1 <?xml version=
"1.0" encoding=
"utf-8"?>
2 <rss version='
2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/
1.0/' xmlns:
atom=
"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
4 <title>Petter Reinholdtsen
</title>
5 <description></description>
6 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/
</link>
7 <atom:link href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/index.rss" rel=
"self" type=
"application/rss+xml" />
10 <title>Hva har mine representanter stemt i Storinget?
</title>
11 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_har_mine_representanter_stemt_i_Storinget_.html
</link>
12 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_har_mine_representanter_stemt_i_Storinget_.html
</guid>
13 <pubDate>Tue,
11 Jan
2011 14:
25:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
15 <p
>I England har
<a href=
"http://www.mysociety.org/
">MySociety
</a
>
16 laget en genial tjeneste for å holde øye med parlamentet. Tjenesten
17 <a href=
"http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
">They Work For You
</a
> lar
18 borgerne få direkte og sanntidsoppdatert innsyn i sine representanters
19 gjøren og laden i parlamentet. En kan kan få kopi av det en gitt
20 representant har sagt på talerstolen, og få vite hva hver enkelt
21 representant har stemt i hver enkelt sak som er tatt opp. Jeg skulle
22 gjerne hatt en slik tjeneste for Stortinget i Norge.
</p
>
24 <p
>Endel
<a href=
"http://www.nsd.uib.no/polsys/storting/
">statistikk
25 over representantenes stemmegivning
</a
> er tilgjengelig fra Norsk
26 sammfunnsvitenskaplig datatjeneste, men ingenting av dette er
27 detaljert nok til at en han holde hver enkelt stortingsrepresentant
30 <p
>For å få en idé om det finnes en datakilde fra Stortinget som kan
31 brukes til å få oversikt over hvordan hver enkelt representant har
32 stemt, sendte jeg et spørsmål til Stortinget:
</p
>
34 <p
><blockquote
><pre
>
35 Fra: Petter Reinholdtsen
36 Sendt:
11. januar
2011 10:
42
37 Til: info (at) stortinget.no
38 Emne: Hvem stemte hva i de ulike sakene?
40 Hei. Er det informasjon tilgjengelig på web om hvilke
41 stortingsrepresentanter som stemte hva i sakene som er til votering i
47 </pre
></blockquote
></p
>
49 <p
>Svaret kom noen timer senere:
</p
>
51 <p
><blockquote
><pre
>
52 From: Postmottak Informasjonshjornet
53 To: Petter Reinholdtsen
54 Subject: RE: Hvem stemte hva i de ulike sakene?
55 Date: Tue,
11 Jan
2011 12:
46:
25 +
0000
58 Takk for henvendelsen.
60 Sommeren
2010 fikk vi nytt voteringsanlegg i stortingssalen som
61 muliggjør publisering av voteringsresultat på nett. dette er et
62 pågående prosjekt
1. halvår
2011. Kan ikke si nøyaktig når det er i
64 <a href=
"http://www.stortinget.no/no/Stortinget-og-demokratiet/Historikk/Nytt-konferanseanlegg-i-stortingssalen/
">http://www.stortinget.no/no/Stortinget-og-demokratiet/Historikk/Nytt-konferanseanlegg-i-stortingssalen/
</a
>
66 Foreløpig må du finne voteringsresultatet i referatet etter at saken
67 har vært behandlet i Stortinget.
69 Ønsker du å vite hvem som stemte hva i en bestemt sak,(og hvem som
70 ikke var til stede), kan du kontakte oss og vi kan sende deg en
74 Elin B. Relander Tømte
75 Stortingets Informasjonsseksjon
80 </pre
></blockquote
></p
>
82 <p
>Det ser dermed ut at det i fjor ble mulig å hente ut informasjonen
83 fra Stortinget, men at Stortinget ikke legger denne informasjonen ut
84 på web ennå. En liten brikke er dermed på plass, men mye
85 gjenstår. Kanskje jeg får tid til å se på en norsk utgave etter
86 at vi i NUUG har fått opperativ en norsk utgave av
87 <a href=
"http://www.fixmystreet.com/
">FixMyStreet
</a
>.
</p
>
92 <title>Skolelinux-intervju: Arnt Ove Gregersen
</title>
93 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Skolelinux_intervju__Arnt_Ove_Gregersen.html
</link>
94 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Skolelinux_intervju__Arnt_Ove_Gregersen.html
</guid>
95 <pubDate>Sun,
9 Jan
2011 12:
00:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
98 <a href=
"http://raphaelhertzog.com/tag/interview/
">intervjurunden
</a
>
99 som Raphael Hertzog har startet med folk i Debianprosjektet, fikk jeg
100 lyst til å gjøre det samme med folk i
101 <a href=
"http://www.skolelinux.org/
">Skolelinuxprosjektet
</a
>. Håpet
102 er at de som til daglig bidrar til å fremme fri programvare i
103 skoleverket og utvikler en linux-distribusjon spesiallaget for
104 skolebruk kan bli bedre kjent og kanskje inspirere flere til å bidra
105 til Skolelinux-prosjektet.
</p
>
107 <p
>Først ut er nyvalgt leder i
108 <a href=
"http://www.friprogramvareiskolen.no/
">foreningen FRISK
</a
> som
109 organiserer utviklingen av Skolelinux-distribusjonen. FRISK trenger
110 alltid flere medlemmer, så
111 <a href=
"http://medlem.friprogramvareiskolen.no/index.php?page=signup
">meld
112 deg gjerne inn
</a
> hvis du vil støtte oss.
</p
>
114 <p
><strong
>Hvem er du, og hva driver du med til daglig?
