From: Petter Reinholdtsen Date: Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:51:15 +0000 (+0000) Subject: Generated. X-Git-Url: https://pere.pagekite.me/gitweb/homepage.git/commitdiff_plain/680c0c23d0a81aac66dd87cf6baf93153ce728e7?ds=inline Generated. --- diff --git a/blog/165_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_s___langt_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html b/blog/165_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_s___langt_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html index 8cd7dd357c..575e2ca52f 100644 --- a/blog/165_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_s___langt_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html +++ b/blog/165_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_s___langt_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan få med også disse.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan fÃ¥ med ogsÃ¥ disse.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan fÃ¥ med ogsÃ¥ disse.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/2_Spykee_roboter_i_hus__n___skal_det_lekes.html b/blog/2_Spykee_roboter_i_hus__n___skal_det_lekes.html index 2df564dd8b..6dd258310b 100644 --- a/blog/2_Spykee_roboter_i_hus__n___skal_det_lekes.html +++ b/blog/2_Spykee_roboter_i_hus__n___skal_det_lekes.html @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ firmwaren. :)

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ firmwaren. :)

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ firmwaren. :)

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/3D_printing_brer_om_seg___fabrikkene_best__r.html b/blog/3D_printing_brer_om_seg___fabrikkene_best__r.html index 87b2649cdd..1bee524e4f 100644 --- a/blog/3D_printing_brer_om_seg___fabrikkene_best__r.html +++ b/blog/3D_printing_brer_om_seg___fabrikkene_best__r.html @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ massemarkedet.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ massemarkedet.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ massemarkedet.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html b/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html index a49c5ccbd4..4ce3e6417d 100644 --- a/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html +++ b/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ following the standards wars of today.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ following the standards wars of today.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ following the standards wars of today.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/After_6_years_of_waiting__the_Xreset_d_feature_is_implemented.html b/blog/After_6_years_of_waiting__the_Xreset_d_feature_is_implemented.html index 65c471375d..0b7e1f1f19 100644 --- a/blog/After_6_years_of_waiting__the_Xreset_d_feature_is_implemented.html +++ b/blog/After_6_years_of_waiting__the_Xreset_d_feature_is_implemented.html @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ similar to how they use the Xsession.d framework today.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ similar to how they use the Xsession.d framework today.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ similar to how they use the Xsession.d framework today.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Amigafolket_holder_ut.html b/blog/Amigafolket_holder_ut.html index 6936e495db..d6a0c2c028 100644 --- a/blog/Amigafolket_holder_ut.html +++ b/blog/Amigafolket_holder_ut.html @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ pakke. Kanskje Aros kunne vært interessant for et NUUG-foredrag?

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ pakke. Kanskje Aros kunne vært interessant for et NUUG-foredrag?

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ pakke. Kanskje Aros kunne vært interessant for et NUUG-foredrag?

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Anonym_ferdsel_er_en_menneskerett.html b/blog/Anonym_ferdsel_er_en_menneskerett.html index 652ff70b2a..fe11996c87 100644 --- a/blog/Anonym_ferdsel_er_en_menneskerett.html +++ b/blog/Anonym_ferdsel_er_en_menneskerett.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ kollektivtrafikken i Oslo. Jeg synes det er hÃ¥rreisende.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ kollektivtrafikken i Oslo. Jeg synes det er hÃ¥rreisende.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ kollektivtrafikken i Oslo. Jeg synes det er hÃ¥rreisende.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Autodetecting_Client_setup_for_roaming_workstations_in_Debian_Edu.html b/blog/Autodetecting_Client_setup_for_roaming_workstations_in_Debian_Edu.html index 308625e11d..c2c7b9985a 100644 --- a/blog/Autodetecting_Client_setup_for_roaming_workstations_in_Debian_Edu.html +++ b/blog/Autodetecting_Client_setup_for_roaming_workstations_in_Debian_Edu.html @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ Edu, please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ Edu, please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ Edu, please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Automatic_Munin_and_Nagios_configuration.html b/blog/Automatic_Munin_and_Nagios_configuration.html index bece2e1497..91887276a7 100644 --- a/blog/Automatic_Munin_and_Nagios_configuration.html +++ b/blog/Automatic_Munin_and_Nagios_configuration.html @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ everything is taken care of.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ everything is taken care of.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ everything is taken care of.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Automatic_upgrade_testing_from_Lenny_to_Squeeze.html b/blog/Automatic_upgrade_testing_from_Lenny_to_Squeeze.html index 5e818bd7ee..a6f394088d 100644 --- a/blog/Automatic_upgrade_testing_from_Lenny_to_Squeeze.html +++ b/blog/Automatic_upgrade_testing_from_Lenny_to_Squeeze.html @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ packages.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ packages.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ packages.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Avisene_i_endring.html b/blog/Avisene_i_endring.html index 1bb9fe8098..ae54e68b4b 100644 --- a/blog/Avisene_i_endring.html +++ b/blog/Avisene_i_endring.html @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ eksisterer. Det blir spennende Ã¥ se hva vi ender opp med.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ eksisterer. Det blir spennende Ã¥ se hva vi ender opp med.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ eksisterer. Det blir spennende Ã¥ se hva vi ender opp med.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/BSAs_p__stander_om_piratkopiering_m__ter_motstand.html b/blog/BSAs_p__stander_om_piratkopiering_m__ter_motstand.html index 49b27d80b5..9060006e46 100644 --- a/blog/BSAs_p__stander_om_piratkopiering_m__ter_motstand.html +++ b/blog/BSAs_p__stander_om_piratkopiering_m__ter_motstand.html @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ pÃ¥ Slashdot.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ pÃ¥ Slashdot.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ pÃ¥ Slashdot.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Best____ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html b/blog/Best____ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html index e6662fa8b0..5b3e3c2932 100644 --- a/blog/Best____ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html +++ b/blog/Best____ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html @@ -202,7 +202,7 @@ NRK1. :)

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ NRK1. :)

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ NRK1. :)

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Bilkollektivet_vil_ha_retten_til____se_hvor_jeg_kj__rer___.html b/blog/Bilkollektivet_vil_ha_retten_til____se_hvor_jeg_kj__rer___.html index 1fb9953736..0b2ea48de6 100644 --- a/blog/Bilkollektivet_vil_ha_retten_til____se_hvor_jeg_kj__rer___.html +++ b/blog/Bilkollektivet_vil_ha_retten_til____se_hvor_jeg_kj__rer___.html @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ eller bare ser meg om etter alternativer.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ eller bare ser meg om etter alternativer.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ eller bare ser meg om etter alternativer.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Broken_hard_link_handling_with_sshfs.html b/blog/Broken_hard_link_handling_with_sshfs.html index 50f0d0a911..12283c189a 100644 --- a/blog/Broken_hard_link_handling_with_sshfs.html +++ b/blog/Broken_hard_link_handling_with_sshfs.html @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ git from
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ git from
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ git from
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html b/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html index 25b576f1d9..a16550accb 100644 --- a/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html +++ b/blog/Broken_umask_handling_with_sshfs.html @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ script so useful that he created a GIT repository and stored it in
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ script so useful that he created a GIT repository and stored it in
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ script so useful that he created a GIT repository and stored it in
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Caching_password__user_and_group_on_a_roaming_Debian_laptop.html b/blog/Caching_password__user_and_group_on_a_roaming_Debian_laptop.html index 254fc6d2ce..287b300453 100644 --- a/blog/Caching_password__user_and_group_on_a_roaming_Debian_laptop.html +++ b/blog/Caching_password__user_and_group_on_a_roaming_Debian_laptop.html @@ -259,7 +259,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -356,7 +356,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Calling_tasksel_like_the_installer__while_still_getting_useful_output.html b/blog/Calling_tasksel_like_the_installer__while_still_getting_useful_output.html index 787d289025..c13f728f13 100644 --- a/blog/Calling_tasksel_like_the_installer__while_still_getting_useful_output.html +++ b/blog/Calling_tasksel_like_the_installer__while_still_getting_useful_output.html @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ like this.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ like this.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ like this.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Checking_server_hardware_support_status_for_Dell__HP_and_IBM_servers.html b/blog/Checking_server_hardware_support_status_for_Dell__HP_and_IBM_servers.html index 64b287dce7..56093a5704 100644 --- a/blog/Checking_server_hardware_support_status_for_Dell__HP_and_IBM_servers.html +++ b/blog/Checking_server_hardware_support_status_for_Dell__HP_and_IBM_servers.html @@ -221,7 +221,7 @@ do so.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ do so.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -318,7 +318,7 @@ do so.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Circular_package_dependencies_harms_apt_recovery.html b/blog/Circular_package_dependencies_harms_apt_recovery.html index aa27383318..db40054f3d 100644 --- a/blog/Circular_package_dependencies_harms_apt_recovery.html +++ b/blog/Circular_package_dependencies_harms_apt_recovery.html @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ it.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ it.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ it.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Combining_PowerDNS_and_ISC_DHCP_LDAP_objects.html b/blog/Combining_PowerDNS_and_ISC_DHCP_LDAP_objects.html index 66fd068864..52e7f2bbae 100644 --- a/blog/Combining_PowerDNS_and_ISC_DHCP_LDAP_objects.html +++ b/blog/Combining_PowerDNS_and_ISC_DHCP_LDAP_objects.html @@ -118,7 +118,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/DND_hedrer_overv__kning_av_barn_med_Rosingsprisen.html b/blog/DND_hedrer_overv__kning_av_barn_med_Rosingsprisen.html index ca9fc4e6ce..b39d79dd5b 100644 --- a/blog/DND_hedrer_overv__kning_av_barn_med_Rosingsprisen.html +++ b/blog/DND_hedrer_overv__kning_av_barn_med_Rosingsprisen.html @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ lese alle de tre bøkene.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ lese alle de tre bøkene.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ lese alle de tre bøkene.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Danmark_g__r_for_ODF_.html b/blog/Danmark_g__r_for_ODF_.html index 9486b63f88..670bc3bb9d 100644 --- a/blog/Danmark_g__r_for_ODF_.html +++ b/blog/Danmark_g__r_for_ODF_.html @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ platforme.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ platforme.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ platforme.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Datatilsynet_mangler_verkt__yet_som_trengs_for____kontrollere_kameraoverv__kning.html b/blog/Datatilsynet_mangler_verkt__yet_som_trengs_for____kontrollere_kameraoverv__kning.html index 194ff6818b..750af63d2b 100644 --- a/blog/Datatilsynet_mangler_verkt__yet_som_trengs_for____kontrollere_kameraoverv__kning.html +++ b/blog/Datatilsynet_mangler_verkt__yet_som_trengs_for____kontrollere_kameraoverv__kning.html @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ ting, sÃ¥ et slikt lovverk i Norge tror jeg hadde vært nyttig.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ ting, sÃ¥ et slikt lovverk i Norge tror jeg hadde vært nyttig.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ ting, sÃ¥ et slikt lovverk i Norge tror jeg hadde vært nyttig.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Datatilsynet_svarer_om_Bilkollektivets___nske_om_GPS_sporing.html b/blog/Datatilsynet_svarer_om_Bilkollektivets___nske_om_GPS_sporing.html index e653123176..8d779a2433 100644 --- a/blog/Datatilsynet_svarer_om_Bilkollektivets___nske_om_GPS_sporing.html +++ b/blog/Datatilsynet_svarer_om_Bilkollektivets___nske_om_GPS_sporing.html @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ dagene, eller om jeg bare finner et annet alternativ.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ dagene, eller om jeg bare finner et annet alternativ.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -257,7 +257,7 @@ dagene, eller om jeg bare finner et annet alternativ.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Debian_Edu___Skolelinux_based_on_Lenny_released__work_continues.html b/blog/Debian_Edu___Skolelinux_based_on_Lenny_released__work_continues.html index 9e710572da..d275390036 100644 --- a/blog/Debian_Edu___Skolelinux_based_on_Lenny_released__work_continues.html +++ b/blog/Debian_Edu___Skolelinux_based_on_Lenny_released__work_continues.html @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ and have just a few weeks or months to make it happen.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ and have just a few weeks or months to make it happen.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ and have just a few weeks or months to make it happen.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Debian_Edu_development_gathering_and_General_Assembly_for_FRiSK.html b/blog/Debian_Edu_development_gathering_and_General_Assembly_for_FRiSK.html index 6560358f83..4d8250d7c1 100644 --- a/blog/Debian_Edu_development_gathering_and_General_Assembly_for_FRiSK.html +++ b/blog/Debian_Edu_development_gathering_and_General_Assembly_for_FRiSK.html @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ vote this year.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ vote this year.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ vote this year.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Debian_Edu_roaming_workstation___at_the_university_of_Oslo.html b/blog/Debian_Edu_roaming_workstation___at_the_university_of_Oslo.html index c2731049d0..bd32c49ac7 100644 --- a/blog/Debian_Edu_roaming_workstation___at_the_university_of_Oslo.html +++ b/blog/Debian_Edu_roaming_workstation___at_the_university_of_Oslo.html @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ uses.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ uses.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ uses.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Debian_boots_quicker_and_quicker.html b/blog/Debian_boots_quicker_and_quicker.html index ad21851d01..605a72185c 100644 --- a/blog/Debian_boots_quicker_and_quicker.html +++ b/blog/Debian_boots_quicker_and_quicker.html @@ -107,7 +107,7 @@ insserv'. Will need to test if that work. :)

