[ALEXIS_DH]

so i´ve read that a few SA countries are trying to do so.. not only in the grounds of money, but in the grounds of the availabity of the source code to make the data accesible to every person for security reasons...

"The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:

Free access to public information by the citizen.

Permanence of public data.

Security of the State and citizens.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.

To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.

In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.

i´ve read a letter from a congressman (which i quoted a little) to the head of microsoft-peru that is pretty awesome in detail and rebuttal of all the claims microsoft does about free software and the "anti-open market" practice imposing free-software at a gvmt level means...

what do you all think??

microsoft-peru letter
http://www.free-soft.org/mirrors/www.opensource.org/docs/msFUD_to_peru.html

the congressman rebuttal letter.
http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html

 

[$tinkle]

i think these [SA] gov'ts may have a discount-use license, much like we have in this country, to defray the most nominal of costs. (that's how i got my maya software)

if after evaluating the software they then desire to make it part of their governmental infrastructure, they may buy the source code. this way, they can better insure their security needs (lack of spy-code), & would not be beholden to a third party for support.

i'm surprised china hasn't reverse engineered all of m$'s software already. once you get the machine code, the mystery's all but solved.

must be really $hitty code.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

the problem is microsoft aint letting the source code be inspected...

the guy mentioned that checking out the source code and having it would be necesarilly in order to decide which software to get... and since microsoft isnt opening its code, then its out of the question.. unless they open the code which will never happen....

 

[Damn True]

Oh good idea.
a) Get freeware.
b) Go through expensive integration process
c) MS buys or burries the company that produces freeware
d) Lose ability to support or upgrade
e) Repeat process

Kinda like the guy who buys three $1000 cars over three years and spends $1500 a piece making them driveable and maintianing them instead of buying one $4000 car.

 

[SkaredShtles]

Oh good idea.
a) Get freeware.
b) Go through expensive integration process
c) MS buys or burries the company that produces freeware
d) Lose ability to support or upgrade
e) Repeat process

Kinda like the guy who buys three $1000 cars over three years and spends $1500 a piece making them driveable and maintianing them instead of buying one $4000 car.

Why in the world would you assume that a *company* produces the freeware? It doesn't usually work like that with Open Source applications.

-S.S.-

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

and its not just about the money, but the access to the source code and the ability to control independently the data.....

 

[$tinkle]

Why in the world would you assume that a *company* produces the freeware? It doesn't usually work like that with Open Source applications.

-S.S.-

while this is true w/ openGL & CORBA, i am assuming he meant little apps a-la winzip & most of the [free|share]ware crap you see at tucows.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

in this specific case the motion is to use only really free software (open source, not freeware nor shareware)

"With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service."
....
"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."

 

[SkaredShtles]

while this is true w/ openGL & CORBA, i am assuming he meant little apps a-la winzip & most of the [free|share]ware crap you see at tucows.

Then he's comparing apples to oranges. I think.

-S.S.-

 

[Damn True]

in this specific case the motion is to use only really free software (open source, not freeware nor shareware)

"With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service."
....
"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."

Ok, I hear what you are saying, and my use of the term "freeware" was errant, but what you suggest does not prevent:

a) Get software.
b) Go through expensive integration process
c) MS or Oracle buys or economically burries the company that produces software
d) Lose ability to support or upgrade
e) Repeat process

If your company was running Peoplesoft your company is FUBAR because from what I understand Larry Ellison has no intention of supporting it.
The same can be said for companies using Veritas products. All signs point to the probability that Symantec will most likely not support it.

 

[ALEXIS_DH]

"In respect of the guarantee:

As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licencing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software. "


the integration proces costs might be offset by the savings on licences...

but. i think the whole idea of this is not about the money (money just being a marginal benefit) but about having access to the source code of the software used, for security reasons and user independancy....

 

[Transcend]

so i´ve read that a few SA countries are trying to do so.. not only in the grounds of money, but in the grounds of the availabity of the source code to make the data accesible to every person for security reasons...




i´ve read a letter from a congressman (which i quoted a little) to the head of microsoft-peru that is pretty awesome in detail and rebuttal of all the claims microsoft does about free software and the "anti-open market" practice imposing free-software at a gvmt level means...

what do you all think??

microsoft-peru letter
http://www.free-soft.org/mirrors/www.opensource.org/docs/msFUD_to_peru.html

the congressman rebuttal letter.
http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html

germany just recently moved to an all linux/open source environment. I for one, applaud them!