</strong
></p
>
116 <p
>Mitt navn er Arnt Ove Gregersen, jeg er en småbarnfar på
32 år som
117 for tiden bor Trondheim. Her jobber jeg som systemutvikler i et firma
118 som heter
<a href=
"http://www.geomatikk-ikt.no/
">Geomatikk IKT AS
</a
>,
119 hvor jeg er på et Vegmeldings-prosjekt for Statens Vegvesen. På
120 fritiden er jeg styreleder i FRISK (Fri programvare i skolen) og
121 bidrar til bl.a. Skolelinux-prosjektet når jeg får tid til det. Det er
122 primært hjemmesiden til Skolelinux-prosjektet og
123 <a href=
"http://linuxveiviseren.no/
">Linux-veiviseren
</a
> jeg har
124 jobbet med her, men jeg har også gjort en del arbeid i forhold til
125 FRISK sin hjemmeside.
</p
>
127 <p
><strong
>Hvordan kom du i kontakt med Skolelinux-prosjektet?
</strong
></p
>
129 <p
>Jeg var på en presentasjon av prosjektet i regi av Knut Yrvin på
130 Gløshaugen i Trondheim, hvor jeg fattet stor interesse for prosjektet
131 og ville hjelpe til så godt jeg kunne. Dette var vel i
2002 eller
134 <p
>Jeg hadde fra før hørt om prosjektet fra før og syntes tanken bak var
135 ganske fin, men hadde ikke noen interesse av bruke min egen fritid på
138 <p
>I etterkant av presentasjonen startet jeg og noen andre fra
139 Trondheim
"Skolelinux-prosjektet i Sør-Trøndelag
" . Hvor vi var med å
140 bidra til at Trondheim kommune satte igang Selsbakk ungdomskole som et
141 pilotprosjekt med Skolelinux, som egentlig var og er en stor suksess,
142 men det virker ut som det ikke skjer noe mer på. I tillegg var vi med
143 på dugnad på Brundalen videregående skole hvor vi installerte
144 Skolelinux som såvidt jeg vet fortsatt kjører på Skolelinux.
</p
>
146 <p
><strong
>Hva er fordelene med Skolelinux slik du ser det?
</strong
></p
>
148 <p
>Det bygger på fri programvare og har lav kostnad i forhold til
149 nytteverdien. Dette fordi det har forholdsvis lav inngangsum og bruker
150 en arkitektur med sentral-drift som gir mange driftfordeler. I
151 tillegg vil det kunne frigjøre kostnader for skolene slik at de kan
152 bruke dem til å ansette f,eks flere lærere om det er ønskelig.
</p
>
154 <p
><strong
>Hva er ulempene med Skolelinux slik du ser det?
</strong
></p
>
156 <P
>Ikke all pedagogisk programvare er tilgjengelig der, som f.eks
157 Drillpro om jeg ikke husker feil.
</p
>
159 <p
><strong
>Hvilken fri programvare bruker du til daglig?
</strong
></p
>
161 <p
>Til utvikling av Java-applikasjoner og Android bruker jeg Eclipse og
162 Quanta til web-utvikling via php. For all bildebehandling bruker jeg
163 GIMP og Blender til
3d-modellering . Dessverre har Blender en bratt
164 læringskurve i starten, men det er absolutt verdt det.
166 <p
>Til musikk bruker jeg stort Rhytmbox. Firefox til surfing på nettet og
167 Thunderbird og Evolution til e-post,
169 <p
>På database-siden bruker jeg PostgreSQL, Postgis og av og til Mysql.
171 <p
>Når jeg får tid til å spille bruker jeg som regel et strategi-spill
172 som er basert på TA Spring-motoren (springrts.com), her er det et
173 veldig bra utvalg av gratis spill som er av høy kvalitet. Veldig lett
174 å bli hektet :)
</p
>
179 <title>Noen lenker om Datalagringsdirektivet
</title>
180 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Noen_lenker_om_Datalagringsdirektivet.html
</link>
181 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Noen_lenker_om_Datalagringsdirektivet.html
</guid>
182 <pubDate>Sun,
9 Jan
2011 01:
10:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
184 <p
>Arbeiderpartiet har tvunget igjennom et forslag i regjeringen om
185 at alle borgere i Norge skal overvåkes kontinuerlig i tilfelle vi gjør
186 noe galt, slik at politiet får det enklere under etterforskningen.
187 Sikkerhetstjenesten vil få tilgang uten at noen er mistenkt, mens
188 politiet i starten må ha mistanke om noe kriminelt. Forslaget omtales
189 generelt som datalagringsdirektivet eller DLD, da det kommer på
190 bakgrunn av et direktiv fra EU.
</p
192 <p
>Det er diskutabelt om slik datalagring er nyttig i
193 kriminalitetsbekjemping. Når oppgaven er å finne nåla i høystakken, er
194 det slett ikke sikkert at det hjelper å hive på mere høy. Og det er
195 nettopp dette lagring av informasjon om alle i landet vil gjøre.
196 Politiet har flere ganger demonstrert manglende evne til å håndtere de
197 datamengdene de har tilgang til i dag, og det er grunn til å tro at de
198 vil få større problemer hvis de må håndtere større datamengder. Dermed
199 kan faktisk DLD gjøre politiet mindre effektive.
</p
>
201 <p
>Her følger endel aktuelle lenker om saken, for deg som vil lære
206 <li
><a href=
"http://stoppdld.no/
">Stopp DLD
</a
> er en organisasjon
207 opprettet for å hindre at DLD blir innført i Norge.
14 tusen
208 stykker har signert oppropet til Stopp DLD så langt. Jeg anbefaler
209 deg å gjøre det samme
</li
>
211 <li
>Det planlegges en demonstrasjon mot DLD
212 <a href=
"http://stoppdld.no/
2011/
01/
06/demonstrasjon-mot-datalagringsdirektivet/
">tirsdag
213 2011-
01-
11 kl.
17:
00</a
> utenfor stortinget. Det kan være en
214 god start på ettermiddagen før en besøker NUUGs
215 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/
20110111-semantic-web/
">presentasjon
216 av semantisk web
</a
> kl.
18:
30.