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ insserv'. Will need to test if that work. :)

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ insserv'. Will need to test if that work. :)

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Debian_has_switched_to_dependency_based_boot_sequencing.html b/blog/Debian_has_switched_to_dependency_based_boot_sequencing.html index 5bdc917beb..37c86297c5 100644 --- a/blog/Debian_has_switched_to_dependency_based_boot_sequencing.html +++ b/blog/Debian_has_switched_to_dependency_based_boot_sequencing.html @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ non-predictable kernel in the early boot.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ non-predictable kernel in the early boot.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ non-predictable kernel in the early boot.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Debian_in_3D.html b/blog/Debian_in_3D.html index eb5ff2bb99..63cf145ba6 100644 --- a/blog/Debian_in_3D.html +++ b/blog/Debian_in_3D.html @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ thingiverse blog.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ thingiverse blog.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ thingiverse blog.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Det_vanskelige_Lisensvalget___ikke_lag_din_egen.html b/blog/Det_vanskelige_Lisensvalget___ikke_lag_din_egen.html index 57709464c0..eaf5a994a7 100644 --- a/blog/Det_vanskelige_Lisensvalget___ikke_lag_din_egen.html +++ b/blog/Det_vanskelige_Lisensvalget___ikke_lag_din_egen.html @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ og endrer pÃ¥ betingelsene.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -220,7 +220,7 @@ og endrer pÃ¥ betingelsene.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ og endrer pÃ¥ betingelsene.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Devcamp_brought_us_closer_to_the_Lenny_based_Debian_Edu_release.html b/blog/Devcamp_brought_us_closer_to_the_Lenny_based_Debian_Edu_release.html index a8ff827c71..3fd9232fa5 100644 --- a/blog/Devcamp_brought_us_closer_to_the_Lenny_based_Debian_Edu_release.html +++ b/blog/Devcamp_brought_us_closer_to_the_Lenny_based_Debian_Edu_release.html @@ -75,7 +75,7 @@ of these cards.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ of these cards.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ of these cards.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Digitale_b__ker_uten_digitale_restriksjonsmekanismer__DRM__b__r_f___mva_fritak.html b/blog/Digitale_b__ker_uten_digitale_restriksjonsmekanismer__DRM__b__r_f___mva_fritak.html index f8dacd7d10..d7725a26df 100644 --- a/blog/Digitale_b__ker_uten_digitale_restriksjonsmekanismer__DRM__b__r_f___mva_fritak.html +++ b/blog/Digitale_b__ker_uten_digitale_restriksjonsmekanismer__DRM__b__r_f___mva_fritak.html @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ der for Ã¥ se hva de har.
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ der for Ã¥ se hva de har.
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ der for Ã¥ se hva de har.
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Digitale_restriksjonsmekanismer_fikk_meg_til____slutte____kj__pe_musikk.html b/blog/Digitale_restriksjonsmekanismer_fikk_meg_til____slutte____kj__pe_musikk.html index 09b2b6ac70..47d5d10b04 100644 --- a/blog/Digitale_restriksjonsmekanismer_fikk_meg_til____slutte____kj__pe_musikk.html +++ b/blog/Digitale_restriksjonsmekanismer_fikk_meg_til____slutte____kj__pe_musikk.html @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ Kommer neppe til Ã¥ ta i bruk Blueray, og ei heller de nye DRM-greiene
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ Kommer neppe til Ã¥ ta i bruk Blueray, og ei heller de nye DRM-greiene
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ Kommer neppe til Ã¥ ta i bruk Blueray, og ei heller de nye DRM-greiene
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/EU_parlamentet_raner_fellesskapet_for_musikk.html b/blog/EU_parlamentet_raner_fellesskapet_for_musikk.html index 6496624346..db0ea13040 100644 --- a/blog/EU_parlamentet_raner_fellesskapet_for_musikk.html +++ b/blog/EU_parlamentet_raner_fellesskapet_for_musikk.html @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ uten musikk med bruksbegresninger.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ uten musikk med bruksbegresninger.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ uten musikk med bruksbegresninger.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Elektronikkbyggesettet_for_reprapen_sporet_opp.html b/blog/Elektronikkbyggesettet_for_reprapen_sporet_opp.html index 01a0251f24..f1952aaef4 100644 --- a/blog/Elektronikkbyggesettet_for_reprapen_sporet_opp.html +++ b/blog/Elektronikkbyggesettet_for_reprapen_sporet_opp.html @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ jul.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ jul.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ jul.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Elektronikkbyggesettet_kommer_fram_p___andre_fors__k.html b/blog/Elektronikkbyggesettet_kommer_fram_p___andre_fors__k.html index 3babf8e7da..7eeaeddf16 100644 --- a/blog/Elektronikkbyggesettet_kommer_fram_p___andre_fors__k.html +++ b/blog/Elektronikkbyggesettet_kommer_fram_p___andre_fors__k.html @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ pÃ¥stÃ¥r det skulle skje i 2008.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ pÃ¥stÃ¥r det skulle skje i 2008.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ pÃ¥stÃ¥r det skulle skje i 2008.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Elektronisk_stemmegiving_er_ikke_til____stole_p_____heller_ikke_i_Norge.html b/blog/Elektronisk_stemmegiving_er_ikke_til____stole_p_____heller_ikke_i_Norge.html index 58ae597a92..8ebfb7c90d 100644 --- a/blog/Elektronisk_stemmegiving_er_ikke_til____stole_p_____heller_ikke_i_Norge.html +++ b/blog/Elektronisk_stemmegiving_er_ikke_til____stole_p_____heller_ikke_i_Norge.html @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ elektronisk stemmegiving og unngÃ¥ begrepet "evalg".

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ elektronisk stemmegiving og unngÃ¥ begrepet "evalg".

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ elektronisk stemmegiving og unngÃ¥ begrepet "evalg".

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/En_skam_at_det_ikke_finnes_ordrett_referat_fra_norske_domstoler.html b/blog/En_skam_at_det_ikke_finnes_ordrett_referat_fra_norske_domstoler.html index 4eef026666..5d2fec38db 100644 --- a/blog/En_skam_at_det_ikke_finnes_ordrett_referat_fra_norske_domstoler.html +++ b/blog/En_skam_at_det_ikke_finnes_ordrett_referat_fra_norske_domstoler.html @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ publisert offentlig pÃ¥ web.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ publisert offentlig pÃ¥ web.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ publisert offentlig pÃ¥ web.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Endelig_er_Debian_Lenny_gitt_ut.html b/blog/Endelig_er_Debian_Lenny_gitt_ut.html index f4f7a0b4a9..994767ba68 100644 --- a/blog/Endelig_er_Debian_Lenny_gitt_ut.html +++ b/blog/Endelig_er_Debian_Lenny_gitt_ut.html @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ bootsekvens tilgjengelig i stabil utgave, vha pakken
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ bootsekvens tilgjengelig i stabil utgave, vha pakken
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ bootsekvens tilgjengelig i stabil utgave, vha pakken
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Endelig_norsk_stavekontroll_med_st__tte_for_ord_med_bindestrek.html b/blog/Endelig_norsk_stavekontroll_med_st__tte_for_ord_med_bindestrek.html index 06fcb629d8..29df5ad807 100644 --- a/blog/Endelig_norsk_stavekontroll_med_st__tte_for_ord_med_bindestrek.html +++ b/blog/Endelig_norsk_stavekontroll_med_st__tte_for_ord_med_bindestrek.html @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ stavekontrollen.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ stavekontrollen.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ stavekontrollen.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Endelig_operativt_webbasert_medlemsregister_for_Fri_programvare_i_skolen.html b/blog/Endelig_operativt_webbasert_medlemsregister_for_Fri_programvare_i_skolen.html index d6c6a25d04..2243e993a7 100644 --- a/blog/Endelig_operativt_webbasert_medlemsregister_for_Fri_programvare_i_skolen.html +++ b/blog/Endelig_operativt_webbasert_medlemsregister_for_Fri_programvare_i_skolen.html @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ GNU.
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ GNU.
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ GNU.
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/FAD_lanserer_reiseregningsskjema_som_fri_programvare.html b/blog/FAD_lanserer_reiseregningsskjema_som_fri_programvare.html index 43ceb6d6b9..6e12cb50ab 100644 --- a/blog/FAD_lanserer_reiseregningsskjema_som_fri_programvare.html +++ b/blog/FAD_lanserer_reiseregningsskjema_som_fri_programvare.html @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ gjorde det litt vanskeligere for brukeren.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ gjorde det litt vanskeligere for brukeren.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ gjorde det litt vanskeligere for brukeren.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/F__rste_NUUG_fordrag_sendt_p___TV.html b/blog/F__rste_NUUG_fordrag_sendt_p___TV.html index 2b6c9a65f9..57fb43ecf6 100644 --- a/blog/F__rste_NUUG_fordrag_sendt_p___TV.html +++ b/blog/F__rste_NUUG_fordrag_sendt_p___TV.html @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ meg, Tollef og alle andre de som deltok pÃ¥ møtet pÃ¥ TV.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ meg, Tollef og alle andre de som deltok pÃ¥ møtet pÃ¥ TV.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ meg, Tollef og alle andre de som deltok pÃ¥ møtet pÃ¥ TV.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/F__rste_reprap_integreringsfors__k___Z_aksen_beveger_seg.html b/blog/F__rste_reprap_integreringsfors__k___Z_aksen_beveger_seg.html index fd30dd64f6..4eab0bcc7e 100644 --- a/blog/F__rste_reprap_integreringsfors__k___Z_aksen_beveger_seg.html +++ b/blog/F__rste_reprap_integreringsfors__k___Z_aksen_beveger_seg.html @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ limet egentlig heter, sÃ¥ det er vanskelig Ã¥ søke pÃ¥ nett.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ limet egentlig heter, sÃ¥ det er vanskelig Ã¥ søke pÃ¥ nett.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ limet egentlig heter, sÃ¥ det er vanskelig Ã¥ søke pÃ¥ nett.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/F__rste_vellykkede_videostr__m_fra_NUUG.html b/blog/F__rste_vellykkede_videostr__m_fra_NUUG.html index 9988017eca..9b960b2e15 100644 --- a/blog/F__rste_vellykkede_videostr__m_fra_NUUG.html +++ b/blog/F__rste_vellykkede_videostr__m_fra_NUUG.html @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ webserver og komprimert.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ webserver og komprimert.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ webserver og komprimert.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Fiksgatami_begynner____ta_form.html b/blog/Fiksgatami_begynner____ta_form.html index 597342b23a..96ea36cf0b 100644 --- a/blog/Fiksgatami_begynner____ta_form.html +++ b/blog/Fiksgatami_begynner____ta_form.html @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ med dem. Dette blir bra.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ med dem. Dette blir bra.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ med dem. Dette blir bra.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Fildeling_er_lovlig___ulovlig_fildeling_er_ulovlig.html b/blog/Fildeling_er_lovlig___ulovlig_fildeling_er_ulovlig.html index 456d75233f..7e4716d070 100644 --- a/blog/Fildeling_er_lovlig___ulovlig_fildeling_er_ulovlig.html +++ b/blog/Fildeling_er_lovlig___ulovlig_fildeling_er_ulovlig.html @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ og fildeling av slike filer er fullt ut lovlig.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ og fildeling av slike filer er fullt ut lovlig.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ og fildeling av slike filer er fullt ut lovlig.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/First_Debian_Edu_test_release__alpha0__based_on_Squeeze_is_released.html b/blog/First_Debian_Edu_test_release__alpha0__based_on_Squeeze_is_released.html index 25cc544def..9a81a5c0bb 100644 --- a/blog/First_Debian_Edu_test_release__alpha0__based_on_Squeeze_is_released.html +++ b/blog/First_Debian_Edu_test_release__alpha0__based_on_Squeeze_is_released.html @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/HowTo/ReportBugsInBugzilla

