Generated.

[homepage.git] / blog / index.rss

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version='2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/1.0/' xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
        <channel>
                <title>Petter Reinholdtsen</title>
                <description></description>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/</link>
                <atom:link href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/index.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
        
        <item>
                <title>What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:15:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;After trying to compare Ogg Theora to
&lt;ahref=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;the Digistan
definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
this.  As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
JPEG, PNG, SVG and others.  But to be able to complete this in a
reasonable time frame, I will need help.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;If you want to help out with this work, please visit
&lt;ahref=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse&quot;&gt;the
wiki pages I have set up for this&lt;/a&gt;, and let me know that you want
to help out.  The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
of the Norwegian Unix User Group).&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do.  Do not be
scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>The many definitions of a open standard</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:45:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;Free and
Open Standard&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
the term has been decided by Digistan.  The term &quot;Open Standard&quot; has
become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
about standards.  One end up discussing which definition is the best
one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
standards, here are a few that I know about.  This list is not
complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
complete survey.  More definitions are available on the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard&quot;&gt;wikipedia
page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
Interoperability Framework version 1.0.  Really sad to notice that BSA
and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the
framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
their own people.  Anyway, the definition is still available and it
include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
specification on equal terms.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
open standard:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
(consensus or majority decision etc.).&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
nominal fee.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
(parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
free basis.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Another one originates from my friends over at
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dkuug.dk/&quot;&gt;DKUUG&lt;/a&gt;, who coined and gathered
support for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aaben-standard.dk/&quot;&gt;this
definition&lt;/a&gt; in 2004.  It even made it into the Danish parlament as
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm&quot;&gt;their
definition of a open standard&lt;/a&gt;.  Another from a different part of
the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
tilgængelig.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
&quot;standardiseringsorganisation&quot;) via en åben proces.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Then there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html&quot;&gt;the
definition&lt;/a&gt; from Free Software Foundation Europe.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;

&lt;li&gt;subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
manner equally available to all parties;&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
Standard themselves;&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
any party or in any business model;&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
parties;&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;available in multiple complete implementations by competing
vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
parties.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
its
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf&quot;&gt;Open
Standards Checklist&lt;/a&gt; with a fairly detailed description.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Creation and Management of an Open Standard

&lt;ul&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Its development and management process must be collaborative and
  democratic:

         &lt;ul&gt;

         &lt;li&gt;Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
            participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
            imposed by the organization under which it is developed
            and managed.&lt;/li&gt;

         &lt;li&gt;The processes must be documented and, through a known
            method, can be changed through input from all
            participants.&lt;/li&gt;

         &lt;li&gt;The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
            the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.&lt;/li&gt;

         &lt;li&gt;Development and management should strive for consensus,
            and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.&lt;/li&gt;

         &lt;li&gt;The standard specification must be open to extensive
            public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
            comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.&lt;/li&gt;

         &lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Use and Licensing of an Open Standard&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
  and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
  implementations to the interface described in the standard without
  undue or restrictive constraints.  Interfaces include APIs,
  protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt; The standard must not contain any proprietary &quot;hooks&quot; that create
  a technical or economic barriers&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Faithful implementations of the standard must
  interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
  program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
  programs and mutually to use the information which has been
  exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
  file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
  conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
  computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
  intended to function.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
  standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
  must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
  fees; also known as &quot;royalty free&quot;), worldwide, non-exclusive and
  perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
  sell products based on the standard.  The only exceptions are
  terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
  outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
  patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
  only for the exact scope of the standard in question.