218 <li
>Stopp DLD har fått et
219 <a href=
"http://stoppdld.no/
2010/
12/
17/regjeringen-datamisbruk/
">Svarbrev
220 fra regjeringen
</a
> der regjeringen innrømmer at en må regne med
221 misbruk av informasjonen samlet inn på bakgrunn av DLD. Får meg til
222 å minnes det norske forsvaret som i sin høringsuttalelse anbefalte å
223 ikke innføre DLD av sikkerhetshensyn.
</li
>
225 <li
>I romjula
2010 gikk justisminister Storberget ut og forklarte at
226 innføring av DLD vil styrke personvernet. For noen dager siden gikk
227 derfor Datatilsynet ut og forklarte at
228 <a href=
"http://www.datatilsynet.no/templates/Page____3661.aspx
">DLD
229 uten tvil vil svekke personvernet
</a
> og at justisministeren tar
232 <li
>I Tyskland har grunnlovsdomstolen besluttet at DLD strider mot
233 grunnloven i Tyskland, og
234 <a href=
"http://linux1.no/artikkel/
4638/tysklands-justisminister-nekter-gjeninnfore-dld
">en
235 artikkel i linux1.no
</a
> forteller at Tysklands justisminister ikke
236 vil forsøke på nytt å få DLD innført i Tyskland, men heller basere
237 seg på regler om frysing av data om enkeltpersoner når politiet har
238 konkrete mistanker. Jeg lurer på hvorfor DLD er i strid med den
239 tyske grunnloven, men ikke den norske.
241 <li
>Det er flere EU- og EØS-land som ikke har innført DLD så langt.
242 <a href=
"http://wiki.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/Overview_of_national_data_retention_policies
">En
243 liste
</a
> er tilgjengelig fra
244 <a href=
"http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
">Stoppt die
245 Vorratsdatenspeicherung
</a
> i Tyskland.
</li
>
247 <li
>Det er ikke bare mobiltelefoni og Internet-bruk som planlegges
248 overvåket i Norge. Et mindre kjent forslag som planlegges
249 gjennomført er mer massiv overvåkning av biler, der hver bil
250 utstyres med en sort boks omtalt som eCall som både holder rede på
251 hvor bilen er til enhver tid, og som kan aktivisere telefonisk
252 forbindelse inne i bilen (dvs. høytaler og mikrofon) kontrollert av
253 folk som ikke sitter i bilen. Mer informasjon om dette finner en
<a
254 href=
"http://datatilsynet.no/templates/article____1827.aspx
">på
255 datatilsynets sider
</a
>.
257 <li
>Hvis du lurer på om DLD kan omgås for mobiltelefoner, anbefaler
258 jeg at du tar en titt på
259 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/video/frikanalen/fetchvideo.cgi?videoId=
5095">en
260 liten video
</a
> som NUUG har begynt å sende på Frikanalen nå i jula.
</li
>
267 <title>Hvordan kringkaster T-banen i Oslo sine overvåkningskamerasignaler?
</title>
268 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvordan_kringkaster_T_banen_i_Oslo_sine_overv__kningskamerasignaler_.html
</link>
269 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvordan_kringkaster_T_banen_i_Oslo_sine_overv__kningskamerasignaler_.html
</guid>
270 <pubDate>Wed,
5 Jan
2011 18:
30:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
272 <p
>Jeg er den fornøyde eier av en håndholdt trådløs kamerascanner,
273 dvs. en radioscanner som automatisk scanner frekvensområdet
900 -
2500
274 MHz og snapper opp radiokilder med PAL eller NTCS TV-signal og viser
275 signalet frem på en liten skjerm. Veldig morsom å ha med seg for å se
276 hva som finnes av trådløse overvåkningskamera. En får se bildet som
277 kameraet tar opp. :)
</p
>
279 <p
>Men en kilde har den ikke klart å snappe opp: Sporveiens
280 overvåkningskamera på T-banestasjonene. Bildet sendes åpenbart
281 trådløst til T-baneføreren, men min scanner har ikke klart å ta inn
282 signalet. For å forsøke å finne ut av dette tok jeg i dag en nærmere
283 titt på en av boksene som sto på Forskningsparken T-banestasjon for å
284 se hva det er som sendes ut.
</p
>
286 <p
>Boksen hadde følgende tekst:
</p
>
288 <blockquote
><pre
>
290 Outdoor Transmitter
5.8 GHz
297 <a href=
"http://www.vtq.de/
">www.vtq.de
</a
>
302 </pre
></blockquote
>
304 <p
>Det var hyggelig av produsenten å legge inn lenke til nettsiden
305 sin. Der hadde de mye stilig elektronikk. Og forklaringen på hvorfor
306 min scanner ikke tar inn signalet er åpenbar ut fra merkelappen.
5.8
307 GHz er langt over min scanners grense på
2.5 GHz. Trenger visst en
308 kraftigere scanner. :)
</p
>
313 <title>Inspirerende fra en ukjent Skolelinux-skole
</title>
314 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Inspirerende_fra_en_ukjent_Skolelinux_skole.html
</link>
315 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Inspirerende_fra_en_ukjent_Skolelinux_skole.html
</guid>
316 <pubDate>Tue,
4 Jan
2011 07:
50:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
318 <p
>Følgende inspirerende historie fant jeg i
319 <a href=
"http://www.digi.no/php/ny_debatt.php?id=
858869#innlegg_770926
">kommentarfeltet
320 hos digi.no
</a
> i forbindelse med en trist sak om hvordan
321 <a href=
"http://www.digi.no/
858869/datakaos-etter-linux-satsing
">skolen
322 i Hemsedal har fått ødelagt
</a
> sin Skolelinux-installasjon. Jeg har
323 fikset endel åpenbare skrivefeil for lesbarhetens skyld.
