Why?... (Score:4, Informative)

    by zzleeper ( 719133 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @05:27PM (#13654251)
    Well, first of all, I live in Peru. Even more, my employer is currently a ".gov.pe".

    Here in Peru, a law means *nothing* until the "reglamento de la ley" is approved (it's some specific regulation concerning exactly *how* will the law will be applied). It can take months, or more realistic, years until that is done. In many cases, the regulation is never approved, so the law is useless.
    will be extremely difficult to implement FOSS in a user level (heck, how will we replace Oracle? Or even MS Excel, Word & Powerpoint? Its still a long way for OO).

    I'm not against open source, but what the law states is unenforceable.

    PS: However, cheers to APESOL for the effort.

  • Some important remarks (Score:3, Informative)

    by sT0n3_h34d ( 572639 ) <[rudy] [at] [kernel-panik.org]> on Monday September 26, 2005 @05:41PM (#13654359)
    First of all this new bill needs to be made official by announcing on the official goverment newspaper by the president. We have put a better translation of the bill [apesol.org] on APESOL website.

    We'd like to remark that even this is not a free software specific bill, It was based on all the previous proposals made on the subject.

    I and many of us believe that its a important step towards making free software a truly and goverment supported alternative, since it also remarks, and will be regulated after making the official announce, through its own reglament, the benefit of free software when choosing alternatives for projects, avoid work duplication and saves money. Although for most goverment agencies free software it something already being deployed and used on many of them now, for instance the army is just moving their computing infrastructure to free software, training their personel and so.

  • I think I speak for the many peruvian geeks reading /. today when I say ..

    VIVA EL PERU CARAJO!

  • Putting their money where... (Score:3, Informative)

    by J. Random Luser ( 824671 ) on Monday September 26, 2005 @07:53PM (#13655188)
    their mouth is?? From the official copy [congreso.gob.pe] of the law:
    /CreationDate (D:20050923171727-05'00')
    /ModDate (D:20050923171727-05'00')
    /Producer (Acrobat Distiller 5.0 \(Windows\))
    /Author (igutierrez)
    /Creator (PScript5.dll Version 5.2)
    /Title (Microsoft Word - Proy. 1609 Adquisici\363n de Software.doc)
  • ...winamp no longer kicks that llamas ass?

Slashdot Top Deals

Almost anything derogatory you could say about today's software design would be accurate. -- K.E. Iverson

Close