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/HowTo/ReportBugsInBugzilla

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ http://wiki.debian.org/DebianEdu/HowTo/ReportBugsInBugzilla

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/First_version_of_a_Perl_library_to_control_the_Spykee_robot.html b/blog/First_version_of_a_Perl_library_to_control_the_Spykee_robot.html index f98bf8ea1a..a73c45fdfb 100644 --- a/blog/First_version_of_a_Perl_library_to_control_the_Spykee_robot.html +++ b/blog/First_version_of_a_Perl_library_to_control_the_Spykee_robot.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ please let me know.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ please let me know.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ please let me know.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Forcing_new_users_to_change_their_password_on_first_login.html b/blog/Forcing_new_users_to_change_their_password_on_first_login.html index a4d1894a67..f66cb669f8 100644 --- a/blog/Forcing_new_users_to_change_their_password_on_first_login.html +++ b/blog/Forcing_new_users_to_change_their_password_on_first_login.html @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ change.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ change.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ change.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Forslag_i_stortinget_om____stoppe_elektronisk_stemmegiving_i_Norge.html b/blog/Forslag_i_stortinget_om____stoppe_elektronisk_stemmegiving_i_Norge.html index 06c0b98243..56435000cb 100644 --- a/blog/Forslag_i_stortinget_om____stoppe_elektronisk_stemmegiving_i_Norge.html +++ b/blog/Forslag_i_stortinget_om____stoppe_elektronisk_stemmegiving_i_Norge.html @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ er fremmet av Erna Solberg, Michael Tetzschner og Trond Helleland.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ er fremmet av Erna Solberg, Michael Tetzschner og Trond Helleland.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ er fremmet av Erna Solberg, Michael Tetzschner og Trond Helleland.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Fransk_idiotlovforslag_hinker_gjennom_parlamentet.html b/blog/Fransk_idiotlovforslag_hinker_gjennom_parlamentet.html index 4d9d995113..d769a5535b 100644 --- a/blog/Fransk_idiotlovforslag_hinker_gjennom_parlamentet.html +++ b/blog/Fransk_idiotlovforslag_hinker_gjennom_parlamentet.html @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ rettet mot seg.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ rettet mot seg.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ rettet mot seg.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Fri_og___pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html b/blog/Fri_og___pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html index b19d8118a6..aa26e3f6c8 100644 --- a/blog/Fri_og___pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html +++ b/blog/Fri_og___pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ produkter basert pÃ¥ standarden.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ produkter basert pÃ¥ standarden.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ produkter basert pÃ¥ standarden.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Frikanalen_og_jul_i_studentr__det.html b/blog/Frikanalen_og_jul_i_studentr__det.html index 5476e1ac16..1bcdfe2c07 100644 --- a/blog/Frikanalen_og_jul_i_studentr__det.html +++ b/blog/Frikanalen_og_jul_i_studentr__det.html @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ NUUG lykkes med Ã¥ fÃ¥ ut sine opptak med like stor suksess.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ NUUG lykkes med Ã¥ fÃ¥ ut sine opptak med like stor suksess.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ NUUG lykkes med Ã¥ fÃ¥ ut sine opptak med like stor suksess.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Gjendikte_sangen__Copying_Is_Not_Theft__p___Norsk_.html b/blog/Gjendikte_sangen__Copying_Is_Not_Theft__p___Norsk_.html index 84e2ba90da..43e117bcff 100644 --- a/blog/Gjendikte_sangen__Copying_Is_Not_Theft__p___Norsk_.html +++ b/blog/Gjendikte_sangen__Copying_Is_Not_Theft__p___Norsk_.html @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Gnash_buildbot_slave_and_Debian_kfreebsd.html b/blog/Gnash_buildbot_slave_and_Debian_kfreebsd.html index 92827bd30a..7977b9045f 100644 --- a/blog/Gnash_buildbot_slave_and_Debian_kfreebsd.html +++ b/blog/Gnash_buildbot_slave_and_Debian_kfreebsd.html @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ gnash buildbot slave on the Debian Edu/Skolelinux this weekend.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ gnash buildbot slave on the Debian Edu/Skolelinux this weekend.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ gnash buildbot slave on the Debian Edu/Skolelinux this weekend.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Great_book___Content__Selected_Essays_on_Technology__Creativity__Copyright__and_the_Future_of_the_Future_.html b/blog/Great_book___Content__Selected_Essays_on_Technology__Creativity__Copyright__and_the_Future_of_the_Future_.html index f6acd1ef90..6d99b06e23 100644 --- a/blog/Great_book___Content__Selected_Essays_on_Technology__Creativity__Copyright__and_the_Future_of_the_Future_.html +++ b/blog/Great_book___Content__Selected_Essays_on_Technology__Creativity__Copyright__and_the_Future_of_the_Future_.html @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ strongly recommend this book.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ strongly recommend this book.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ strongly recommend this book.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/How_to_test_if_a_laptop_is_working_with_Linux.html b/blog/How_to_test_if_a_laptop_is_working_with_Linux.html index 722a8ded04..6f2fb149d2 100644 --- a/blog/How_to_test_if_a_laptop_is_working_with_Linux.html +++ b/blog/How_to_test_if_a_laptop_is_working_with_Linux.html @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ RHEL6 with glxgears. No idea why.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ RHEL6 with glxgears. No idea why.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ RHEL6 with glxgears. No idea why.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en___pen_standard_.html b/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en___pen_standard_.html index e1dd35b45a..5d575d1251 100644 --- a/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en___pen_standard_.html +++ b/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en___pen_standard_.html @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ av en standard for at en standard skal kunne kalles fri og Ã¥pen.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ av en standard for at en standard skal kunne kalles fri og Ã¥pen.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ av en standard for at en standard skal kunne kalles fri og Ã¥pen.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Hvor_flyter_Microsofts_penger_.html b/blog/Hvor_flyter_Microsofts_penger_.html index 5f9f32abfd..fe13aed1dc 100644 --- a/blog/Hvor_flyter_Microsofts_penger_.html +++ b/blog/Hvor_flyter_Microsofts_penger_.html @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ om spaniaselskapet pÃ¥ spansk, men jeg kan ikke lese spansk. :(

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ om spaniaselskapet pÃ¥ spansk, men jeg kan ikke lese spansk. :(

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ om spaniaselskapet pÃ¥ spansk, men jeg kan ikke lese spansk. :(