      &lt;ul&gt;

      &lt;li&gt; May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
        licensees&#39; patent claims essential to practice that standard
        (also known as a reciprocity clause)&lt;/li&gt;

      &lt;li&gt; May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
        or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
        essential to practice that standard (also known as a
        &quot;defensive suspension&quot; clause)&lt;/li&gt;

      &lt;li&gt; The same licensing terms are available to every potential
        licensor&lt;/li&gt;

      &lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
  implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
  or restricted licensing terms&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
there are so many of them.  As you can see, the same holds true for
open standard definitions.  Most of the definitions have a lot in
common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
competition to downplay the significance of open standards.  I hope we
can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
Standards.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;The
Digistan definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard reads like this:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
as follows:&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ol&gt;

&lt;li&gt;A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
open decision-making procedure available to all interested
parties.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
distribute, and use it freely.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ol&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
products based on the standard.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
and open standard according to this definition.  Here is a short
writeup of what I have been able to gather so far.  I brought up the
topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
&lt;a href=&quot;http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html&quot;&gt;in
July 2009&lt;/a&gt;, for those that want to see some background information.
According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free from vendor capture?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
Ogg Theora specification.  It can be argued that the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/&quot;&gt;Xiph foundation&lt;/A&gt; is such vendor, but
given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
obvious that this is a real risk.  One issue with the Xiph
foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
control the foundation) are not easily available on the web.  I&#39;ve
been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
where is is spent in the foundation.  It is thus not obvious for an
external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
specification.  But it seem unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
claim it to be, this point is fulfilled.  If Xiph foundation is
controlled by a single vendor, it isn&#39;t, but I have not found any
documentation indicating this.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;According to
&lt;a href=&quot;http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf&quot;&gt;a report&lt;/a&gt;
prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
report is correct.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Specification freely available?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The specification for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/&quot;&gt;Ogg
container format&lt;/a&gt; and both the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/&quot;&gt;Vorbis&lt;/a&gt; and
&lt;a href=&quot;http://theora.org/doc/&quot;&gt;Theora&lt;/a&gt; codeces are available on
the web.  This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:

&lt;blockquote&gt;

Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
specification compliance.

&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 3533&lt;/a&gt;, and
this is the term:&lt;p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
translate it into languages other than English.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;/blockquote&gt;

&lt;p&gt;All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
this term seem to be fulfilled.  There might be a problem with the
missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
thus reuse it in other specifications.  Not quite sure if that is a
requirement for the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Royalty-free?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
Theora format.
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;
and
&lt;a href=&quot;http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit&quot;&gt;Steve
Jobs&lt;/a&gt; in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
them.  Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
without paying any royalties.  For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
than any real problem with Ogg Theora.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No constraints on re-use?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation.  Given the
background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
this.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
see if they are free and open standards.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;A few days ago
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece&quot;&gt;an
article&lt;/a&gt; in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
2.0 of
&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework&quot;&gt;European
Interoperability Framework&lt;/a&gt; has been successfully lobbied by the
proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
Nothing very surprising there, given
&lt;a href=&quot;http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe&quot;&gt;earlier
reports&lt;/a&gt; on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
this work.  But I find this very sad.   The definition of
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt&quot;&gt;an
open standard from version 1&lt;/a&gt; was very good, and something I
believe should be used also in the future, alongside
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;the
definition from Digistan&lt;/A&gt;.  Version 2 have removed the open
standard definition from its content.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
in the public sector in Peru.  As the text was not available from a
few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
&lt;a href=&quot;http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html&quot;&gt;my
source&lt;/a&gt; to ensure it is available also in the future.  Some
background information about that story is available in
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099&quot;&gt;an article&lt;/a&gt; from
Linux Journal in 2002.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;blockquote&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Lima, 8th of April, 2002&lt;br&gt; 
To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ&lt;br&gt;
General Manager of Microsoft Perú&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Dear Sir:&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call &quot;open source software&quot; is what the Bill defines as &quot;free software&quot;, 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 &quot;commercial software&quot; is what the Bill defines as &quot;proprietary&quot; or &quot;unfree&quot;, given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;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. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;
&lt;ul&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Free access to public information by the citizen. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Permanence of public data. &lt;/li&gt;
&lt;li&gt;Security of the State and citizens.&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;/ul&gt;
&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable 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.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;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*. &lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles.&lt;/p&gt; 


&lt;p&gt;From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:&lt;br&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;the law does not specify which concrete software to use&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought&lt;/li&gt; 
&lt;li&gt;the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.&lt;/li&gt; 