</p
>
326 <p
><strong
>Lignende situasjon i annen kommune, se bare her:
</strong
>
327 <br
>av Inspektør Siri (gjest)
329 <p
>Kommunen min har to omtrent jevnstore tettsteder, og en
330 ungdomsskole i hvert av tettstedene. Den minste av disse har ca
300
331 elever og til denne sogner det
3 barneskoler. Den største har ca
350
332 elever og til denne sogner det
4 barneskoler.
</p
>
336 <li
>Kommunen har i veldig lang tid forsømt IKT i skolen, og det har
337 bare blitt gitt smuler i ny og ne. Det er kun den største av
338 ungdomsskolene som har hatt en skikkelig datapark, og dette takket
339 være en naturfaglærer som ble lei av å vente på kommunen. Det gjorde
340 at vi bestemte oss for å ta ting i egne hender, og da vha
341 skolelinux. En testinstallasjon med
10 gamle PCer ble gjort, og vi så
342 raskt at dette var veldig lovende. Neste etappe var å gi alle lærere
343 egen PC på arbeidsplassene sine (
2004), og så sette opp
16 PCer på to
344 datarom. Vi har kun basert oss på å kjøpe inn brukte maskiner, og
345 aldri dyrere enn
1000 kr pr klient. For to år siden så hadde vi
346 klienter i alle klasserom, og totalt hadde vi da rundt
250 stk. Rundt
347 40 klienter brukes av lærerne og kjører på en egen server. Elvene har
348 resten, og kjører også en egen server. Servere har vi også kjøpt
349 brukt,
2 år gamle servere koster
6-
7000 kroner.
</li
>
351 <li
>Skolen vår er et relativt gammelt bygg, men en meget dyktig
352 vaktmester har sammen med IKT-ansvarlig/Naturfaglærer lagt kabler til alle
353 rom. Gradvis har vi byttet ut billige svitsjer med mer solide saker
354 som er mulig å fjernstyre.
</li
>
356 <li
>Vi har i all hovedsak greid å få dette til over eget budsjett, men
357 vi har også passet på å få penger når de andre skolene har fått
358 bærbare PCer til lærere osv.
</li
>
360 <li
>Vår IKT-ansvarlig har gjort (og gjør) en fenomenal jobb, og vi har
361 en maskinpark som de andre av kommunens skoler bare kan drømme
366 <p
>Så skjer det som ofte skjer. Det kommer en eller annen
367 selger/blåruss og skal fikse ALT. I vårt tilfelle betyr dette også
368 sentralisering av drift. Den ny-ansatte på kommunens IT-avdelingen
369 skal også ha jobb, og ser for seg å ta over skoledriften. Kommunen
370 kjøper inn eksterne driftstjenester, og nekter i samme slengen å ta
371 hensyn til skolen vår. Dette til tross for at vi alene har like mange
372 datamaskiner som de andre til sammen.
</p
>
376 <li
>Det blir krevd at vi skal innlemmes i de kommunale systemet, og
377 det er VI som får ansvar for at dette kommer på plass. Og det er her
378 de horrible tingene begynner å skje.
</li
>
380 <li
>Det settes opp en lukket Exchange server som gjør av vi ikke kan
381 hente epost for våre ansatte. Og det kreves at vi finner løsning på
384 <li
>Det velges sak arkivsystem som vi pålegges å bruke, noe som gjør
385 at vi må bruke en terminalløsning mot kommunal server. Ikke i seg selv
386 et problem i følge IKT-ansvarlig hos oss. Men kommunens IT-avd nektet
387 faktisk å åpne de porter OSV som vi måtte bruke.
</li
>
389 <li
>Vi blir pålagt å flytte på innsiden av det kommunale
390 nettverket. Dette gjorde at vi mistet hjemmekontor for lærere og
391 elever. Å få åpnet porter i kommunal brannmur var ikke
392 aktuelt. Mulighet for fjerndrift ble også vekk i samme slengen.
</li
>
394 <li
>Vår LMS Moodle er ikke mulig å nå for elevene og lærerne.
398 <p
>Den andre ungdomsskolen i kommunen begynner så å kreve at de skal
399 få bedre datatetthet, og komme opp på et nivå som ligner det vi
400 har. De ser at vi kan avholde eksamen hvor alle
10. klassingene får
401 sitte ved hver sin PC. Og de har fått tilbakemelding (klager) fra VGS
402 om manglende datakompetanse på elevene som kommer fra dem. Dette fører
403 videre til at kommunen endelig innser at de må ta grep.
</p
>
405 <p
>Grepet betyr sentralisering, og farvel til vår plattform får vi
406 høre. Det blir gjort en rekke bestemmelser og vedtak som vi ikke får
407 være en del av. Det blir helt klart at vi må redusere antall maskiner,
408 og det skal satses på bærbare maskiner. Siden vi ikke har fått tatt
409 del i prosessene som angår oss, så bruker vi fagforening. Vi har ikke
410 blitt hørt i forbindelse med endringer som er betydelig for vår
411 hverdag, og greier å stoppe omlegging. I tillegg så har vi et politisk
412 vedtak i kommunen på at vi skal kjøre Linux på elevnett, og dette
413 vedtaket kan ikke administrasjonen i kommunene helt uten videre
414 tilsidesette.
</p
>
416 <p
>I sum har dette gjort at vi har fått jobbe videre i fred. Og en del
417 runder i kommunens kontrollutvalg har gjort det tydelig at vi har blitt
418 systematisk motarbeidet.
</p
>
420 <p
>I dag har de andre skolene fått sine bærbare maskiner til elever og
421 lærere, men etter
2 år med innkjøring er det fremdeles problemer
426 <li
>Ungdomsskolen med windows kan ikke kjøre eksamen med sine bærbare,
427 det er for mye arbeid å renske disse for innhold slik at juks ikke er
430 <li
>Utskrift er et mareritt, etter sigende pga at utskrift først
431 sendes til sentral server, og så sendes ut til rett skriver. I snitt
432 så tar det
7-
8 minutter før utskrift starter på enkelte av
435 <li
>Trådløst skaper store problemer, og det er i perioder helt umulig
436 å komme seg på nett. Og lagring på felles server er bare å glemme i
441 <p
>Vi har slitt mye, kranglet og sloss. Ikke med tekniske problemer,
442 men med omgivelsene rundt som vil oss til livs. Men det har vært verdt
443 hver dråpe med svette, og timer med irritasjon. Men vi har begynt å få
444 rutine her nå.