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html b/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html index 884489e42a..9bcd0a3736 100644 --- a/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html +++ b/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ liker rett og slett ikke dagens faktureringsmodeller.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ liker rett og slett ikke dagens faktureringsmodeller.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ liker rett og slett ikke dagens faktureringsmodeller.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/IDG_mener_linux_i_servermarkedet_vil_vokse_med_21__i_2009.html b/blog/IDG_mener_linux_i_servermarkedet_vil_vokse_med_21__i_2009.html index 9ef265e678..f800653c7e 100644 --- a/blog/IDG_mener_linux_i_servermarkedet_vil_vokse_med_21__i_2009.html +++ b/blog/IDG_mener_linux_i_servermarkedet_vil_vokse_med_21__i_2009.html @@ -69,7 +69,7 @@ bakgrunnskunnskapen kan jeg godt tro at IDG er inne pÃ¥ noe.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -132,7 +132,7 @@ bakgrunnskunnskapen kan jeg godt tro at IDG er inne pÃ¥ noe.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ bakgrunnskunnskapen kan jeg godt tro at IDG er inne pÃ¥ noe.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html b/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html index 3b53a7c1e3..5ae1f86169 100644 --- a/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html +++ b/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ seminar this autumn.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ seminar this autumn.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ seminar this autumn.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Idea_for_a_change_to_LDAP_schemas_allowing_DNS_and_DHCP_info_to_be_combined_into_one_object.html b/blog/Idea_for_a_change_to_LDAP_schemas_allowing_DNS_and_DHCP_info_to_be_combined_into_one_object.html index 6e142d61d0..b7df0e0cf7 100644 --- a/blog/Idea_for_a_change_to_LDAP_schemas_allowing_DNS_and_DHCP_info_to_be_combined_into_one_object.html +++ b/blog/Idea_for_a_change_to_LDAP_schemas_allowing_DNS_and_DHCP_info_to_be_combined_into_one_object.html @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Idea_for_storing_LTSP_configuration_in_LDAP.html b/blog/Idea_for_storing_LTSP_configuration_in_LDAP.html index 595be454ff..2ee8e7814e 100644 --- a/blog/Idea_for_storing_LTSP_configuration_in_LDAP.html +++ b/blog/Idea_for_storing_LTSP_configuration_in_LDAP.html @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ personal home page over at redhat.com.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ personal home page over at redhat.com.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -232,7 +232,7 @@ personal home page over at redhat.com.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Intellektuelt_privilegium___et_bedre_IP_begrep.html b/blog/Intellektuelt_privilegium___et_bedre_IP_begrep.html index 679b552308..671462d3df 100644 --- a/blog/Intellektuelt_privilegium___et_bedre_IP_begrep.html +++ b/blog/Intellektuelt_privilegium___et_bedre_IP_begrep.html @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ forretningshemmeligheter framover.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ forretningshemmeligheter framover.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ forretningshemmeligheter framover.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Internet_leverand__rer_er_ikke_vokterne_av_sine_kunders_nettbruk.html b/blog/Internet_leverand__rer_er_ikke_vokterne_av_sine_kunders_nettbruk.html index 675f059449..13798a31f7 100644 --- a/blog/Internet_leverand__rer_er_ikke_vokterne_av_sine_kunders_nettbruk.html +++ b/blog/Internet_leverand__rer_er_ikke_vokterne_av_sine_kunders_nettbruk.html @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ publiseres med mer brukervennlige vilkÃ¥r, som CC-BY og lignende.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ publiseres med mer brukervennlige vilkÃ¥r, som CC-BY og lignende.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ publiseres med mer brukervennlige vilkÃ¥r, som CC-BY og lignende.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Internet_sensur_skal_i_retten_p___mandag.html b/blog/Internet_sensur_skal_i_retten_p___mandag.html index 3323bef4b9..5bc14ed04d 100644 --- a/blog/Internet_sensur_skal_i_retten_p___mandag.html +++ b/blog/Internet_sensur_skal_i_retten_p___mandag.html @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ bruk av musikk.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ bruk av musikk.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ bruk av musikk.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Jeg_vil_beholde_tusenlappen___jeg_bruker_den.html b/blog/Jeg_vil_beholde_tusenlappen___jeg_bruker_den.html index b610cedca2..63d292c7c9 100644 --- a/blog/Jeg_vil_beholde_tusenlappen___jeg_bruker_den.html +++ b/blog/Jeg_vil_beholde_tusenlappen___jeg_bruker_den.html @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ kontanter for noen dager siden.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ kontanter for noen dager siden.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ kontanter for noen dager siden.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Jeg_vil_ikke_ha_BankID.html b/blog/Jeg_vil_ikke_ha_BankID.html index 5b803e4c95..463056cbfe 100644 --- a/blog/Jeg_vil_ikke_ha_BankID.html +++ b/blog/Jeg_vil_ikke_ha_BankID.html @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ nettbankkontroll over egne midler. :(
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ nettbankkontroll over egne midler. :(
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -241,7 +241,7 @@ nettbankkontroll over egne midler. :(
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/KDM_fail_at_boot_with_NVidia_cards___and_no_one_try_to_fix_it_.html b/blog/KDM_fail_at_boot_with_NVidia_cards___and_no_one_try_to_fix_it_.html index d160773d39..3cf756e54f 100644 --- a/blog/KDM_fail_at_boot_with_NVidia_cards___and_no_one_try_to_fix_it_.html +++ b/blog/KDM_fail_at_boot_with_NVidia_cards___and_no_one_try_to_fix_it_.html @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ but I am pretty sure that waiting for each other is not it.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ but I am pretty sure that waiting for each other is not it.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -181,7 +181,7 @@ but I am pretty sure that waiting for each other is not it.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html b/blog/Kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html index 70c2c3fbff..749764f927 100644 --- a/blog/Kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html +++ b/blog/Kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ automatisk over i spesialkartet.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ automatisk over i spesialkartet.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ automatisk over i spesialkartet.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Kartverket__frigj__r__data_men_er_fortsatt_ikke_interessante.html b/blog/Kartverket__frigj__r__data_men_er_fortsatt_ikke_interessante.html index 24677b55b7..2157248c74 100644 --- a/blog/Kartverket__frigj__r__data_men_er_fortsatt_ikke_interessante.html +++ b/blog/Kartverket__frigj__r__data_men_er_fortsatt_ikke_interessante.html @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ er ubrukelig til dette.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ er ubrukelig til dette.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ er ubrukelig til dette.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Kerberos_for_Debian_Edu_Squeeze_.html b/blog/Kerberos_for_Debian_Edu_Squeeze_.html index 6ac60a669f..c2a9b03dfc 100644 --- a/blog/Kerberos_for_Debian_Edu_Squeeze_.html +++ b/blog/Kerberos_for_Debian_Edu_Squeeze_.html @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ up in a few days.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ up in a few days.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ up in a few days.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Korrupsjon_p___h__yeste_niv___.html b/blog/Korrupsjon_p___h__yeste_niv___.html index 913029b9b9..5bd7dd4d81 100644 --- a/blog/Korrupsjon_p___h__yeste_niv___.html +++ b/blog/Korrupsjon_p___h__yeste_niv___.html @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ Sverige blir søndagskolefortellinger i sammenligning.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ Sverige blir søndagskolefortellinger i sammenligning.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ Sverige blir søndagskolefortellinger i sammenligning.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Kryptert_harddisk___naturligvis.html b/blog/Kryptert_harddisk___naturligvis.html index 115d31d80b..d62dfc09e4 100644 --- a/blog/Kryptert_harddisk___naturligvis.html +++ b/blog/Kryptert_harddisk___naturligvis.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ betydelige.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ betydelige.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ betydelige.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/LUMA__a_very_nice_LDAP_GUI.html b/blog/LUMA__a_very_nice_LDAP_GUI.html index c45932150f..b29ef636bf 100644 --- a/blog/LUMA__a_very_nice_LDAP_GUI.html +++ b/blog/LUMA__a_very_nice_LDAP_GUI.html @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ changes, it will not be an option for Debian Edu based on Squeeze.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ changes, it will not be an option for Debian Edu based on Squeeze.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ changes, it will not be an option for Debian Edu based on Squeeze.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Lenker_samlet_2009_05_09.html b/blog/Lenker_samlet_2009_05_09.html index 58787ca06c..ccaee98539 100644 --- a/blog/Lenker_samlet_2009_05_09.html +++ b/blog/Lenker_samlet_2009_05_09.html @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ Word 2007 hÃ¥ndterer ODF dÃ¥rlig
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ Word 2007 hÃ¥ndterer ODF dÃ¥rlig
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ Word 2007 hÃ¥ndterer ODF dÃ¥rlig
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__apt_vs_aptitude_with_the_Gnome_and_KDE_desktop.html b/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__apt_vs_aptitude_with_the_Gnome_and_KDE_desktop.html index 4583230fd4..bb5090eb6c 100644 --- a/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__apt_vs_aptitude_with_the_Gnome_and_KDE_desktop.html +++ b/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__apt_vs_aptitude_with_the_Gnome_and_KDE_desktop.html @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ Installed using apt-get, removed with aptitude
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -337,7 +337,7 @@ Installed using apt-get, removed with aptitude
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -371,7 +371,7 @@ Installed using apt-get, removed with aptitude
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__apt_vs_aptitude_with_the_Gnome_desktop.html b/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__apt_vs_aptitude_with_the_Gnome_desktop.html index 671ad2c349..6129707d7c 100644 --- a/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__apt_vs_aptitude_with_the_Gnome_desktop.html +++ b/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__apt_vs_aptitude_with_the_Gnome_desktop.html @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ the difference somewhat.
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ the difference somewhat.
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -250,7 +250,7 @@ the difference somewhat.
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__removals_by_apt_and_aptitude.html b/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__removals_by_apt_and_aptitude.html index bbaa1d7cb5..fe15fabd34 100644 --- a/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__removals_by_apt_and_aptitude.html +++ b/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades__removals_by_apt_and_aptitude.html @@ -229,7 +229,7 @@ continue.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -292,7 +292,7 @@ continue.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -326,7 +326,7 @@ continue.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades_of_the_Gnome_and_KDE_desktop__now_with_apt_get_autoremove.html b/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades_of_the_Gnome_and_KDE_desktop__now_with_apt_get_autoremove.html index 480219cd8e..1db24f36a6 100644 --- a/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades_of_the_Gnome_and_KDE_desktop__now_with_apt_get_autoremove.html +++ b/blog/Lenny__Squeeze_upgrades_of_the_Gnome_and_KDE_desktop__now_with_apt_get_autoremove.html @@ -498,7 +498,7 @@ the upgrade, but hope those that do can have a look.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -561,7 +561,7 @@ the upgrade, but hope those that do can have a look.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -595,7 +595,7 @@ the upgrade, but hope those that do can have a look.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Links_for_2010_10_03.html b/blog/Links_for_2010_10_03.html index c80e09534d..2e47bfa6da 100644 --- a/blog/Links_for_2010_10_03.html +++ b/blog/Links_for_2010_10_03.html @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ simple setup.
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ simple setup.
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ simple setup.
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Links_for_2010_10_14.html b/blog/Links_for_2010_10_14.html index 26205a55a8..3b4bbdd28e 100644 --- a/blog/Links_for_2010_10_14.html +++ b/blog/Links_for_2010_10_14.html @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ forslag for et rent og sikkert Internet.
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ forslag for et rent og sikkert Internet.
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ forslag for et rent og sikkert Internet.
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Lisensvalg_for_NUUG_opptakene_endelig_p___plass.html b/blog/Lisensvalg_for_NUUG_opptakene_endelig_p___plass.html index 43bde78579..a34ade390b 100644 --- a/blog/Lisensvalg_for_NUUG_opptakene_endelig_p___plass.html +++ b/blog/Lisensvalg_for_NUUG_opptakene_endelig_p___plass.html @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ i denne sammenhengen.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ i denne sammenhengen.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ i denne sammenhengen.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Litt_om_valgfusk_og_problemet_med_elektronisk_stemmegiving.html b/blog/Litt_om_valgfusk_og_problemet_med_elektronisk_stemmegiving.html index 2dbe9d3eb0..94e91bafbf 100644 --- a/blog/Litt_om_valgfusk_og_problemet_med_elektronisk_stemmegiving.html +++ b/blog/Litt_om_valgfusk_og_problemet_med_elektronisk_stemmegiving.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ inneholdt i Iran hvis de ikke hadde hemmelige valg?

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ inneholdt i Iran hvis de ikke hadde hemmelige valg?

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ inneholdt i Iran hvis de ikke hadde hemmelige valg?

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/MS_Word_kr__ller_det_til_for_politiet_.html b/blog/MS_Word_kr__ller_det_til_for_politiet_.html index f16cbd0601..633df4a724 100644 --- a/blog/MS_Word_kr__ller_det_til_for_politiet_.html +++ b/blog/MS_Word_kr__ller_det_til_for_politiet_.html @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ offentlig myndighet?

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ offentlig myndighet?

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ offentlig myndighet?

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/MVA_p___b__ker_med_DRM__ikke_MVA_p___b__ker_uten_DRM_.html b/blog/MVA_p___b__ker_med_DRM__ikke_MVA_p___b__ker_uten_DRM_.html index 427ea16f94..9d8fa76242 100644 --- a/blog/MVA_p___b__ker_med_DRM__ikke_MVA_p___b__ker_uten_DRM_.html +++ b/blog/MVA_p___b__ker_med_DRM__ikke_MVA_p___b__ker_uten_DRM_.html @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ DRM mÃ¥ anses som et kjøp.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ DRM mÃ¥ anses som et kjøp.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ DRM mÃ¥ anses som et kjøp.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Magnetstripeinnhold_i_billetter_fra_Flytoget_og_Hurtigruten.html b/blog/Magnetstripeinnhold_i_billetter_fra_Flytoget_og_Hurtigruten.html index 6f822bedce..440f9d38bd 100644 --- a/blog/Magnetstripeinnhold_i_billetter_fra_Flytoget_og_Hurtigruten.html +++ b/blog/Magnetstripeinnhold_i_billetter_fra_Flytoget_og_Hurtigruten.html @@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ ser jeg mye korrespondanse mellom pÃ¥trykk og magnetstripe.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ ser jeg mye korrespondanse mellom pÃ¥trykk og magnetstripe.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -212,7 +212,7 @@ ser jeg mye korrespondanse mellom pÃ¥trykk og magnetstripe.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Making_room_on_the_Debian_Edu_Sqeeze_DVD.html b/blog/Making_room_on_the_Debian_Edu_Sqeeze_DVD.html index 0ff9856e3b..0ac1ac5acd 100644 --- a/blog/Making_room_on_the_Debian_Edu_Sqeeze_DVD.html +++ b/blog/Making_room_on_the_Debian_Edu_Sqeeze_DVD.html @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ DVD more useful again.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ DVD more useful again.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ DVD more useful again.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Martin_Bekkelund__En_stille_b__nn_om_Datalagringsdirektivet.html b/blog/Martin_Bekkelund__En_stille_b__nn_om_Datalagringsdirektivet.html index c0695c8e4b..942885fee1 100644 --- a/blog/Martin_Bekkelund__En_stille_b__nn_om_Datalagringsdirektivet.html +++ b/blog/Martin_Bekkelund__En_stille_b__nn_om_Datalagringsdirektivet.html @@ -117,7 +117,7 @@ fÃ¥r snart se om det stemmer.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ fÃ¥r snart se om det stemmer.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -214,7 +214,7 @@ fÃ¥r snart se om det stemmer.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Massiv_overv__kning_av_kollektivtrafikken_i_Oslo_planlegges.html b/blog/Massiv_overv__kning_av_kollektivtrafikken_i_Oslo_planlegges.html index 1f70065ee6..06a6c0c029 100644 --- a/blog/Massiv_overv__kning_av_kollektivtrafikken_i_Oslo_planlegges.html +++ b/blog/Massiv_overv__kning_av_kollektivtrafikken_i_Oslo_planlegges.html @@ -73,7 +73,7 @@ OsloomrÃ¥det.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -136,7 +136,7 @@ OsloomrÃ¥det.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -170,7 +170,7 @@ OsloomrÃ¥det.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Mekanikk_delen_av_reprap_byggesettet_i_hus.html b/blog/Mekanikk_delen_av_reprap_byggesettet_i_hus.html index 0906cb4ae0..a8b4c65691 100644 --- a/blog/Mekanikk_delen_av_reprap_byggesettet_i_hus.html +++ b/blog/Mekanikk_delen_av_reprap_byggesettet_i_hus.html @@ -78,7 +78,7 @@ og kan melde seg pÃ¥ aktive@nuug.no.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -141,7 +141,7 @@ og kan melde seg pÃ¥ aktive@nuug.no.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ og kan melde seg pÃ¥ aktive@nuug.no.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Mekanikk_delen_av_reprap_byggesettet_p___vei.html b/blog/Mekanikk_delen_av_reprap_byggesettet_p___vei.html index a859dd9082..0e22989a1b 100644 --- a/blog/Mekanikk_delen_av_reprap_byggesettet_p___vei.html +++ b/blog/Mekanikk_delen_av_reprap_byggesettet_p___vei.html @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ bort første pakke.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ bort første pakke.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ bort første pakke.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Mens_vi_venter_p___3D_skriveren.html b/blog/Mens_vi_venter_p___3D_skriveren.html index cff8c837cf..135c39e2b7 100644 --- a/blog/Mens_vi_venter_p___3D_skriveren.html +++ b/blog/Mens_vi_venter_p___3D_skriveren.html @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ hÃ¥per det ikke gÃ¥r tapt pÃ¥ samme vis.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ hÃ¥per det ikke gÃ¥r tapt pÃ¥ samme vis.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ hÃ¥per det ikke gÃ¥r tapt pÃ¥ samme vis.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html b/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html index 9f14b77179..3f72c09447 100644 --- a/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html +++ b/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ misvisende pÃ¥stander etter i sømmene.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ misvisende pÃ¥stander etter i sømmene.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ misvisende pÃ¥stander etter i sømmene.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Migrating_Xen_virtual_machines_using_LVM_to_KVM_using_disk_images.html b/blog/Migrating_Xen_virtual_machines_using_LVM_to_KVM_using_disk_images.html index c980afb55d..f7fbd049a1 100644 --- a/blog/Migrating_Xen_virtual_machines_using_LVM_to_KVM_using_disk_images.html +++ b/blog/Migrating_Xen_virtual_machines_using_LVM_to_KVM_using_disk_images.html @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ seem to work just fine.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ seem to work just fine.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -230,7 +230,7 @@ seem to work just fine.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Min_reprap_tar_sakte_form.html b/blog/Min_reprap_tar_sakte_form.html index feebcbe55d..ee976f779c 100644 --- a/blog/Min_reprap_tar_sakte_form.html +++ b/blog/Min_reprap_tar_sakte_form.html @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ arbeidet.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ arbeidet.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ arbeidet.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/More_flexible_firmware_handling_in_debian_installer.html b/blog/More_flexible_firmware_handling_in_debian_installer.html index a59b60cf96..d68060c560 100644 --- a/blog/More_flexible_firmware_handling_in_debian_installer.html +++ b/blog/More_flexible_firmware_handling_in_debian_installer.html @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ contact us on debian-boot@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ contact us on debian-boot@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ contact us on debian-boot@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/My_first_perl_GUI_application___controlling_a_Spykee_robot.html b/blog/My_first_perl_GUI_application___controlling_a_Spykee_robot.html index 4da20c9ff4..70275bcbde 100644 --- a/blog/My_first_perl_GUI_application___controlling_a_Spykee_robot.html +++ b/blog/My_first_perl_GUI_application___controlling_a_Spykee_robot.html @@ -109,7 +109,7 @@ those that want to check back later to find it.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -172,7 +172,7 @@ those that want to check back later to find it.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ those that want to check back later to find it.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/N___er_74_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html b/blog/N___er_74_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html index 49c965f15f..db62d61aa8 100644 --- a/blog/N___er_74_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html +++ b/blog/N___er_74_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ kamera finnes pÃ¥ websiden for kartet hos
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ kamera finnes pÃ¥ websiden for kartet hos
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ kamera finnes pÃ¥ websiden for kartet hos
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Nasjonalbiblioteket_legger_ut_b__ker_p___web.html b/blog/Nasjonalbiblioteket_legger_ut_b__ker_p___web.html index 548e7cc78f..e5a6bf9877 100644 --- a/blog/Nasjonalbiblioteket_legger_ut_b__ker_p___web.html +++ b/blog/Nasjonalbiblioteket_legger_ut_b__ker_p___web.html @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ fortløpende.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ fortløpende.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ fortløpende.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Navteq_bruker_3_12_m__neder__OpenStreetmap_org_trenger_noen_dager.html b/blog/Navteq_bruker_3_12_m__neder__OpenStreetmap_org_trenger_noen_dager.html index 668e0d703c..6e61deaa83 100644 --- a/blog/Navteq_bruker_3_12_m__neder__OpenStreetmap_org_trenger_noen_dager.html +++ b/blog/Navteq_bruker_3_12_m__neder__OpenStreetmap_org_trenger_noen_dager.html @@ -82,7 +82,7 @@ gjøres kontinuerlig men kun regelmessing.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ gjøres kontinuerlig men kun regelmessing.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ gjøres kontinuerlig men kun regelmessing.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/No_hardcoded_config_on_Debian_Edu_clients.html b/blog/No_hardcoded_config_on_Debian_Edu_clients.html index 103ff8565e..116e90616b 100644 --- a/blog/No_hardcoded_config_on_Debian_Edu_clients.html +++ b/blog/No_hardcoded_config_on_Debian_Edu_clients.html @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ implement it for Debian Edu. :)