&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Firstly, you point out that: &quot;1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No. 012-2001-PCM).&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office &quot;suite&quot;, under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;To continue; you note that:&quot; 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies...&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding &quot;non-competitive ... practices.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them &quot;a priori&quot;, but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms&#39; expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: &quot;update your software to the new version&quot; (at the user&#39;s expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider&#39;s judgment alone, are &quot;old&quot;; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays &quot;trapped&quot; in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You add: &quot;3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of &quot;ad hoc&quot; software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Your letter continues: &quot;4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Alluding in an abstract way to &quot;the dangers this can bring&quot;, without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;On security:&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or &quot;bugs&quot; (in programmers&#39; slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;In respect of the guarantee:&lt;/p&gt; 

A&lt;p&gt;s you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the &quot;End User License Agreement&quot; 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 licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS&#39;&#39;, 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.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;On Intellectual Property:&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one&#39;s own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You go on to say that: &quot;The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL).&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You continue: &quot;6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software (&quot;blue screens of death&quot;, malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You further state that: &quot;7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You continue: &quot;8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;The second argument refers to &quot;problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector&quot; This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You then say that: &quot;9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You continue by observing that: &quot;10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You go on to say that: &quot;11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You then state that: &quot;12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools.&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn&#39;t have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That&#39;s exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;You end with a rhetorical question: &quot;13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn&#39;t it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?&quot;&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.&lt;/p&gt; 

