Re: Proposed Software Monopoly Press Release
To the Citizens Against Government Waste, the state officials of Massachusetts, and others Paul Lussier's defense of the Massachusetts initiative for free software does not go far enough, because it endorses a grave error: the idea that government decisions about software should be based only on quality and cost, disregarding more important issues such as freedom and sovereignty. The point of free software is to give computer users the freedom to form communities and cooperate voluntarily. Free software is a matter of freedom, not price: it means you have the freedom to use, study, change and redistribute the software. Governments should must this freedom just as you and I should. With free software, the users (invidually and collectively) control what their software does. With non-free software, the developer controls it, and keeps you and the other users divided and helpless. To consider only practical quality and cost when choosing software, disregarding freedom and self-determination, is folly. To protect its sovereignty from private parties, the government must maintain full control of the software it uses. Using non-free software hands control over government operations to the software developer. This violates the government's basic obligation to its citizens. For instance, most voting machines include non-free software. There are suspicions that some elections have been rigged by the voting machine companies, whose executives have close paritisan ties. According to http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0309/S00131.htm, Attempts to examine the code used by the machines in Florida were blocked in the courts by the GOP citing, proprietary/trade secrecy protections under a law, which made it impossible for the DNC to ascertain how the machines tabulated votes. Using non-free software means you don't control what your own computers do. In this case, the state does not control what its voting machines do, but losing control over other state operations is also unacceptable. The state has a responsibility to control all its computers, which means using exclusively free software on them. But there is more at stake than that. A government has a duty to lead its its populace in the direction of freedom and well-being. That is the government's overall mission. Each government agency has a specific job to do, and should it carry out efficiently, using public money carefully. But they should not do this to the neglect of the government's overall mission. By choosing free software, the government can encourage the public to move towards free software. In the long run, this will save the citizens tremendous amounts of money. The claims that free software is more expensive to run come from organizations with financial tis to Microsoft, and are suspect; anyway, the issue is irrelevant to individuals' home computers. But more than that, widespread use of free software will build programming skills and promote self-reliance. The US Army was able to replace horses with trucks in World War II because many of America's young men had been tinkering with cars for years. They did this of their own choice, but they had the option to tinker and learn because they could get the plans, open the hood, and make changes. Free software gives the young people of America a similar opportunity to build skills. Non-free software, whose insides are a private secret, denies the public the opportunity to tinker and learn. It weakens the country, and it weakens the state economically. I hope that Citizens Against Government Waste will recognize that the investment of switching government and society to freedom-respecting software is a wise one, and will direct its efforts toward true waste. Massachusetts, and other states in the US, ought to adopt a strict policy of moving to free software, with few or no exceptions, and first and foremost to do so in the schools. Sincerely, Richard Stallman President, Free Software Foundation MacArthur fellow ___ gnhlug-discuss mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.gnhlug.org/mailman/listinfo/gnhlug-discuss
Re: Proposed Software Monopoly Press Release
Just as an additional point of information - Microsoft is one of CAGW's financial sponsor's. Despite that most of CAGW's position do seem truly intended to protect taxpayers from waste. However that makes their postion on open source even more problematic. Because of their other work they actually have some credibility in the area of protecting taxpayers interests. So in this case, where they are either incredibly ignorant or deliberately ignoring their charter to favor one of their sponsors, they will be hurting the Open Source movement. On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 01:45:58PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To whom it may concern, As a citizen and registered voter in the 37th Middlesex District of Massachusetts, I find the Council for Citizens Against Goverment Waste press release of 30 September, 2003 (available here: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_09302003b ) to be frought with mis-understanding, mis-information, and mis-leading intentions. The CAGW has completely mis-represented Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's proposal, which actually states: In technology, we will adopt open standards to make systems more interoperable, and open source software, when available, to reduce licensing, programming and maintenance costs. (http://mass.gov/agency/documents/eoaf/The_Capital_Budget.pdf) And Eric Kriss, State Secretary of Administration and Finance is quoted in a CNET article as re-iterating this stance here: The state will also give preference to open-source software, although it will continue to purchase proprietary products if they are found to be superior technologically or otherwise... (http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html) In your press release, you claim that Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn states an intention to move all state and local government computers to open-source operating systems. Yet you cite no source for this supposed claim, which in fact, is completely wrong. More over, a search of the World Wide Web for this supposed quote turns only the CAGW Press Release at PR Newswire (http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20030930/30sep2003162722.html) in which the CAGW is cited for the source of this information. This makes it appear as the CAGW is really putting words in the mouths of politicians to further it's