</p
>
448 <li
>Vi har fremdeles et system som vi styrer helt selv.
</li
>
449 <li
>Vi har vist at argumentet med at vår IKT-ansvarlig kan finne seg annen jobb ikke holder mål. Vi har kjøpt driftskonto hos et firma i tilfelle krise, og vi har kjørt opplæring på flere av de yngre lærerne.
</li
>
450 <li
>Vi har til enhver tid en lærling IKT driftsfag, og velger selvsagt ut dem som satser på Linux. Vi har nå begynt å få tilbake av våre tidligere elever som vil til oss nettopp fordi vi har Linux.
</li
>
451 <li
>Vi har vist at vi greier å opprettholde en dobbelt så stor datapark som naboskolen, og det til en billigere penge.
</li
>
452 <li
>Vi har datastøtte og support på huset, ALLTID tilgjengelig. De andre skolene må vente flere dager hvis det ikke er noe kritisk.
</li
>
453 <li
>Vår IKT-ansvarlig har
50% stilling som lærer og
50% som IKT-ansvarlig.
</li
>
454 <li
>Vi har en lærer på hvert trinn som har
3 timer i uka til å drive support/støtte til de andre lærerne.
</li
>
455 <li
>Vi opplever at de yngste lærerne ved den andre ungdomsskolen ønsker seg over til oss.
</li
>
459 <p
>Vi skal i løpet av året starte prosess med å planlegge ny skole, og vi har fått gjennomslag for at jeg (inspektør) og IKT-ansvarlig skal ha det fulle og hele ansvar for IKT/Infrastruktur. Begrunnelsen vår som ble avgjørende her, var at IT-avd i kommunen ikke kan noe om data i skolen.
</p
>
461 <p
>Beklager hvis dette ble litt usammenhengende, men det ble tastet i
462 fei, og jeg har ikke lest gjennom
</p
>
465 <p
>Det kom raskt et lite svar:
</p
>
468 <p
><strong
>SV: Lignende situasjon i annen kommune, se bare her:
</strong
>
469 <br
>av captain_obvious
</p
>
471 <p
>Inspirerende å lese. Har dere gjort noe for å fortelle denne
472 historien videre?
</p
>
474 <p
>Hadde vært svært interessant om dere tok kontakt med dokument
2 eller
475 lignende for å fortelle hvordan det egentlig står til med
476 IT-satsningen i kommune-Norge. Om ikke annet kan du begynner med å
477 raffinere innlegget ditt og få en gjesteartikkel på digi.no
</p
>
480 <p
>Og deretter en lengre oppfølging.
</p
>
483 <p
><strong
>SV: Lignende situasjon i annen kommune, se bare her:
</strong
>
484 <br
>av Inspektør Siri (gjest)
486 <p
>Joda, vi har lekt med tanken, og vi har t.o.m skrevet flere lengre
487 leserinnlegg myntet på aviser. Disse er ikke sendt til aviser, men
488 brukt internt i forbindelse med møter med kommune. Vår IKT-ansvarlig
489 har også truet med å si opp jobben sin hvis det ikke ble tatt hensyn i
490 større grad enn hva som har vært tilfelle. VI kan også dokumentere
491 flere brudd på anbudsregler, og vi kjenner til at relativt store
492 IT-leverandører som ikke har fått tatt del i disse anbudene, rett og
493 slett ikke tør melde fra av redsel for å få et dårlig rykte.
</p
>
495 <p
>Alt ser ut til å roe seg ned, og vi har fått opp øynene på
496 politikerne. I sum gjør dette at vi ikke ønsker for mye publisitet nå,
497 det vil bare rote til igjen.
</p
>
499 <p
>Jeg glemte å nevne at vi nå nesten ikke bruker tid på å drifte
500 systemet vårt, noe som gjør at det aller meste av tid blir brukt til å
501 støtte lærerne og elevene. F.eks så bruker vår IKT-ansvarlig den
502 første timen på jobb,
0730-
0830 kun til å gå ute på arbeidsplassene
503 til læreren. Dette for å kunne svare på små og store problem, gi tips
504 og råd, eller bare for å plukke opp hva som er behovet ute i
505 undervisningsarealene. Det er dessverre ikke slik at alle lærerne har
506 nok digital kompetanse til å kunne formulere alle spørsmålene de har,
507 men ved å kunne få vise eller lufte tanker med IKT-ansvarlig så er det
508 utrolig hva som kommer fram.
</p
>
512 <li
>Jeg ser at mange bruker økonomi som argument i forhold til å bruke
513 SkoleLinux, og jeg skal ikke legge skjul på at det var dette som i
514 utgangspunktet var årsaken til vårt valg. Men diskusjonene og kampen
515 med kommunens IT-avdeling har gjort at vi har fått et noe annet
516 fokus. Fordelene med drift og stabilitet, gjør at vi ville ha valgt
517 samme løsning selv om den var dyrere. At vi slipper langt billigere
518 unna, som følge av
0,- lisenskostnader og lave maskinvarekostnader, er
519 bare en bonus.