&lt;p&gt;Cordially,&lt;br&gt; 
DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ&lt;br&gt; 
Congressman of the Republic of Perú.&lt;/p&gt; 
&lt;/blockquote&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Officeshots still going strong</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:40:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;Half a year ago I
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html&quot;&gt;wrote
a bit&lt;/a&gt; about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.officeshots.org/&quot;&gt;OfficeShots&lt;/a&gt;,
a web service to allow anyone to test how ODF documents are handled by
the different programs reading and writing the ODF format.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;I just had a look at the service, and it seem to be going strong.
Very interesting to see the results reported in the gallery, how
different Office implementations handle different ODF features.  Sad
to see that KOffice was not doing it very well, and happy to see that
LibreOffice has been tested already (but sadly not listed as a option
for OfficeShots users yet).  I am glad to see that the ODF community
got such a great test tool available.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>165 norske overvåkningskamera registert så langt i OpenStreetmap.org</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/165_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_s___langt_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/165_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_s___langt_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Fri, 24 Dec 2010 11:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;Jeg flikket litt på OpenStreetmap.org i går, og oppdaget ved en
tilfeldighet at det er en rekke noder som representerer
overvåkningskamera som ikke blir med på kartet med overvåkningskamera
i Norge som
&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html&quot;&gt;jeg
laget&lt;/a&gt; for snart to år siden.  Fra før tok jeg med noder merket med
man_made=surveillance, mens det er en rekke noder som kun er merket
med highway=speed_camera.  Endret på koden som henter ut kameralisten
fra OSM, og vips er antall kamera økt til 165.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.no/pere/surveillance-norway/&quot;&gt;Kartet&lt;/a&gt;
er fortsatt ikke komplett, så hvis du ser noen kamera som mangler,
legg inn ved å følge instruksene fra
&lt;a href=&quot;http://personvern.no/wiki/index.php/Kameraovervåkning&quot;&gt;prosjektsiden&lt;/a&gt;.
Hvis du vet om noen flere måter å merke overvåkningskamera i OSM, ta
kontakt slik at jeg kan få med også disse.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>How to test if a laptop is working with Linux</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/How_to_test_if_a_laptop_is_working_with_Linux.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/How_to_test_if_a_laptop_is_working_with_Linux.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Wed, 22 Dec 2010 14:55:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;The last few days I have spent at work here at the &lt;a
href=&quot;http://www.uio.no/&quot;&gt;University of oslo&lt;/a&gt; testing if the new
batch of computers will work with Linux.  Every year for the last few
years the university have organized shared bid of a few thousand
computers, and this year HP won the bid.  Two different desktops and
five different laptops are on the list this year.  We in the UNIX
group want to know which one of these computers work well with RHEL
and Ubuntu, the two Linux distributions we currently handle at the
university.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;My test method is simple, and I share it here to get feedback and
perhaps inspire others to test hardware as well.  To test, I PXE
install the OS version of choice, and log in as my normal user and run
a few applications and plug in selected pieces of hardware.  When
something fail, I make a note about this in the test matrix and move
on.  If I have some spare time I try to report the bug to the OS
vendor, but as I only have the machines for a short time, I rarely
have the time to do this for all the problems I find.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Anyway, to get to the point of this post.  Here is the simple tests
I perform on a new model.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;ul&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Is PXE installation working?  I&#39;m testing with RHEL6, Ubuntu Lucid
and Ubuntu Maverik at the moment.  If I feel like it, I also test with
RHEL5 and Debian Edu/Squeeze.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Is X.org working?  If the graphical login screen show up after
installation, X.org is working.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Is hardware accelerated OpenGL working?  Running glxgears (in
package mesa-utils on Ubuntu) and writing down the frames per second
reported by the program.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Is sound working?  With Gnome and KDE, a sound is played when
logging in, and if I can hear this the test is successful.  If there
are several audio exits on the machine, I try them all and check if
the Gnome/KDE audio mixer can control where to send the sound.  I
normally test this by playing
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20101012-chef/ &quot;&gt;a HTML5
video&lt;/a&gt; in Firefox/Iceweasel.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Is the USB subsystem working?  I test this by plugging in a USB
memory stick and see if Gnome/KDE notices this.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Is the CD/DVD player working?  I test this by inserting any CD/DVD
I have lying around, and see if Gnome/KDE notices this.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Is any built in camera working?  Test using cheese, and see if a
picture from the v4l device show up.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Is bluetooth working?  Use the Gnome/KDE browsing tool to see if
any bluetooth devices are discovered.  In my office, I normally see a
few.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;For laptops, is the SD or Compaq Flash reader working.  I have
memory modules lying around, and stick them in and see if Gnome/KDE
notice this.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;For laptops, is suspecd/hibernate working?  I&#39;m testing if the
special button work, and if the laptop continue to work after
resume.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;For laptops, is the extra buttons working, like audio level,
adjusting background light, switching on/off external video output,
switching on/off wifi, bluetooth, etc?  The set of buttons differ from
laptop to laptop, so I just write down which are working and which are
not.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;li&gt;Some laptops have smart card readers, finger print readers,
acceleration sensors etc.  I rarely test these, as I do not know how
to quickly test if they are working or not, so I only document their
existence.&lt;/li&gt;

&lt;/ul&gt;

