Norwegian Free Software Center Opposes Government Pro FOSS Policy

[Sam Tuke]

This is old news, but I wonder if people were aware of it at the time?:

http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-
Blog/Norwegian-Free-Software-Center-Opposes-Government-Pro-FOSS-Policy
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100910/c9a15d3c/attachment.pgp

[Andreas Tolf Tolfsen]

Post by Sam Tuke
http://www.linux-magazine.com/Online/Blogs/Off-the-Beat-Bruce-Byfield-s-
Blog/Norwegian-Free-Software-Center-Opposes-Government-Pro-FOSS-Policy

I have translated this article into English:

---
Preference Policy for Free Software? No Thank You!

Will there come a preference policy for free software? The Minister for
Renewal has been challenged about this earlier. Her answer is that she has a
pragmatic relationship with free software. Great - the Norwegian Competence
Centre for Free Software does too.

In other words, we do not need a preference policy towards free software.
Software is something we need not or should not be for or against. It is not a
political matter one needs to consider, like [economical support for people
deciding to be home with their children instead of sending them to
kindergardens] or oil drilling. A preferential policy will mainly be about
whether public enterprises should be required to choose free software over
closed software.

Software development points in a direction of open solutions, shared
development environments and healthy competition. Free software has a central
place in all ICT (Information and communications technologies) developments,
and is already a competitive direction for development. Qualitative and
quantitative analysis indicates increased use and a multitude of solutions.
Free software holds a significant position in Norwegian and global IT industry,
and is delivered by many Norwegian consulting- and software development
enterprises, as well as from global [mammothal companies]. Free software has
become big business, and we would not have been witness to global successes
such as Facebook or the Android[e] [sic!] mobile platform without open
developent environments. The development model is open, but it is clear that
there are large commercial interests behind it.

Free software is increasingly prefered in large mission-critical IT solutions.
NAV (the Norwegian Labour and Welfare Administration), Bankenes
betalingssentral (centralized management of payment transactions), Norwegian
(airline), Statsbygg (governmental construction agency), Elkj?p (large
electronics retailer), NSB (Norwegian railways), Statens Pensjonskasse (the
Government's Pension Fund), Husbanken (the Governmental Housing Bank), Statens
Kartverk (Norwegian Mapping and Cadastre Authority), DIFI (Agency for Public
Management and eGovernment), Avinor (air control), Euronics (electronics
retailer), Oslo B?rs (stock exchange), Oslo kommune (municipality, capital
city), B?rum kommune, Alta kommune og Asker kommune are just some of those who
use solutions based soley or partially on free software. Free software is
selected in tough competition with closed software, simply because it has a
competitive advantage.

Free software will remain important for ICT development in the public sector in
the years to come, but to require public enterprises and entities to use free
software will not only be unnecessary, but also impossible to implement. If
one were to put constraints on the choice of software to individual projects,
this could also lead to the individual public entity could not choose the best
solution. Increased use of free software is important for the development of
ICT in public sector, but it must be based on the premise that free software is
the best solution in competition to closed software. When we, [the Norwegian
Competence Centre for Free Software], meet a public enterprise we ocus on that
they should consider free software as an option in all their solutions. [But]
free software must never be chosen at any cost. Only where it through
consideration is deemed to be the best alternative.

Nevertheless, we call for a clear renewal policy, which includes sharing, reuse
and openness. [The National Competence Centre for Free Software] recently
conducted a survey of municipality politicans' attitudes toward IT as a
strategic management tool. Not unexpectedly, this is a missing theme in the
majority of Norwegian municipalities. [The Norwegian Association of Local and
Reginal Authorities]' eMunicipality-survey [sic!] from May 2010 also shows that
it is on track to develop A and B municipalites [here: refering to qualitative
difference between municipalities] over who is able to provide efficent and
good public services. And re-use of sector-specific software developed with
public funds is virtually non-existent. Another negative trend is that large
public enterprises with good expertise in greater respect than the smaller
entities are able to make financial gains from the use of free software. This
also applies to other areas of ICT such as architecture and security. Reuse,
sharing is the key to close this gap.