</li
>
521 <li
>Etter å ha kranglet oss til å få skikkelig oversikt over hva de
522 andre skolene i kommunen bruker på IT, så har vi fått gehør for å få
523 samme midler til innkjøp. Dette har gjort at vi nå kan kjøpe inn
524 utstyr som de andre skolene bare kan se langt etter. Vi har nettopp
525 kjøpt inn
3 videokamera i semiproff-klassen for å kunne lage film,
526 samt sende live fra skoleteater/konserter. Vi har kjøpt inn digitale
527 kompaktkamera til alle klassene. Vi har et team av lærere som skal i
528 gang med å teste ut tablets på svake elever. Håpet et at teknologien
529 kan være med på å gi noen av elevene litt mer motivasjon. Vi har kjøpt
530 inn et halvt klassesett med pulsklokker, noe som har vist seg å være
531 overraskende inspirerende for en del av elevene. Vi har også oss på
532 fag på en høyskole litt lengre sør for oss, slik at
3 av oss nå skal
533 ta faget
"Linux tjenestedrift
". Som inspektør og en del av skolens
534 administrasjon er det veldig praktisk å kunne trå til hvis det
535 kniper. Men IKT-ansvarlig har vært UTROLIG flink til å lage rene
536 smørbrødlister for hvordan de mest vanlige driftsproblem løses, så det
537 er lett for flere av oss å ta del i den daglige driften. Vi har svært
538 stor nytte av lærling (som også hjelper to av naboskolene), men det er
539 nesten blitt slik at det er om å gjøre å komme til først for å få løse
540 problem. Det å få fingrene på problem og utfordringer er den aller
541 beste læremester.
</li
>
545 <p
>Når vi nå tar til med planlegging av ny skole, så vil det være med
546 tanke på at det skal være mulig med datautstyr på alle plasser. Vi
547 kommer i all hovedsak til å legge kabel til alle tenkelige og
548 utenkelige plasser. WiFi koster tilnærmet NULL å sette opp i
551 <p
>Vi har ikke vært noe flink til å bidra til SkoleLinux-prosjektet,
552 vi har rett og slett vært for opptatt med vår egen kamp. Vi har hentet
553 mye inspirasjon fra diskusjoner som har gått i det miljøet, og vi
554 håper at vi nå framover kan få tid til å bidra. Vi er i ferd med å
555 bytte ut en av serverne våre, og da vil denne trolig bli satt opp som
556 testserver for neste versjon av Skolelinux. På den måten vil vi i alle
557 fall kunne gi tilbakemeldinger og rapportere feil. I tillegg så vil
558 det kanskje gi oss noen nye utfordringer, for som lærlingen vår sier:
559 "Skolelinux er noe herk, det skjer jo ikke noe galt og hvordan skal
560 jeg da lære?
"</p
>
564 <p
>Det er veldig hyggelig å høre at
565 <a href=
"http://www.skolelinux.org/
">Skolelinux
</a
> fungerer så bra i
566 skoleverdagen etter å ha jobbet med det i
10 år.
</p
>
571 <title>Støtte for forskjellige kamera-ikoner på overvåkningskamerakartet
</title>
572 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/St__tte_for_forskjellige_kamera_ikoner_p___overv__kningskamerakartet.html
</link>
573 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/St__tte_for_forskjellige_kamera_ikoner_p___overv__kningskamerakartet.html
</guid>
574 <pubDate>Sun,
2 Jan
2011 11:
05:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
576 <p
>I dag har jeg justert litt på kartet over overvåkningskamera, og
577 laget støtte for å gi fotobokser (automatisk trafikk-kontroll) og
578 andre overvåkningskamera forskjellige symboler på kartet, slik at det
579 er enklere å se forskjell på kamera som vegvesenet kontrollerer og
580 andre kamera. Resultatet er lagt ut på
581 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/surveillance-norway/
">kartet
582 over overvåkningskamera i Norge
</a
>. Det er nå
93 fotobokser av
380
584 <a href=
"http://www.vegvesen.no/Fag/Fokusomrader/Trafikksikkerhet/Automatisk+trafikkontroll+ATK
">i
585 følge vegvesenet
</a
> og
80 andre kamera på kartet, totalt
173 kamera.
586 Takk til de
26 stykkene som har bidratt til kamerainformasjonen så
592 <title>What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?
</title>
593 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html
</link>
594 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html
</guid>
595 <pubDate>Thu,
30 Dec
2010 23:
15:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
597 <p
>After trying to
598 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
">compare
599 Ogg Theora
</a
> to
600 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">the Digistan
601 definition
</a
> of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
602 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
603 this. As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
604 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-
8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
605 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others. But to be able to complete this in a
606 reasonable time frame, I will need help.
</p
>
608 <p
>If you want to help out with this work, please visit
609 <a href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse
">the
610 wiki pages I have set up for this
</a
>, and let me know that you want
611 to help out. The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
612 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
613 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
614 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).
</p
>
616 <p
>The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do. Do not be
617 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)
</p
>
622 <title>The many definitions of a open standard
</title>
623 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html
</link>
624 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html
</guid>
625 <pubDate>Mon,
27 Dec
2010 14:
45:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
627 <p
>One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
628 "<a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">Free and
629 Open Standard
</a
>" is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
630 the term has been decided by Digistan. The term
"Open Standard
" has
631 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
632 about standards. One end up discussing which definition is the best
633 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
634 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.
</p
>
636 <p
>But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
637 standards, here are a few that I know about. This list is not
638 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
639 complete survey. More definitions are available on the
640 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
">wikipedia
641 page
</a
>.
</p
>
643 <p
>First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
644 Interoperability Framework version
1.0. Really sad to notice that BSA
645 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version
2.0 of the
646 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
647 their own people. Anyway, the definition is still available and it
648 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
649 specification on equal terms.
</p
>
653 <p
>The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
654 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
655 open standard:
</p
>
659 <li
>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
660 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
661 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
662 (consensus or majority decision etc.).
</li
>
664 <li
>The standard has been published and the standard specification
665 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
666 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
667 nominal fee.
</li
>
669 <li
>The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
670 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
671 free basis.