&lt;p&gt;By now I suspect you are really curious what the test results are
for the HP machines I am testing.  I&#39;m not done yet, so I will report
the test results later.  For now I can report that HP 8100 Elite work
fine, and hibernation fail with HP EliteBook 8440p on Ubuntu Lucid,
and audio fail on RHEL6.  Ubuntu Maverik worked with 8440p.  As you
can see, I have most machines left to test.  One interesting
observation is that Ubuntu Lucid has almost twice the framerate than
RHEL6 with glxgears.  No idea why.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Some thoughts on BitCoins</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Some_thoughts_on_BitCoins.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Some_thoughts_on_BitCoins.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 15:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;As I continue to explore
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bitcoin.org/&quot;&gt;BitCoin&lt;/a&gt;, I&#39;ve starting to wonder
what properties the system have, and how it will be affected by laws
and regulations here in Norway.  Here are some random notes.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;One interesting thing to note is that since the transactions are
verified using a peer to peer network, all details about a transaction
is known to everyone.  This means that if a BitCoin address has been
published like I did with mine in my initial post about BitCoin, it is
possible for everyone to see how many BitCoins have been transfered to
that address.  There is even a web service to look at the details for
all transactions.  There I can see that my address
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blockexplorer.com/address/15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&quot;&gt;15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&lt;/a&gt;
have received 16.06 Bitcoin, the
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blockexplorer.com/address/1LfdGnGuWkpSJgbQySxxCWhv8MHqvwst3&quot;&gt;1LfdGnGuWkpSJgbQySxxCWhv8MHqvwst3&lt;/a&gt;
address of Simon Phipps have received 181.97 BitCoin and the address
&lt;a href=&quot;http://blockexplorer.com/address/1MCwBbhNGp5hRm5rC1Aims2YFRe2SXPYKt&quot;&gt;1MCwBbhNGp5hRm5rC1Aims2YFRe2SXPYKt&lt;/A&gt;
of EFF have received 2447.38 BitCoins so far.  Thank you to each and
every one of you that donated bitcoins to support my activity. The
fact that anyone can see how much money was transfered to a given
address make it more obvious why the BitCoin community recommend to
generate and hand out a new address for each transaction.  I&#39;m told
there is no way to track which addresses belong to a given person or
organisation without the person or organisation revealing it
themselves, as Simon, EFF and I have done.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;In Norway, and in most other countries, there are laws and
regulations limiting how much money one can transfer across the border
without declaring it.  There are money laundering, tax and accounting
laws and regulations I would expect to apply to the use of BitCoin.
If the Skolelinux foundation
(&lt;a href=&quot;http://linuxiskolen.no/slxdebianlabs/donations.html&quot;&gt;SLX
Debian Labs&lt;/a&gt;) were to accept donations in BitCoin in addition to
normal bank transfers like EFF is doing, how should this be accounted?
Given that it is impossible to know if money can across the border or
not, should everything or nothing be declared?  What exchange rate
should be used when calculating taxes?  Would receivers have to pay
income tax if the foundation were to pay Skolelinux contributors in
BitCoin?  I have no idea, but it would be interesting to know.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;For a currency to be useful and successful, it must be trusted and
accepted by a lot of users.  It must be possible to get easy access to
the currency (as a wage or using currency exchanges), and it must be
easy to spend it.  At the moment BitCoin seem fairly easy to get
access to, but there are very few places to spend it.  I am not really
a regular user of any of the vendor types currently accepting BitCoin,
so I wonder when my kind of shop would start accepting BitCoins.  I
would like to buy electronics, travels and subway tickets, not herbs
and books. :) The currency is young, and this will improve over time
if it become popular, but I suspect regular banks will start to lobby
to get BitCoin declared illegal if it become popular.  I&#39;m sure they
will claim it is helping fund terrorism and money laundering (which
probably would be true, as is any currency in existence), but I
believe the problems should be solved elsewhere and not by blaming
currencies.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;The process of creating new BitCoins is called mining, and it is
CPU intensive process that depend on a bit of luck as well (as one is
competing against all the other miners currently spending CPU cycles
to see which one get the next lump of cash).  The &quot;winner&quot; get 50
BitCoin when this happen.  Yesterday I came across the obvious way to
join forces to increase ones changes of getting at least some coins,
by coordinating the work on mining BitCoins across several machines
and people, and sharing the result if one is lucky and get the 50
BitCoins.  Check out
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/bitcoin-pool/&quot;&gt;BitCoin Pool&lt;/a&gt;
if this sounds interesting.  I have not had time to try to set up a
machine to participate there yet, but have seen that running on ones