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -240,7 +240,7 @@ implement it for Debian Edu. :)

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -274,7 +274,7 @@ implement it for Debian Edu. :)

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/No_patch_is_not_better_than_a_useless_patch.html b/blog/No_patch_is_not_better_than_a_useless_patch.html index cf710210b5..75ad7a4f68 100644 --- a/blog/No_patch_is_not_better_than_a_useless_patch.html +++ b/blog/No_patch_is_not_better_than_a_useless_patch.html @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ properties.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ properties.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ properties.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Norge_trenger_en_personvernforening.html b/blog/Norge_trenger_en_personvernforening.html index 7a8042026f..c09ec62785 100644 --- a/blog/Norge_trenger_en_personvernforening.html +++ b/blog/Norge_trenger_en_personvernforening.html @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ nÃ¥ fÃ¥r vi se om noen er enig.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ nÃ¥ fÃ¥r vi se om noen er enig.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ nÃ¥ fÃ¥r vi se om noen er enig.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Norgeskartet_p___mange_vis___via_OpenStreetmap_org.html b/blog/Norgeskartet_p___mange_vis___via_OpenStreetmap_org.html index 96815b2a52..2f429b958b 100644 --- a/blog/Norgeskartet_p___mange_vis___via_OpenStreetmap_org.html +++ b/blog/Norgeskartet_p___mange_vis___via_OpenStreetmap_org.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ dermed være noe for enhver smak.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ dermed være noe for enhver smak.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ dermed være noe for enhver smak.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Now_accepting_bitcoins___anonymous_and_distributed_p2p_crypto_money.html b/blog/Now_accepting_bitcoins___anonymous_and_distributed_p2p_crypto_money.html index 2cec9a966f..bdd70561f9 100644 --- a/blog/Now_accepting_bitcoins___anonymous_and_distributed_p2p_crypto_money.html +++ b/blog/Now_accepting_bitcoins___anonymous_and_distributed_p2p_crypto_money.html @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ donations to the address
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ donations to the address
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ donations to the address
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p___plass.html b/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p___plass.html index 6c5eea4527..8295386d58 100644 --- a/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p___plass.html +++ b/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p___plass.html @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ Kjenner kun til ufullstendige løsninger for slikt.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ Kjenner kun til ufullstendige løsninger for slikt.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ Kjenner kun til ufullstendige løsninger for slikt.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html b/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html index 5d4f500e14..c512bb00be 100644 --- a/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html +++ b/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html b/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html index ac5efd78f7..afd54db3b2 100644 --- a/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html +++ b/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ Windows. This is great.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ Windows. This is great.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ Windows. This is great.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/One_step_closer_to_single_signon_in_Debian_Edu.html b/blog/One_step_closer_to_single_signon_in_Debian_Edu.html index 8033b0a00c..f26eba11f6 100644 --- a/blog/One_step_closer_to_single_signon_in_Debian_Edu.html +++ b/blog/One_step_closer_to_single_signon_in_Debian_Edu.html @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/OpenStreetmap_one_step_closer_to_having_routing_on_its_front_page.html b/blog/OpenStreetmap_one_step_closer_to_having_routing_on_its_front_page.html index df45e48b3b..52d926ad8e 100644 --- a/blog/OpenStreetmap_one_step_closer_to_having_routing_on_its_front_page.html +++ b/blog/OpenStreetmap_one_step_closer_to_having_routing_on_its_front_page.html @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ www.openstreetmap.org front page.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -140,7 +140,7 @@ www.openstreetmap.org front page.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ www.openstreetmap.org front page.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Oppdatert_kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html b/blog/Oppdatert_kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html index 59fc69b704..bc141f1207 100644 --- a/blog/Oppdatert_kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html +++ b/blog/Oppdatert_kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ OSM-dumpen for Norge.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ OSM-dumpen for Norge.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ OSM-dumpen for Norge.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Opphavet_til_Skolelinux_prosjektet.html b/blog/Opphavet_til_Skolelinux_prosjektet.html index dd950fe12d..b05ba5fb4d 100644 --- a/blog/Opphavet_til_Skolelinux_prosjektet.html +++ b/blog/Opphavet_til_Skolelinux_prosjektet.html @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ Resten er historie. :)

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ Resten er historie. :)

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ Resten er historie. :)

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/P___vegne_av_vanvitting_mange__Aftenposten_.html b/blog/P___vegne_av_vanvitting_mange__Aftenposten_.html index 80fbf34b74..63f4174070 100644 --- a/blog/P___vegne_av_vanvitting_mange__Aftenposten_.html +++ b/blog/P___vegne_av_vanvitting_mange__Aftenposten_.html @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ Hr. Fossen. MÃ¥ innrømme at jeg tviler pÃ¥ det.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -134,7 +134,7 @@ Hr. Fossen. MÃ¥ innrømme at jeg tviler pÃ¥ det.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -168,7 +168,7 @@ Hr. Fossen. MÃ¥ innrømme at jeg tviler pÃ¥ det.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Parallellized_boot_is_now_the_default_in_Debian_unstable.html b/blog/Parallellized_boot_is_now_the_default_in_Debian_unstable.html index 9b6d7d8741..4eea157fc0 100644 --- a/blog/Parallellized_boot_is_now_the_default_in_Debian_unstable.html +++ b/blog/Parallellized_boot_is_now_the_default_in_Debian_unstable.html @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -150,7 +150,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -184,7 +184,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Parallellized_boot_seem_to_hold_up_well_in_Debian_testing.html b/blog/Parallellized_boot_seem_to_hold_up_well_in_Debian_testing.html index addcb07107..af6a461b2d 100644 --- a/blog/Parallellized_boot_seem_to_hold_up_well_in_Debian_testing.html +++ b/blog/Parallellized_boot_seem_to_hold_up_well_in_Debian_testing.html @@ -100,7 +100,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -163,7 +163,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -197,7 +197,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Parallellizing_the_boot_in_Debian_Squeeze___ready_for_wider_testing.html b/blog/Parallellizing_the_boot_in_Debian_Squeeze___ready_for_wider_testing.html index a3d6ff4301..e7a95c4f86 100644 --- a/blog/Parallellizing_the_boot_in_Debian_Squeeze___ready_for_wider_testing.html +++ b/blog/Parallellizing_the_boot_in_Debian_Squeeze___ready_for_wider_testing.html @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Pieces_of_the_roaming_laptop_puzzle_in_Debian.html b/blog/Pieces_of_the_roaming_laptop_puzzle_in_Debian.html index b0049c9666..a70f812a16 100644 --- a/blog/Pieces_of_the_roaming_laptop_puzzle_in_Debian.html +++ b/blog/Pieces_of_the_roaming_laptop_puzzle_in_Debian.html @@ -112,7 +112,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -175,7 +175,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Pledge_for_funding_to_the_Gnash_project_to_get_AVM2_support.html b/blog/Pledge_for_funding_to_the_Gnash_project_to_get_AVM2_support.html index c7ddf5ca92..96ace3a641 100644 --- a/blog/Pledge_for_funding_to_the_Gnash_project_to_get_AVM2_support.html +++ b/blog/Pledge_for_funding_to_the_Gnash_project_to_get_AVM2_support.html @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ project gets, the more features it can develop using these funds.
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ project gets, the more features it can develop using these funds.
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ project gets, the more features it can develop using these funds.
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Pornoskannerne_p___flyplassene_bedrer_visst_ikke_sikkerheten.html b/blog/Pornoskannerne_p___flyplassene_bedrer_visst_ikke_sikkerheten.html index e636101bdb..3b79bf70f8 100644 --- a/blog/Pornoskannerne_p___flyplassene_bedrer_visst_ikke_sikkerheten.html +++ b/blog/Pornoskannerne_p___flyplassene_bedrer_visst_ikke_sikkerheten.html @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ kan.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ kan.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ kan.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Recording_video_from_cron_using_VLC.html b/blog/Recording_video_from_cron_using_VLC.html index c00bc60ab2..aa5a616d35 100644 --- a/blog/Recording_video_from_cron_using_VLC.html +++ b/blog/Recording_video_from_cron_using_VLC.html @@ -98,7 +98,7 @@ wait $pid
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ wait $pid
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -195,7 +195,7 @@ wait $pid
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html b/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html index de664e613a..3f76c5fc3e 100644 --- a/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html +++ b/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ høringsuttalelse, men ser ut til Ã¥ ha blitt ignorert.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ høringsuttalelse, men ser ut til Ã¥ ha blitt ignorert.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ høringsuttalelse, men ser ut til Ã¥ ha blitt ignorert.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h__ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html b/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h__ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html index e2bbffa577..5231e75399 100644 --- a/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h__ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html +++ b/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h__ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ politidirektoratet om patentproblemer i Theora).