</li
>
673 <li
>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
</li
>
678 <p
>Another one originates from my friends over at
679 <a href=
"http://www.dkuug.dk/
">DKUUG
</a
>, who coined and gathered
680 support for
<a href=
"http://www.aaben-standard.dk/
">this
681 definition
</a
> in
2004. It even made it into the Danish parlament as
682 <a href=
"http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/
20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm
">their
683 definition of a open standard
</a
>. Another from a different part of
684 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.
</p
>
688 <p
>En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:
</p
>
692 <li
>Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
693 tilgængelig.
</li
>
695 <li
>Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
696 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.
</li
>
698 <li
>Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
699 "standardiseringsorganisation
") via en åben proces.
</li
>
705 <p
>Then there is
<a href=
"http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html
">the
706 definition
</a
> from Free Software Foundation Europe.
</p
>
710 <p
>An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is
</p
>
714 <li
>subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
715 manner equally available to all parties;
</li
>
717 <li
>without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
718 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
719 Standard themselves;
</li
>
721 <li
>free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
722 any party or in any business model;
</li
>
724 <li
>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
725 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
728 <li
>available in multiple complete implementations by competing
729 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
736 <p
>A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
738 <a href=
"http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%
20Standard%
20Definition.pdf
">Open
739 Standards Checklist
</a
> with a fairly detailed description.
</p
>
742 <p
>Creation and Management of an Open Standard
746 <li
>Its development and management process must be collaborative and
751 <li
>Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
752 participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
753 imposed by the organization under which it is developed
754 and managed.
</li
>
756 <li
>The processes must be documented and, through a known
757 method, can be changed through input from all
758 participants.
</li
>
760 <li
>The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
761 the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.
</li
>
763 <li
>Development and management should strive for consensus,
764 and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.
</li
>
766 <li
>The standard specification must be open to extensive
767 public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
768 comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.
</li
>
776 <p
>Use and Licensing of an Open Standard
</p
>
779 <li
>The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
780 and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
781 implementations to the interface described in the standard without
782 undue or restrictive constraints. Interfaces include APIs,
783 protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.
</li
>
785 <li
> The standard must not contain any proprietary
"hooks
" that create
786 a technical or economic barriers
</li
>
788 <li
>Faithful implementations of the standard must
789 interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
790 program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
791 programs and mutually to use the information which has been
792 exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
793 file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
794 conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
795 computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
796 intended to function.
</li
>
798 <li
>It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
799 standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
800 must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.
</li
>
802 <li
>It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
803 fees; also known as
"royalty free
"), worldwide, non-exclusive and
804 perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
805 sell products based on the standard. The only exceptions are
806 terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
807 outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
808 patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
809 only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
813 <li
> May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
814 licensees
' patent claims essential to practice that standard
815 (also known as a reciprocity clause)
</li
>
817 <li
> May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
818 or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
819 essential to practice that standard (also known as a
820 "defensive suspension
" clause)
</li
>
822 <li
> The same licensing terms are available to every potential
828 <li
>The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
829 implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
830 or restricted licensing terms
</li
>
836 <p
>It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
837 there are so many of them. As you can see, the same holds true for
838 open standard definitions. Most of the definitions have a lot in
839 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
840 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
841 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
842 competition to downplay the significance of open standards. I hope we
843 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
849 <title>Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?
</title>
850 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
</link>
851 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
</guid>
852 <pubDate>Sat,
25 Dec
2010 20:
25:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
854 <p
><a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">The
855 Digistan definition
</a
> of a free and open standard reads like this:
</p
>
859 <p
>The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
860 as follows:
</p
>
864 <li
>A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
865 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
866 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.
</li
>
868 <li
>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
869 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
870 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
873 <li
>The standard has been published and the standard specification
874 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
875 distribute, and use it freely.
</li
>
877 <li
>The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
878 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
</li
>
880 <li
>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
</li
>
884 <p
>The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
885 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
886 products based on the standard.
</p
>
889 <p
>For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
890 and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short
891 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the
892 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
893 <a href=
"http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/
2009-July/
001632.html
">in
894 July
2009</a
>, for those that want to see some background information.
895 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
896 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.
</p
>
898 <p
><strong
>Free from vendor capture?
</strong
></p
>
900 <p
>As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
901 Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the
902 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/
">Xiph foundation
</A
> is such vendor, but
903 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
904 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
905 obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph
906 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
907 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I
've
908 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
909 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
910 where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an
911 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
912 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
913 specification. But it seem unlikely.
</p
>
915 <p
><strong
>Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?
</strong
></p
>
917 <p
>Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
918 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is
919 controlled by a single vendor, it isn
't, but I have not found any
920 documentation indicating this.
</p
>
922 <p
>According to
923 <a href=
"http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf
">a report
</a
>
924 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
925 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
926 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
927 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
928 report is correct.
</p
>
930 <p
><strong
>Specification freely available?
</strong
></p
>
932 <p
>The specification for the
<a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/
">Ogg
933 container format
</a
> and both the
934 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/
">Vorbis
</a
> and
935 <a href=
"http://theora.org/doc/
">Theora
</a
> codeces are available on
936 the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
940 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
941 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
942 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
943 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
944 specification compliance.
948 <p
>The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
949 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt
">RFC
3533</a
>, and
950 this is the term:
<p
>
954 <p
>This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
955 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
956 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
957 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
958 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
959 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
960 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
961 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
962 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
963 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
964 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
965 translate it into languages other than English.
</p
>
967 <p
>The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
968 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
</p
>
971 <p
>All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
972 this term seem to be fulfilled. There might be a problem with the
973 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
974 thus reuse it in other specifications. Not quite sure if that is a
975 requirement for the Digistan definition.
</p
>
977 <p
><strong
>Royalty-free?
</strong
></p
>
979 <p
>There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
981 <a href=
"http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=
65782">MPEG-LA
</a
>
983 <a href=
"http://yro.slashdot.org/story/
10/
04/
30/
237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit
">Steve
984 Jobs
</a
> in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
985 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
986 them. Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
987 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
988 without paying any royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
989 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H
.264 codec
990 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.