own for a few days have not yield any BitCoins througth mining
yet.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Update 2010-12-15: Found an &lt;a
href=&quot;http://inertia.posterous.com/reply-to-the-underground-economist-why-bitcoi&quot;&gt;interesting
criticism&lt;/a&gt; of bitcoin.  Not quite sure how valid it is, but thought
it was interesting to read.  The arguments presented seem to be
equally valid for gold, which was used as a currency for many years.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Pornoskannerne på flyplassene bedrer visst ikke sikkerheten</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Pornoskannerne_p___flyplassene_bedrer_visst_ikke_sikkerheten.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Pornoskannerne_p___flyplassene_bedrer_visst_ikke_sikkerheten.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:45:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;Via &lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/12/10/links-for-2010-12-10/&quot;&gt;en
blogpost fra Simon Phipps i går&lt;/a&gt;, fant jeg en referanse til
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/9/exposed-tsas-x-rated-scanner-fraud/&quot;&gt;en
artikkel i Washington Times&lt;/a&gt; som igjen refererer til en artikkel i
det fagfellevurderte tidsskriftet Journal of Transportation Security
med tittelen
&quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://springerlink.com/content/g6620thk08679160/fulltext.html&quot;&gt;An
evaluation of airport x-ray backscatter units based on image
characteristics&lt;/a&gt;&quot; som enkelt konstaterer at
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/?a=2389&amp;c=124&quot;&gt;pornoscannerne&lt;/a&gt;
som kler av reisende på flyplasser ikke er i stand til å avsløre det
produsenten og amerikanske myndigheter sier de skal avsløre.  Kort
sagt, de bedrer ikke sikkerheten.  Reisende må altså la ansatte på
flyplasser &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.thousandsstandingaround.org/&quot;&gt;se dem
nakne eller la seg beføle i skrittet&lt;/a&gt; uten grunn.  Jeg vil
fortsette å nekte å bruke disse pornoskannerne, unngå flyplasser der
de er tatt i bruk, og reise med andre transportmidler enn fly hvis jeg
kan.&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        <item>
                <title>Now accepting bitcoins - anonymous and distributed p2p crypto-money</title>
                <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Now_accepting_bitcoins___anonymous_and_distributed_p2p_crypto_money.html</link>
                <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Now_accepting_bitcoins___anonymous_and_distributed_p2p_crypto_money.html</guid>
                <pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
                <description>
&lt;p&gt;With this weeks lawless
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/12/06/wikileaks/index.html&quot;&gt;governmental
attacks&lt;/a&gt; on Wikileak and
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.salon.com/technology/dan_gillmor/2010/12/06/war_on_speech&quot;&gt;free
speech&lt;/a&gt;, it has become obvious that PayPal, visa and mastercard can
not be trusted to handle money transactions.
A blog post from
&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/12/06/now-accepting-bitcoin/&quot;&gt;Simon
Phipps on bitcoin&lt;/a&gt; reminded me about a project that a friend of
mine mentioned earlier.  I decided to follow Simon&#39;s example, and get
involved with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bitcoin.org/&quot;&gt;BitCoin&lt;/a&gt;.  I got
some help from my friend to get it all running, and he even handed me
some bitcoins to get started.  I even donated a few bitcoins to Simon
for helping me remember BitCoin.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;So, what is bitcoins, you probably wonder?  It is a digital
crypto-currency, decentralised and handled using peer-to-peer
networks.  It allows anonymous transactions and prohibits central
control over the transactions, making it impossible for governments
and companies alike to block donations and other transactions.  The
source is free software, and while the key dependency wxWidgets 2.9
for the graphical user interface is missing in Debian, the command
line client builds just fine.  Hopefully Jonas
&lt;a href=&quot;http://bugs.debian.org/578157&quot;&gt;will get the package into
Debian&lt;/a&gt; soon.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;Bitcoins can be converted to other currencies, like USD and EUR.
There are &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bitcoin.org/trade&quot;&gt;companies accepting
bitcoins&lt;/a&gt; when selling services and goods, and there are even
currency &quot;stock&quot; markets where the exchange rate is decided.  There
are not many users so far, but the concept seems promising.  If you
want to get started and lack a friend with any bitcoins to spare,
you can even get
&lt;a href=&quot;https://freebitcoins.appspot.com/&quot;&gt;some for free&lt;/a&gt; (0.05
bitcoin at the time of writing).  Use
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bitcoinwatch.com/&quot;&gt;BitcoinWatch&lt;/a&gt; to keep an eye
on the current exchange rates.&lt;/p&gt;

&lt;p&gt;As an experiment, I have decided to set up bitcoind on one of my
machines.  If you want to support my activity, please send Bitcoin
donations to the address
&lt;b&gt;15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&lt;/b&gt;.  Thank you!&lt;/p&gt;
</description>
        </item>
        
        </channel>
</rss>