own agenda! According CNET (http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html) , the policy will give preference to open-source software and products that adhere to open standards to ensure that, as Eric Kriss is quoted as saying, what we build is interoperable and interchangeable, so that different applications can use the same data, so we won't have to be constantly reinventing and rethinking basic functionality. CAGW President Tom Schatz is also quoted as saying, People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. I fail to understand why exactly people are mistaken in referring to Linux as 'free' in this way, when it is so clearly stated in the license under which Linux is distributed, the GNU General Public License, that: - ...the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. - When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. - Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. I fail to understand how Mr. Schatz could make a claim that these people are mistaken in this belief, when in fact, this belief is one hundred percent accurate? Mr. Schatz continues on to claim that, Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Yet there are no references to studies, statistics, or even anecdotes provided to back up this claim. As an IT professional for more than 10 years, I'm quite curious to know Mr. Schatz's qualifications to make such claims. Especially considering that during my carreer I have saved many companies many thousands if not millions of dollars by using Free and Open Source Software. This savings was not experienced solely in the lack of up-front financial investment in the software, though that obviously contributed. Rather, the cost savings were experienced in the lack of annual licensing costs, lack of annual support contracts, and lack of continually forced and unnecessary software upgrades. Mr. Schatz does however, make two claims I completely agree with: - the best policy on the use of software is to place all
Proposed Software Monopoly Press Release
To whom it may concern, As a citizen and registered voter in the 37th Middlesex District of Massachusetts, I find the Council for Citizens Against Goverment Waste press release of 30 September, 2003 (available here: http://www.cagw.org/site/PageServer?pagename=news_NewsRelease_09302003b ) to be frought with mis-understanding, mis-information, and mis-leading intentions. The CAGW has completely mis-represented Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's proposal, which actually states: In technology, we will adopt open standards to make systems more interoperable, and open source software, when available, to reduce licensing, programming and maintenance costs. (http://mass.gov/agency/documents/eoaf/The_Capital_Budget.pdf) And Eric Kriss, State Secretary of Administration and Finance is quoted in a CNET article as re-iterating this stance here: The state will also give preference to open-source software, although it will continue to purchase proprietary products if they are found to be superior technologically or otherwise... (http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html) In your press release, you claim that Massachusetts CIO Peter Quinn states an intention to move all state and local government computers to open-source operating systems. Yet you cite no source for this supposed claim, which in fact, is completely wrong. More over, a search of the World Wide Web for this supposed quote turns only the CAGW Press Release at PR Newswire (http://news.corporate.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20030930/30sep2003162722.html) in which the CAGW is cited for the source of this information. This makes it appear as the CAGW is really putting words in the mouths of politicians to further it's own agenda! According CNET (http://news.com.com/2100-7344-5084442.html) , the policy will give preference to open-source software and products that adhere to open standards to ensure that, as Eric Kriss is quoted as saying, what we build is interoperable and interchangeable, so that different applications can use the same data, so we won't have to be constantly reinventing and rethinking basic functionality. CAGW President Tom Schatz is also quoted as saying, People mistakenly refer to Linux as 'free' software because it can be freely altered and distributed. I fail to understand why exactly people are mistaken in referring to Linux as 'free' in this way, when it is so clearly stated in the license under which Linux is distributed, the GNU General Public License, that: - ...the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free software--to make sure the software is free for all its users. - When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. - Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. I fail to understand how Mr. Schatz could make a claim that these people are mistaken in this belief, when in fact, this belief is one hundred percent accurate? Mr. Schatz continues on to claim that, Yet while the software itself is free, the cost to maintain and upgrade it can become very expensive. Yet there are no references to studies, statistics, or even anecdotes provided to back up this claim. As an IT professional for more than 10 years, I'm quite curious to know Mr. Schatz's qualifications to make such claims. Especially considering that during my carreer I have saved many companies many thousands if not millions of dollars by using Free and Open Source Software. This savings was not experienced solely in the lack of up-front financial investment in the software, though that obviously contributed. Rather, the cost savings were experienced in the lack of annual licensing costs, lack of annual support contracts, and lack of continually forced and unnecessary software upgrades. Mr. Schatz does however, make two claims I completely agree with: - the best policy on the use of software is to place all products on equal footing. - It is critical that taxpayers receive the best quality programs at the least cost. And in fact, I believe that the Massachusetts policy does exactly this. First, they insist that any software purchase requires the software comply to open standards and that the data can be easily accessed by means other than through the software which created the data. Second, it finally puts Free and Open Software on equal footing with commercial and proprietary software vendors. Prior to this policy, only software sold by state approved vendors could be considered for purchase. This effectively eliminated Free and Open Source Software from official use