</p
>
992 <p
><strong
>No constraints on re-use?
</strong
></p
>
994 <p
>I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.
</p
>
996 <p
><strong
>Conclusion
</strong
></p
>
998 <p
>3 of
5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining
2
999 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the
1000 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
1001 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
1002 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
1005 <p
>It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
1006 see if they are free and open standards.
</p
>
1011 <title>The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru
</title>
1012 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html
</link>
1013 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html
</guid>
1014 <pubDate>Sat,
25 Dec
2010 10:
50:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
1016 <p
>A few days ago
1017 <a href=
"http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece
">an
1018 article
</a
> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
1020 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework
">European
1021 Interoperability Framework
</a
> has been successfully lobbied by the
1022 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
1023 Nothing very surprising there, given
1024 <a href=
"http://news.slashdot.org/story/
10/
03/
29/
2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe
">earlier
1025 reports
</a
> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
1026 this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of
1027 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-
200506.txt
">an
1028 open standard from version
1</a
> was very good, and something I
1029 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
1030 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">the
1031 definition from Digistan
</A
>. Version
2 have removed the open
1032 standard definition from its content.
</p
>
1034 <p
>Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
1035 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
1036 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
1037 in the public sector in Peru. As the text was not available from a
1038 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
1039 <a href=
"http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html
">my
1040 source
</a
> to ensure it is available also in the future. Some
1041 background information about that story is available in
1042 <a href=
"http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/
6099">an article
</a
> from
1043 Linux Journal in
2002.
</p
>
1046 <p
>Lima,
8th of April,
2002<br
>
1047 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
<br
>
1048 General Manager of Microsoft Perú
</p
>
1050 <p
>Dear Sir:
</p
>
1052 <p
>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.
</p
>
1054 <p
>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.
</p
>
1056 <p
>With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call
"open source software
" is what the Bill defines as
"free software
", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call
"commercial software
" is what the Bill defines as
"proprietary
" or
"unfree
", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.
</p
>
1058 <p
>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:
</p
>
1062 <li
>Free access to public information by the citizen.
</li
>
1063 <li
>Permanence of public data.
</li
>
1064 <li
>Security of the State and citizens.
</li
>
1068 <p
>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.
</p
>
1070 <p
>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.
</p
>
1072 <p
>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*.
</p
>
1074 <p
>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.
</p
>
1076 <p
>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.
</p
>
1079 <p
>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
<br
>
1080 <li
>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
</li
>
1081 <li
>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
</li
>
1082 <li
>the law does not specify which concrete software to use
</li
>
1083 <li
>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
</li
>
1084 <li
>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
</li
>
1088 <p
>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.
</p
>
1090 <p
>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.
</p
>
1092 <p
>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:
</p
>
1094 <p
>Firstly, you point out that:
"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.
"</p
>
1096 <p
>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.
</p
>
1098 <p
>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).
</p
>
1100 <p
>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.
</p
>
1102 <p
>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.
</p
>
1104 <p
>By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office
"suite
", 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.
</p
>
1106 <p
>To continue; you note that:
" 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...
"</p
>
1108 <p
>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
"non-competitive ... practices.
"</p
>
1110 <p
>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
"a priori
", 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.
</p
>
1112 <p
>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.
</p
>
1114 <p
>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
' 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.
</p
>
1116 <p
>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:
"update your software to the new version
" (at the user
's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider
's judgment alone, are
"old
"; 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
"trapped
" 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).
</p
>
1118 <p
>You add:
"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.
"</p
>
1120 <p
>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.
</p
>
1122 <p
>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.
</p
>
1124 <p
>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.
</p
>
1126 <p
>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.
</p
>
1128 <p
>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
"ad hoc
" 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.
</p
>
1130 <p
>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.
</p
>
1132 <p
>Your letter continues:
"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.
"</p
>
1134 <p
>Alluding in an abstract way to
"the dangers this can bring
", 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.
</p
>
1136 <p
>On security:
</p
>
1138 <p
>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
"bugs
" (in programmers
' 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.
</p
>
1140 <p
>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.
</p
>
1142 <p
>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.
</p
>
1144 <p
>In respect of the guarantee:
</p
>
1146 A
<p
>s you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the
"End User License Agreement
" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS
'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.
</p
>
1148 <p
>On Intellectual Property:
</p
>
1150 <p
>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
'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).
</p
>
1152 <p
>You go on to say that:
"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.
"</p
>
1154 <p
>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).
</p
>
1156 <p
>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.
</p
>
1158 <p
>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.
</p
>
1160 <p
>You continue:
"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.
"</p
>
1162 <p
>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.
</p
>
1164 <p
>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 (
"blue screens of death
", 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.
</p
>
1166 <p
>You further state that:
"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.
"</p
>
1168 <p
>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.
</p
>
1170 <p
>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.
</p
>
1172 <p
>You continue:
"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.
"</p
>
1174 <p
>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.
</p
>
1176 <p
>The second argument refers to
"problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector
" 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.
</p
>
1178 <p
>You then say that:
"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.
"</p
>
1180 <p
>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.
</p
>
1182 <p
>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.
</p
>
1184 <p
>You continue by observing that:
"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.
"</p
>
1186 <p
>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.
</p
>
1188 <p
>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.
</p
>
1190 <p
>You go on to say that:
"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.
"</p
>
1192 <p
>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.
</p
>
1194 <p
>You then state that:
"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.
"</p
>
1196 <p
>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
't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That
'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.
</p
>
1198 <p
>You end with a rhetorical question:
"13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn
't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?
"</p
>
1200 <p
>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.
</p
>
1202 <p
>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.
</p
>
1204 <p
>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.
</p
>
1206 <p
>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.
</p
>
1208 <p
>Cordially,
<br
>
1209 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
<br
>
1210 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.
</p
>
projects / homepage.git / blob