In [the Norwegian Competence Centre for Free Software] get many inquiries from
businesses that want information on free software. The trend is that requests
go from focusing on what free software is, to specific requests related to the
reuse of software between public enterprises. The need for information and
good examples are increasing, and we see public institutions as pragmatic when
choosing between free and closed software. But, of course, most public
agencies use both closed and free software in their IT architecture. Apart
from an increased demand related to free software, we see that the public
sector cries out for a more comprehensive ICT investment from the central
government. An ordinary municipality currently has between 1-3 employed in the
ICT department, responsible for everything from operations to strategy. These
activities are entirely dependent on a common ICT effort to close the gap
between the small municipalities with poor economy and the larger, more
resourceful municipalities.

Increased focus on common components, better coordination of government ICT
investments and the total reorganization of municipal e-government are some of
the measures we believe should be given priority in the years to come. In this
work, open source software play a central role simply because the state though
the development of common components must be especially aware of the danger
that some suppliers have monopolies based on closed software. Free software
will also be important to further develop a competitive Norwegian IT industry,
which increases the communities economic growth.
---


Best regards,

[Carsten Agger]

Post by Andreas Tolf Tolfsen
If
one were to put constraints on the choice of software to individual projects,
this could also lead to the individual public entity could not choose the best
solution. Increased use of free software is important for the

development of

Post by Andreas Tolf Tolfsen
ICT in public sector, but it must be based on the premise that free software is
the best solution in competition to closed software....

This is a very strange point of view for an entity which calls itself a
"Free Software Center". They don't seem to care about the philosophical
advantages to free software, nor to the fact that entities which build on
proprietary software compromise their infrastructure and places it in the
hands of private vendors, but seems to think it's all about technical
advantage.

Maybe they should change their name to the "Norwegian Open Source Center".

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

Post by Carsten Agger
This is a very strange point of view for an entity which calls itself a
"Free Software Center". They don't seem to care about the philosophical
advantages to free software, nor to the fact that entities which build on
proprietary software compromise their infrastructure and places it in the
hands of private vendors, but seems to think it's all about technical
advantage.
Maybe they should change their name to the "Norwegian Open Source Center".

I concur; the vague terminology ("call for a clear renewal policy, which
includes sharing, reuse and openness"), declaring absent any evidence
that software decisions are "not a political matter one needs to
consider" (as opposed to political matters one should consider?),
declaring that better software should be the primary determining factor,
and no recognition that bad free software can be improved by all but
proprietary software of any quality is only understood and improved by
the proprietor -- all these things are strong tip-offs that the open
source philosophy is at work here.

I wonder if this is a case where free software advocates have
successfully explained the difference between the two movements to the
point where proprietors now seek to either obscure that difference or
co-opt the phrase "free software" to stand for the proprietor-friendly
values of the open source movement?

[Sam Tuke]

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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 230 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100913/42c9a657/attachment.pgp

[Ciarán O'Riordan]

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")

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Ciarán O'Riordan
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

[Carsten Agger]

Post by Alex Hudson

Post by Ciarán O'Riordan
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

--
http://www.modspil.dk

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Carsten Agger
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

[MJ Ray]

Alex Hudson wrote: [on preference laws]

Post by Alex Hudson
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...

[...]

Post by Alex Hudson
*. 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 ...".

Post by Alex Hudson
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.

Post by Alex Hudson
This message was scanned by Better Hosted and is believed to be clean.

Regards,

[Alex Hudson]

Post by MJ Ray
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.

Post by MJ Ray
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

[Carsten Agger]

Post by 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.

[Alex Hudson]

Post by Carsten Agger

Post by 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

[simo]

Post by 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.