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ politidirektoratet om patentproblemer i Theora).

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ politidirektoratet om patentproblemer i Theora).

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html b/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html index 8c2240f93c..b7312ec702 100644 --- a/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html +++ b/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ numbers.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ numbers.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ numbers.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Reprap_bygging_i_p__sken.html b/blog/Reprap_bygging_i_p__sken.html index bf7718fb26..92141df226 100644 --- a/blog/Reprap_bygging_i_p__sken.html +++ b/blog/Reprap_bygging_i_p__sken.html @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ kommer til Ã¥ bruke denne plasttypen som hÃ¥ndterer temperaturer mellom
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ kommer til Ã¥ bruke denne plasttypen som hÃ¥ndterer temperaturer mellom
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ kommer til Ã¥ bruke denne plasttypen som hÃ¥ndterer temperaturer mellom
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Reprap_pakke_tapt_i_posten.html b/blog/Reprap_pakke_tapt_i_posten.html index 247a0bdb8c..218cec6668 100644 --- a/blog/Reprap_pakke_tapt_i_posten.html +++ b/blog/Reprap_pakke_tapt_i_posten.html @@ -70,7 +70,7 @@ lenge alt er klart til Go Open
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -133,7 +133,7 @@ lenge alt er klart til Go Open
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -167,7 +167,7 @@ lenge alt er klart til Go Open
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Returning_from_Skolelinux_developer_gathering.html b/blog/Returning_from_Skolelinux_developer_gathering.html index c1621f23a3..b805a51af6 100644 --- a/blog/Returning_from_Skolelinux_developer_gathering.html +++ b/blog/Returning_from_Skolelinux_developer_gathering.html @@ -76,7 +76,7 @@ now. :)

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -139,7 +139,7 @@ now. :)

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ now. :)

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Rob_Weir__How_to_Crush_Dissent.html b/blog/Rob_Weir__How_to_Crush_Dissent.html index 290c922bd9..fb965b425d 100644 --- a/blog/Rob_Weir__How_to_Crush_Dissent.html +++ b/blog/Rob_Weir__How_to_Crush_Dissent.html @@ -67,7 +67,7 @@ long time.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ long time.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ long time.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Robot__reis_deg___.html b/blog/Robot__reis_deg___.html index 9ad44f7c0d..68bc40ec1b 100644 --- a/blog/Robot__reis_deg___.html +++ b/blog/Robot__reis_deg___.html @@ -99,7 +99,7 @@ der hvis du er nysgjerrig.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -162,7 +162,7 @@ der hvis du er nysgjerrig.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ der hvis du er nysgjerrig.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Sikkerhet__teater__og_hvordan_gj__re_verden_sikrere.html b/blog/Sikkerhet__teater__og_hvordan_gj__re_verden_sikrere.html index 2dfb9615b2..7070cfcfcf 100644 --- a/blog/Sikkerhet__teater__og_hvordan_gj__re_verden_sikrere.html +++ b/blog/Sikkerhet__teater__og_hvordan_gj__re_verden_sikrere.html @@ -72,7 +72,7 @@ pÃ¥ flyplassene.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ pÃ¥ flyplassene.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ pÃ¥ flyplassene.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Sikkerhet_til_sj__s_trenger_sj__kart_uten_bruksbegresninger.html b/blog/Sikkerhet_til_sj__s_trenger_sj__kart_uten_bruksbegresninger.html index f3af1bcbf0..6726fac611 100644 --- a/blog/Sikkerhet_til_sj__s_trenger_sj__kart_uten_bruksbegresninger.html +++ b/blog/Sikkerhet_til_sj__s_trenger_sj__kart_uten_bruksbegresninger.html @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ det viser at behovet for fribruks-sjøkart er til stedet.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ det viser at behovet for fribruks-sjøkart er til stedet.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -211,7 +211,7 @@ det viser at behovet for fribruks-sjøkart er til stedet.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Sikkerhetsteateret_p___flyplassene_fortsetter.html b/blog/Sikkerhetsteateret_p___flyplassene_fortsetter.html index 911bbf768d..a064ae828f 100644 --- a/blog/Sikkerhetsteateret_p___flyplassene_fortsetter.html +++ b/blog/Sikkerhetsteateret_p___flyplassene_fortsetter.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ en god ting sett fra et miljøperspektiv, men det er en annen sak.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ en god ting sett fra et miljøperspektiv, men det er en annen sak.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ en god ting sett fra et miljøperspektiv, men det er en annen sak.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Sitesummary_tip__Listing_MAC_address_of_all_clients.html b/blog/Sitesummary_tip__Listing_MAC_address_of_all_clients.html index d2a5780a30..8b637a6d52 100644 --- a/blog/Sitesummary_tip__Listing_MAC_address_of_all_clients.html +++ b/blog/Sitesummary_tip__Listing_MAC_address_of_all_clients.html @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ written yet.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ written yet.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ written yet.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Sitesummary_tip__Listing_computer_hardware_models_used_at_site.html b/blog/Sitesummary_tip__Listing_computer_hardware_models_used_at_site.html index d4bda108b9..e2ea922bcb 100644 --- a/blog/Sitesummary_tip__Listing_computer_hardware_models_used_at_site.html +++ b/blog/Sitesummary_tip__Listing_computer_hardware_models_used_at_site.html @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ collector.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ collector.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ collector.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Skolelinux_er_laget_for_sentraldrifting__naturligvis.html b/blog/Skolelinux_er_laget_for_sentraldrifting__naturligvis.html index b82c9df058..c9852b78ab 100644 --- a/blog/Skolelinux_er_laget_for_sentraldrifting__naturligvis.html +++ b/blog/Skolelinux_er_laget_for_sentraldrifting__naturligvis.html @@ -138,7 +138,7 @@ minner.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -201,7 +201,7 @@ minner.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -235,7 +235,7 @@ minner.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Skolelinux_i_Osloskolen.html b/blog/Skolelinux_i_Osloskolen.html index 32fb860f99..f912bebaf1 100644 --- a/blog/Skolelinux_i_Osloskolen.html +++ b/blog/Skolelinux_i_Osloskolen.html @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ brukerprogrammene som er tilgjengelig i Skolelinux.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ brukerprogrammene som er tilgjengelig i Skolelinux.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ brukerprogrammene som er tilgjengelig i Skolelinux.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Software_updates_2010_10_24.html b/blog/Software_updates_2010_10_24.html index a8f7c63122..2807ec5d65 100644 --- a/blog/Software_updates_2010_10_24.html +++ b/blog/Software_updates_2010_10_24.html @@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ clients to get a Linux desktop on request.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -154,7 +154,7 @@ clients to get a Linux desktop on request.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ clients to get a Linux desktop on request.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Software_video_mixer_on_a_USB_stick.html b/blog/Software_video_mixer_on_a_USB_stick.html index c91a60d0f8..bda7f68518 100644 --- a/blog/Software_video_mixer_on_a_USB_stick.html +++ b/blog/Software_video_mixer_on_a_USB_stick.html @@ -85,7 +85,7 @@ larger stick as well.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -148,7 +148,7 @@ larger stick as well.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -182,7 +182,7 @@ larger stick as well.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Some_notes_on_Flash_in_Debian_and_Debian_Edu.html b/blog/Some_notes_on_Flash_in_Debian_and_Debian_Edu.html index c252ddac57..7464ecafa3 100644 --- a/blog/Some_notes_on_Flash_in_Debian_and_Debian_Edu.html +++ b/blog/Some_notes_on_Flash_in_Debian_and_Debian_Edu.html @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ accept the new package into Squeeze.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ accept the new package into Squeeze.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ accept the new package into Squeeze.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Some_thoughts_on_BitCoins.html b/blog/Some_thoughts_on_BitCoins.html index d95f463c64..74ee55762f 100644 --- a/blog/Some_thoughts_on_BitCoins.html +++ b/blog/Some_thoughts_on_BitCoins.html @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ equally valid for gold, which was used as a currency for many years.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ equally valid for gold, which was used as a currency for many years.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -234,7 +234,7 @@ equally valid for gold, which was used as a currency for many years.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n__r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html b/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n__r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html index 06f75d6a61..1aa6793340 100644 --- a/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n__r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html +++ b/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n__r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ bidrar positivt.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -137,7 +137,7 @@ bidrar positivt.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -171,7 +171,7 @@ bidrar positivt.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html b/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html index e198a286a1..e256c9d41e 100644 --- a/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html +++ b/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html @@ -86,7 +86,7 @@ application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -149,7 +149,7 @@ application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html b/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html index 7dc4a34468..d6a0da39d8 100644 --- a/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html +++ b/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ skal spesifisere hvordan seriell-konsoll skal fungere.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ skal spesifisere hvordan seriell-konsoll skal fungere.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ skal spesifisere hvordan seriell-konsoll skal fungere.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Student_group_continue_the_work_on_my_Reprap_3D_printer.html b/blog/Student_group_continue_the_work_on_my_Reprap_3D_printer.html index 723c57b954..fa567d17b8 100644 --- a/blog/Student_group_continue_the_work_on_my_Reprap_3D_printer.html +++ b/blog/Student_group_continue_the_work_on_my_Reprap_3D_printer.html @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ very cool 3D scanner.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ very cool 3D scanner.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ very cool 3D scanner.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/TED_talks_p___norsk_og_NUUG_foredrag___frivillige_trengs_til_teksting.html b/blog/TED_talks_p___norsk_og_NUUG_foredrag___frivillige_trengs_til_teksting.html index 6694887e9e..7c7b65e1f9 100644 --- a/blog/TED_talks_p___norsk_og_NUUG_foredrag___frivillige_trengs_til_teksting.html +++ b/blog/TED_talks_p___norsk_og_NUUG_foredrag___frivillige_trengs_til_teksting.html @@ -88,7 +88,7 @@ lar en bidra med teksting via en nettleser.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -151,7 +151,7 @@ lar en bidra med teksting via en nettleser.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -185,7 +185,7 @@ lar en bidra med teksting via en nettleser.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Taking_over_sysvinit_development.html b/blog/Taking_over_sysvinit_development.html index 3ca9908fb4..37e0cee605 100644 --- a/blog/Taking_over_sysvinit_development.html +++ b/blog/Taking_over_sysvinit_development.html @@ -83,7 +83,7 @@ distributions are moving to upstart as a syvinit replacement.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ distributions are moving to upstart as a syvinit replacement.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -180,7 +180,7 @@ distributions are moving to upstart as a syvinit replacement.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Teknisk_program_for_Go_Open_2009_er_nesten_ferdig.html b/blog/Teknisk_program_for_Go_Open_2009_er_nesten_ferdig.html index 431eb4aa89..bcc1cf9f7b 100644 --- a/blog/Teknisk_program_for_Go_Open_2009_er_nesten_ferdig.html +++ b/blog/Teknisk_program_for_Go_Open_2009_er_nesten_ferdig.html @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ stort.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -152,7 +152,7 @@ stort.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -186,7 +186,7 @@ stort.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html b/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html index 2b63dfd391..4836f1654d 100644 --- a/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html +++ b/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ Theora, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ Theora, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ Theora, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Tester_blog.html b/blog/Tester_blog.html index 374b296152..0c788844a7 100644 --- a/blog/Tester_blog.html +++ b/blog/Tester_blog.html @@ -64,7 +64,7 @@ forsøk.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -127,7 +127,7 @@ forsøk.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -161,7 +161,7 @@ forsøk.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Testing_av_reprap_elektronikken_igang.html b/blog/Testing_av_reprap_elektronikken_igang.html index 31b5954b63..f471149c72 100644 --- a/blog/Testing_av_reprap_elektronikken_igang.html +++ b/blog/Testing_av_reprap_elektronikken_igang.html @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ reprap-en kvikner til.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ reprap-en kvikner til.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ reprap-en kvikner til.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Testing_if_a_file_system_can_be_used_for_home_directories___.html b/blog/Testing_if_a_file_system_can_be_used_for_home_directories___.html index e01b439d13..d7af995e3c 100644 --- a/blog/Testing_if_a_file_system_can_be_used_for_home_directories___.html +++ b/blog/Testing_if_a_file_system_can_be_used_for_home_directories___.html @@ -284,7 +284,7 @@ script so useful that he created a GIT repository and stored it in
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -347,7 +347,7 @@ script so useful that he created a GIT repository and stored it in
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ script so useful that he created a GIT repository and stored it in
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html b/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..34f9ed4dbc --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html @@ -0,0 +1,371 @@ + + + + Petter Reinholdtsen: The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru + + + + +
    +

    + Petter Reinholdtsen + +

    + +
    + + +
    +
    The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru
    +
    2010-12-25 10:50
    +
    +

    A few days ago +an +article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version +2.0 of +European +Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the +proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. +Nothing very surprising there, given +earlier +reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in +this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of +an +open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I +believe should be used also in the future, alongside +the +definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open +standard definition from its content.

