Perhaps one of us should contact them asking that they explain their stance. Having a rogue organisation with 'Free Software 'in its name giving bad press is not good for us.
Thanks,
Sam.
Possible connection, FWIW:
Bruce Perens also opposes pro-fs government policies: http://lwn.net/Articles/163077/ "I still think that preference laws are the wrong way to go. [...] I keep thinking that the end still doesn't justify the means."
(He's stated this position more clearly in other comments, but I can't find them now.)
And he worked for a year in Norway (2007?) and does/did policy work in Norway sponsored by the Competence Fund of Western Norway. (http://perens.com/policy/open-source/ "Sponsorship")
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:58 +0100, Ciarán O'Riordan wrote:
Possible connection, FWIW:
Bruce Perens also opposes pro-fs government policies: http://lwn.net/Articles/163077/ "I still think that preference laws are the wrong way to go. [...] I keep thinking that the end still doesn't justify the means."
This isn't a hugely uncommon point of view, though - I think you're possibly making a link too far.
Personally, I'm pretty much against them: you can't argue coherently and simultaneously against the preference given to other platforms and for a preference given to free software*; the basic principle is the same and people will smell hypocrisy.
Cheers
Alex.
*. People love to fall back on "oh, free software is different because it's ethical and stuff", but it's a poor argument. For some, the ethics of public spending is you do as little as possible and get best value possible: reducing it to an "ethical" argument fails because not everyone's ethics are the same.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
man, 13 09 2010 kl. 11:32 +0100, skrev Alex Hudson:
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 10:58 +0100, Ciarán O'Riordan wrote:
Possible connection, FWIW:
Bruce Perens also opposes pro-fs government policies: http://lwn.net/Articles/163077/ "I still think that preference laws are the wrong way to go. [...] I keep thinking that the end still doesn't justify the means."
This isn't a hugely uncommon point of view, though - I think you're possibly making a link too far.
Personally, I'm pretty much against them: you can't argue coherently and simultaneously against the preference given to other platforms and for a preference given to free software*; the basic principle is the same and people will smell hypocrisy.
Ah, but you can.
You can say that proprietary software vendors will not let public entities control the software that runs in its infrastructure, and will not let them make necessary changes or enhancements themselves if the vendor is unwilling or unable to do so. It's not a question of hypocrisy, it is a demand for certain consumer rights.
Public entities should say: We are *completely willing* to buy Oracle or Microsoft or whatever, if that's the best and most cost-effective solution, but we *need* it under the equivalent of the GNU GPL, at least. If the vendors are unwilling to sell under these conditions, "preference" is not given to non-proprietary vendors, on the contrary, the proprietary vendors de-selected themselves.
br Carsten
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 13:05 +0200, Carsten Agger wrote:
You can say that proprietary software vendors will not let public entities control the software that runs in its infrastructure, and will not let them make necessary changes or enhancements themselves if the vendor is unwilling or unable to do so. It's not a question of hypocrisy, it is a demand for certain consumer rights.
That's a completely different thing. It's a standard part of many public contracts I see.
However, the requirement for those rights isn't the same as gaining the software under a free software license. You can have those rights without the software being free.
Of course it would be possible to frame the requirements in such a way that they indirectly exclude proprietary software, but that's still an equally dodgy argument, and it's one that free software is currently on the losing side of. Campaigning to get rid of these dodgy requirements isn't helped by other people campaigning for equal but opposite dodgy requirements to help exclude some part of the competition.
Thanks
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
Alex Hudson wrote: [on preference laws]
Personally, I'm pretty much against them: you can't argue coherently and simultaneously against the preference given to other platforms and for a preference given to free software*; the basic principle is the same and people will smell hypocrisy.
I'm not convinced by preference laws, but I don't think they're hypocrisy. It is possible to argue coherently that free software should be preferred because the four freedoms are vital in achieving better government:-
It has been demonstrated time and time again that it is not possible to completely privatise the machinery of government and simultaneously hold it completely democractically accountable. It is necessary to realise that non-free software in government is as much of a black box system as an outsourced service. In most places, some services of government are not allowed to be outsourced. So equally, some software used by government should not be allowed to be proprietary.