    + +

    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 +my +source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some +background information about that story is available in +an article from +Linux Journal in 2002.

    + +
    +

    Lima, 8th of April, 2002
    +To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
    +General Manager of Microsoft Perú

    + +

    Dear Sir:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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:

    + +

    +

      +
    • Free access to public information by the citizen.
      • +
    • Permanence of public data.
      • +
    • Security of the State and citizens.
      • +
    +

    + +

    To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is 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.

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

    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.

    + + +

    From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
    +

  • the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not specify which concrete software to use
    • +
  • the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
    • +
  • the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
    • + +

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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..."

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    On security:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    In respect of the guarantee:

    + +A

    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.

    + +

    On Intellectual Property:

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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?"

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    Cordially,
    +DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
    +Congressman of the Republic of Perú.

    +
    +
    + +
    Tags: english, standard.
    + +
    + + + + + + + + + diff --git a/blog/The_sorry_state_of_multimedia_browser_plugins_in_Debian.html b/blog/The_sorry_state_of_multimedia_browser_plugins_in_Debian.html index 6d5f1ed16b..e49e1da1ed 100644 --- a/blog/The_sorry_state_of_multimedia_browser_plugins_in_Debian.html +++ b/blog/The_sorry_state_of_multimedia_browser_plugins_in_Debian.html @@ -79,7 +79,7 @@ be the only one fitting our needs. :/

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -142,7 +142,7 @@ be the only one fitting our needs. :/

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ be the only one fitting our needs. :/

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Thoughts_on_roaming_laptop_setup_for_Debian_Edu.html b/blog/Thoughts_on_roaming_laptop_setup_for_Debian_Edu.html index 990af09685..4a78361590 100644 --- a/blog/Thoughts_on_roaming_laptop_setup_for_Debian_Edu.html +++ b/blog/Thoughts_on_roaming_laptop_setup_for_Debian_Edu.html @@ -126,7 +126,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -223,7 +223,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Time_for_new__LDAP_schemas_replacing_RFC_2307_.html b/blog/Time_for_new__LDAP_schemas_replacing_RFC_2307_.html index 770732a4ff..484adad7cb 100644 --- a/blog/Time_for_new__LDAP_schemas_replacing_RFC_2307_.html +++ b/blog/Time_for_new__LDAP_schemas_replacing_RFC_2307_.html @@ -93,7 +93,7 @@ new IETF work group?

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ new IETF work group?

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -190,7 +190,7 @@ new IETF work group?

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Togsatsing_p___norsk__mot_sykkel.html b/blog/Togsatsing_p___norsk__mot_sykkel.html index ef25eccec0..eb1b0d3c4f 100644 --- a/blog/Togsatsing_p___norsk__mot_sykkel.html +++ b/blog/Togsatsing_p___norsk__mot_sykkel.html @@ -68,7 +68,7 @@ effekt pÃ¥ omrÃ¥det der?

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ effekt pÃ¥ omrÃ¥det der?

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ effekt pÃ¥ omrÃ¥det der?

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Transendentalt_tullball_og_en_funksjonell_tiln__rming.html b/blog/Transendentalt_tullball_og_en_funksjonell_tiln__rming.html index 7ee295c230..6a1dfeb9c6 100644 --- a/blog/Transendentalt_tullball_og_en_funksjonell_tiln__rming.html +++ b/blog/Transendentalt_tullball_og_en_funksjonell_tiln__rming.html @@ -80,7 +80,7 @@ oppløsning.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ oppløsning.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -177,7 +177,7 @@ oppløsning.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Two_projects_that_have_improved_the_quality_of_free_software_a_lot.html b/blog/Two_projects_that_have_improved_the_quality_of_free_software_a_lot.html index 99676f6c26..d07d5dfb06 100644 --- a/blog/Two_projects_that_have_improved_the_quality_of_free_software_a_lot.html +++ b/blog/Two_projects_that_have_improved_the_quality_of_free_software_a_lot.html @@ -97,7 +97,7 @@ surrounded by today.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -160,7 +160,7 @@ surrounded by today.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -194,7 +194,7 @@ surrounded by today.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Upstart_or_sysvinit___as_init_d_scripts_see_it.html b/blog/Upstart_or_sysvinit___as_init_d_scripts_see_it.html index b0409c54d3..aee9726fc1 100644 --- a/blog/Upstart_or_sysvinit___as_init_d_scripts_see_it.html +++ b/blog/Upstart_or_sysvinit___as_init_d_scripts_see_it.html @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ choice.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ choice.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ choice.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Using_bar_codes_at_a_computing_center.html b/blog/Using_bar_codes_at_a_computing_center.html index 6d1da3fdfb..18e750e3c9 100644 --- a/blog/Using_bar_codes_at_a_computing_center.html +++ b/blog/Using_bar_codes_at_a_computing_center.html @@ -102,7 +102,7 @@ easier automatic tracking of computers.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ easier automatic tracking of computers.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -199,7 +199,7 @@ easier automatic tracking of computers.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Vinmonopolet_bryter_loven___penlyst___og_flere_planlegger____gj__re_det_samme.html b/blog/Vinmonopolet_bryter_loven___penlyst___og_flere_planlegger____gj__re_det_samme.html index 1503cca209..c24f1463c7 100644 --- a/blog/Vinmonopolet_bryter_loven___penlyst___og_flere_planlegger____gj__re_det_samme.html +++ b/blog/Vinmonopolet_bryter_loven___penlyst___og_flere_planlegger____gj__re_det_samme.html @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ hÃ¥ndheves strengt.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -158,7 +158,7 @@ hÃ¥ndheves strengt.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ hÃ¥ndheves strengt.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Vitenskapens_dogmer___.html b/blog/Vitenskapens_dogmer___.html index 9c33276a73..ae5caa8fdd 100644 --- a/blog/Vitenskapens_dogmer___.html +++ b/blog/Vitenskapens_dogmer___.html @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ skyskrapere. Takke meg til en tur til mÃ¥nen.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ skyskrapere. Takke meg til en tur til mÃ¥nen.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ skyskrapere. Takke meg til en tur til mÃ¥nen.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Webbasert_tegneseriearkiv_p___trappene.html b/blog/Webbasert_tegneseriearkiv_p___trappene.html index 20bbb91452..88b4c1aa63 100644 --- a/blog/Webbasert_tegneseriearkiv_p___trappene.html +++ b/blog/Webbasert_tegneseriearkiv_p___trappene.html @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ titt.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -169,7 +169,7 @@ titt.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ titt.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/What_are_they_searching_for___PowerDNS_and_ISC_DHCP_in_LDAP.html b/blog/What_are_they_searching_for___PowerDNS_and_ISC_DHCP_in_LDAP.html index c2055f2851..68eca23574 100644 --- a/blog/What_are_they_searching_for___PowerDNS_and_ISC_DHCP_in_LDAP.html +++ b/blog/What_are_they_searching_for___PowerDNS_and_ISC_DHCP_in_LDAP.html @@ -372,7 +372,7 @@ auxiliary object class.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -435,7 +435,7 @@ auxiliary object class.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ auxiliary object class.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/When_web_browser_developers_make_a_video_player___.html b/blog/When_web_browser_developers_make_a_video_player___.html index 34f2b2aa37..3e6e299612 100644 --- a/blog/When_web_browser_developers_make_a_video_player___.html +++ b/blog/When_web_browser_developers_make_a_video_player___.html @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ sure hope it was using the announced Ogg Theora support. :)

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ sure hope it was using the announced Ogg Theora support. :)

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -200,7 +200,7 @@ sure hope it was using the announced Ogg Theora support. :)