Isn't this why the US has some requirement for government works to be outside copyright restrictions? If it's even accepted there...
[...]
*. People love to fall back on "oh, free software is different because it's ethical and stuff", but it's a poor argument.
Actually, it's a strawman that I doubt anyone would make. I'd prefer to argue "free software is ethical because ...".
For some, the ethics of public spending is you do as little as possible and get best value possible: reducing it to an "ethical" argument fails because not everyone's ethics are the same.
No, maybe not everyone's, but maybe there are enough with common ethics to carry the argument - and isn't that what matters? I suspect we're never going to please Bill Gates with a free software preference law.
BTW, disappointed by this spamsig:
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.
Regards,
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 13:18 +0100, MJ Ray wrote:
It has been demonstrated time and time again that it is not possible to completely privatise the machinery of government and simultaneously hold it completely democractically accountable. It is necessary to realise that non-free software in government is as much of a black box system as an outsourced service. In most places, some services of government are not allowed to be outsourced. So equally, some software used by government should not be allowed to be proprietary.
I think you've made exactly the same leap that Carsten made. You can argue in favour of things like transparency and value, but mapping that to the software freedoms isn't straightforward.
If we take that argument at face value, what we're saying is that for any Government website (as an example), people should have the right to run a modified version of it for their commercial purposes that have nothing to do with the Government data. It would be interesting to see the construction of an argument that those freedoms are necessary for good governance.
Of course procuring free software can fulfil these requirements (so long as they behave as a good free software citizen, which is a different topic) but to say that is the _only_ way you can fulfil those things is a much harder case to make.
Isn't this why the US has some requirement for government works to be outside copyright restrictions? If it's even accepted there...
I think that has more to do with the taxpayer not paying twice for the same thing. It's a real shame we don't have that in Europe too, it's the same for public data over there too, but I think it's a different argument: if we're saying the Government shouldn't publish and license proprietary software to taxpayers, I think that's a much easier argument to make.
Cheers,
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
man, 13 09 2010 kl. 13:54 +0100, skrev Alex Hudson:
If we take that argument at face value, what we're saying is that for any Government website (as an example), people should have the right to run a modified version of it for their commercial purposes that have nothing to do with the Government data. It would be interesting to see the construction of an argument that those freedoms are necessary for good governance.
No. A website is a service that is provided but runs on the Government's server.
Here, the agency running the server is the user, not the visitor on the page.
So that would be tantamount to saying that if the government is using software to run a website, then said government's employees should be able to inspect and change the code.
And to pass the changes on to partners who need e.g. the same error corrections. That's two of the freedoms already.
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 15:21 +0200, Carsten Agger wrote:
man, 13 09 2010 kl. 13:54 +0100, skrev Alex Hudson:
If we take that argument at face value, what we're saying is that for any Government website (as an example), people should have the right to run a modified version of it for their commercial purposes that have nothing to do with the Government data. It would be interesting to see the construction of an argument that those freedoms are necessary for good governance.
No. A website is a service that is provided but runs on the Government's server. [snip] And to pass the changes on to partners who need e.g. the same error corrections. That's two of the freedoms already.
You're pretty much entirely missing the point.
If we're saying that software freedom is not just a nice-to-have at Government level, but an actual necessity required for good governance, then the example I set out must be defensible - there has to be a good reason why that *must* be the case.
If it isn't, then at best only a subset of the freedoms are required.
Showing how freedoms can benefit Govt. is easy, but that's not the question.
Cheers
Alex.
-- This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean. http://www.betterhosted.com
On Mon, 2010-09-13 at 15:21 +0200, Carsten Agger wrote:
man, 13 09 2010 kl. 13:54 +0100, skrev Alex Hudson:
If we take that argument at face value, what we're saying is that for any Government website (as an example), people should have the right to run a modified version of it for their commercial purposes that have nothing to do with the Government data. It would be interesting to see the construction of an argument that those freedoms are necessary for good governance.
If the government web site offers services to third parties (commercial entities) that can interface with it, it is useful (I'd say necessary) at least for testing purposes to run your own copy so you can build whatever application interface w/o messing to with the original goverment web site.
Simo.