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/Why_isn_t_Debian_Edu_using_VLC_.html b/blog/Why_isn_t_Debian_Edu_using_VLC_.html index 3ff1247fc3..35f52d9fd1 100644 --- a/blog/Why_isn_t_Debian_Edu_using_VLC_.html +++ b/blog/Why_isn_t_Debian_Edu_using_VLC_.html @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ what is going on.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ what is going on.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ what is going on.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/__pne_tr__dl__snett_er_et_samfunnsgode.html b/blog/__pne_tr__dl__snett_er_et_samfunnsgode.html index 820c391c18..8b1dbc6ecc 100644 --- a/blog/__pne_tr__dl__snett_er_et_samfunnsgode.html +++ b/blog/__pne_tr__dl__snett_er_et_samfunnsgode.html @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ anstrenge oss for Ã¥ beholde.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ anstrenge oss for Ã¥ beholde.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ anstrenge oss for Ã¥ beholde.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2008/11/index.html b/blog/archive/2008/11/index.html index 57cd3ab793..2058ad8726 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2008/11/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2008/11/index.html @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ lenge alt er klart til Go Open
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ lenge alt er klart til Go Open
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ lenge alt er klart til Go Open
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2008/12/index.html b/blog/archive/2008/12/index.html index 701c7728d3..65664d41f8 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2008/12/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2008/12/index.html @@ -388,7 +388,7 @@ larger stick as well.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ larger stick as well.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -485,7 +485,7 @@ larger stick as well.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/01/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/01/index.html index b3c3d057ff..664c0b39df 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/01/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/01/index.html @@ -557,7 +557,7 @@ produkter basert pÃ¥ standarden.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ produkter basert pÃ¥ standarden.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -654,7 +654,7 @@ produkter basert pÃ¥ standarden.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/02/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/02/index.html index 3eca0b91b8..f5503ee569 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/02/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/02/index.html @@ -535,7 +535,7 @@ do so.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -598,7 +598,7 @@ do so.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -632,7 +632,7 @@ do so.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/03/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/03/index.html index a1ad0e88b5..6a98a92fc1 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/03/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/03/index.html @@ -724,7 +724,7 @@ application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -787,7 +787,7 @@ application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -821,7 +821,7 @@ application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/04/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/04/index.html index 233ad76999..9d460a4e1f 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/04/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/04/index.html @@ -516,7 +516,7 @@ properties.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -579,7 +579,7 @@ properties.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -613,7 +613,7 @@ properties.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/05/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/05/index.html index 21eb638179..ac8d158901 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/05/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/05/index.html @@ -473,7 +473,7 @@ bidrar positivt.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -536,7 +536,7 @@ bidrar positivt.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -570,7 +570,7 @@ bidrar positivt.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/06/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/06/index.html index 77e2fff303..a14b502f3e 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/06/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/06/index.html @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@ misvisende pÃ¥stander etter i sømmene.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ misvisende pÃ¥stander etter i sømmene.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -333,7 +333,7 @@ misvisende pÃ¥stander etter i sømmene.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/07/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/07/index.html index 020e72d568..7250e97b36 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/07/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/07/index.html @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ non-predictable kernel in the early boot.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ non-predictable kernel in the early boot.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ non-predictable kernel in the early boot.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/08/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/08/index.html index 7e9535160c..e25cb794c6 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/08/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/08/index.html @@ -237,7 +237,7 @@ det viser at behovet for fribruks-sjøkart er til stedet.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ det viser at behovet for fribruks-sjøkart er til stedet.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -334,7 +334,7 @@ det viser at behovet for fribruks-sjøkart er til stedet.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/09/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/09/index.html index 3c7e16099e..80f2fffc5c 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/09/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/09/index.html @@ -94,7 +94,7 @@ DRM mÃ¥ anses som et kjøp.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -157,7 +157,7 @@ DRM mÃ¥ anses som et kjøp.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ DRM mÃ¥ anses som et kjøp.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/10/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/10/index.html index f10a027a90..ebf61b2bc1 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/10/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/10/index.html @@ -206,7 +206,7 @@ nettbankkontroll over egne midler. :(
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ nettbankkontroll over egne midler. :(
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -303,7 +303,7 @@ nettbankkontroll over egne midler. :(
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/11/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/11/index.html index 242b9a5649..c125d69e36 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/11/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/11/index.html @@ -191,7 +191,7 @@ er ubrukelig til dette.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -254,7 +254,7 @@ er ubrukelig til dette.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -288,7 +288,7 @@ er ubrukelig til dette.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2009/12/index.html b/blog/archive/2009/12/index.html index 34f0e386f7..bb35d0184b 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2009/12/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2009/12/index.html @@ -176,7 +176,7 @@ pÃ¥ flyplassene.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -239,7 +239,7 @@ pÃ¥ flyplassene.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -273,7 +273,7 @@ pÃ¥ flyplassene.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/01/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/01/index.html index e5d424c9a4..54773f205f 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/01/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/01/index.html @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ platforme.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ platforme.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ platforme.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/02/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/02/index.html index 41a908abe1..c2d25bf871 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/02/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/02/index.html @@ -90,7 +90,7 @@ and have just a few weeks or months to make it happen.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -153,7 +153,7 @@ and have just a few weeks or months to make it happen.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -187,7 +187,7 @@ and have just a few weeks or months to make it happen.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/03/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/03/index.html index bd6a557618..109cf69945 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/03/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/03/index.html @@ -179,7 +179,7 @@ Hr. Fossen. MÃ¥ innrømme at jeg tviler pÃ¥ det.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -242,7 +242,7 @@ Hr. Fossen. MÃ¥ innrømme at jeg tviler pÃ¥ det.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -276,7 +276,7 @@ Hr. Fossen. MÃ¥ innrømme at jeg tviler pÃ¥ det.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/04/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/04/index.html index e29aa25399..40e8a9f477 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/04/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/04/index.html @@ -233,7 +233,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -296,7 +296,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -330,7 +330,7 @@ please contact us on debian-edu@lists.debian.org.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/05/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/05/index.html index e31e558a34..9f5970e806 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/05/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/05/index.html @@ -625,7 +625,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -688,7 +688,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -722,7 +722,7 @@ list of usertagged bugs related to this.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/06/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/06/index.html index 00f5e8870a..9313f11d3f 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/06/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/06/index.html @@ -1024,7 +1024,7 @@ changes, it will not be an option for Debian Edu based on Squeeze.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1087,7 +1087,7 @@ changes, it will not be an option for Debian Edu based on Squeeze.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1121,7 +1121,7 @@ changes, it will not be an option for Debian Edu based on Squeeze.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/07/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/07/index.html index 70c741a1c4..74c82a8a71 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/07/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/07/index.html @@ -1317,7 +1317,7 @@ it.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1380,7 +1380,7 @@ it.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1414,7 +1414,7 @@ it.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/08/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/08/index.html index 384ec1f0a1..3b9a4c4c5e 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/08/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/08/index.html @@ -1042,7 +1042,7 @@ er fremmet av Erna Solberg, Michael Tetzschner og Trond Helleland.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1105,7 +1105,7 @@ er fremmet av Erna Solberg, Michael Tetzschner og Trond Helleland.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1139,7 +1139,7 @@ er fremmet av Erna Solberg, Michael Tetzschner og Trond Helleland.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/09/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/09/index.html index 82138e7545..109180b387 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/09/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/09/index.html @@ -433,7 +433,7 @@ eller bare ser meg om etter alternativer.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -496,7 +496,7 @@ eller bare ser meg om etter alternativer.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -530,7 +530,7 @@ eller bare ser meg om etter alternativer.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/10/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/10/index.html index 028463beb2..6ceec97f09 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/10/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/10/index.html @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ NRK1. :)

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -800,7 +800,7 @@ NRK1. :)

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -834,7 +834,7 @@ NRK1. :)

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/11/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/11/index.html index f4f067f1fe..9c762ae132 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/11/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/11/index.html @@ -1437,7 +1437,7 @@ vote this year.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1500,7 +1500,7 @@ vote this year.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1534,7 +1534,7 @@ vote this year.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/12/12.rss b/blog/archive/2010/12/12.rss index ac2726dcc2..fe1c399141 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/12/12.rss +++ b/blog/archive/2010/12/12.rss @@ -403,5 +403,210 @@ got such a great test tool available.</p> + + The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html + Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:50:00 +0100 + +<p>A few days ago +<a href="http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece">an +article</a> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version +2.0 of +<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework">European +Interoperability Framework</a> has been successfully lobbied by the +proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. +Nothing very surprising there, given +<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe">earlier +reports</a> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in +this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of +<a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">an +open standard from version 1</a> was very good, and something I +believe should be used also in the future, alongside +<a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the +definition from Digistan</A>. Version 2 have removed the open +standard definition from its content.</p> + +<p>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 +<a href="http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html">my +source</a> to ensure it is available also in the future. Some +background information about that story is available in +<a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099">an article</a> from +Linux Journal in 2002.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>Lima, 8th of April, 2002<br> +To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ<br> +General Manager of Microsoft Perú</p> + +<p>Dear Sir:</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p> +<ul> +<li>Free access to public information by the citizen. </li> +<li>Permanence of public data. </li> +<li>Security of the State and citizens.</li> +</ul> +</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + + +<p>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:<br> +<li>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software</li> +<li>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software</li> +<li>the law does not specify which concrete software to use</li> +<li>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought</li> +<li>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.</li> + +</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p>On security:</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p>In respect of the guarantee:</p> + +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> + +<p>On Intellectual Property:</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p>Cordially,<br> +DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ<br> +Congressman of the Republic of Perú.</p> +</blockquote> + + + diff --git a/blog/archive/2010/12/index.html b/blog/archive/2010/12/index.html index d814b4848f..23a94e5a12 100644 --- a/blog/archive/2010/12/index.html +++ b/blog/archive/2010/12/index.html @@ -515,6 +515,224 @@ got such a great test tool available.

    + Tags: english, standard. + + + +
    + +
    +
    + The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru +
    +
    + 2010-12-25 10:50 +
    + +
    + +

    A few days ago +an +article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version +2.0 of +European +Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the +proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. +Nothing very surprising there, given +earlier +reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in +this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of +an +open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I +believe should be used also in the future, alongside +the +definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open +standard definition from its content.

    + +

    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 +my +source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some +background information about that story is available in +an article from +Linux Journal in 2002.

    + +
    +

    Lima, 8th of April, 2002
    +To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
    +General Manager of Microsoft Perú

    + +

    Dear Sir:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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:

    + +

    +

      +
    • Free access to public information by the citizen.
      • +
    • Permanence of public data.
      • +
    • Security of the State and citizens.
      • +
    +

    + +

    To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is 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.

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

    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.

    + + +

    From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
    +

  • the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not specify which concrete software to use
    • +
  • the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
    • +
  • the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
    • + +

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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..."

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    On security:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    In respect of the guarantee:

    + +A

    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.

    + +

    On Intellectual Property:

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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?"

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    Cordially,
    +DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
    +Congressman of the Republic of Perú.

    +
    + +
    +
    + + + Tags: english, standard.
    @@ -555,7 +773,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -618,7 +836,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -652,7 +870,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/data/2010-12-25-free-software.txt b/blog/data/2010-12-25-free-software.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..df98b66313 --- /dev/null +++ b/blog/data/2010-12-25-free-software.txt @@ -0,0 +1,200 @@ +Title: The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru +Tags: english, standard +Date: 2010-12-25 10:50 + +

    A few days ago +an +article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version +2.0 of +European +Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the +proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. +Nothing very surprising there, given +earlier +reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in +this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of +an +open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I +believe should be used also in the future, alongside +the +definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open +standard definition from its content.

    + +

    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 +my +source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some +background information about that story is available in +an article from +Linux Journal in 2002.

    + +
    +

    Lima, 8th of April, 2002
    +To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
    +General Manager of Microsoft Perú

    + +

    Dear Sir:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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:

    + +

    +

      +
    • Free access to public information by the citizen.
      • +
    • Permanence of public data.
      • +
    • Security of the State and citizens.
      • +
    +

    + +

    To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is 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.

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

    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.

    + + +

    From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
    +

  • the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not specify which concrete software to use
    • +
  • the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
    • +
  • the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
    • + +

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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..."

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    On security:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    In respect of the guarantee:

    + +A

    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.

    + +

    On Intellectual Property:

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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?"

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    Cordially,
    +DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
    +Congressman of the Republic of Perú.

    +
    diff --git a/blog/index.html b/blog/index.html index fb6c1b6632..658d503e91 100644 --- a/blog/index.html +++ b/blog/index.html @@ -19,6 +19,217 @@ +
    +
    The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru
    +
    2010-12-25 10:50
    +
    +

    A few days ago +an +article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version +2.0 of +European +Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the +proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. +Nothing very surprising there, given +earlier +reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in +this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of +an +open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I +believe should be used also in the future, alongside +the +definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open +standard definition from its content.

    + +

    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 +my +source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some +background information about that story is available in +an article from +Linux Journal in 2002.

    + +
    +

    Lima, 8th of April, 2002
    +To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
    +General Manager of Microsoft Perú

    + +

    Dear Sir:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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:

    + +

    +

      +
    • Free access to public information by the citizen.
      • +
    • Permanence of public data.
      • +
    • Security of the State and citizens.
      • +
    +

    + +

    To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is 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.

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

    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.

    + + +

    From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
    +

  • the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not specify which concrete software to use
    • +
  • the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
    • +
  • the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
    • + +

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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..."

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    On security:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    In respect of the guarantee:

    + +A

    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.

    + +

    On Intellectual Property:

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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?"

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    Cordially,
    +DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
    +Congressman of the Republic of Perú.

    +
    +
    +
    + + + + Tags: english, standard. + +
    +
    +
    +
    Officeshots still going strong
    2010-12-25 09:40
    @@ -494,52 +705,6 @@ vote this year.

    -
    -
    Why isn't Debian Edu using VLC?
    -
    2010-11-27 11:30
    -
    -

    In the latest issue of Linux Journal, the readers choices were -presented, and the winner among the multimedia player were VLC. -Personally, I like VLC, and it is my player of choice when I first try -to play a video file or stream. Only if VLC fail will I drag out -gmplayer to see if it can do better. The reason is mostly the failure -model and trust. When VLC fail, it normally pop up a error message -reporting the problem. When mplayer fail, it normally segfault or -just hangs. The latter failure mode drain my trust in the program.

    - -

    But even if VLC is my player of choice, we have choosen to use -mplayer in Debian -Edu/Skolelinux. The reason is simple. We need a good browser -plugin to play web videos seamlessly, and the VLC browser plugin is -not very good. For example, it lack in-line control buttons, so there -is no way for the user to pause the video. Also, when I -last -tested the browser plugins available in Debian, the VLC plugin -failed on several video pages where mplayer based plugins worked. If -the browser plugin for VLC was as good as the gecko-mediaplayer -package (which uses mplayer), we would switch.

    - -

    While VLC is a good player, its user interface is slightly -annoying. The most annoying feature is its inconsistent use of -keyboard shortcuts. When the player is in full screen mode, its -shortcuts are different from when it is playing the video in a window. -For example, space only work as pause when in full screen mode. I -wish it had consisten shortcuts and that space also would work when in -window mode. Another nice shortcut in gmplayer is [enter] to restart -the current video. It is very nice when playing short videos from the -web and want to restart it when new people arrive to have a look at -what is going on.

    -
    -
    - - - - Tags: debian, debian edu, english, multimedia, video, web. - -
    -
    -
    -

    RSS feed

    +
    +
    + +
    +
    + The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru +
    +
    + 2010-12-25 10:50 +
    + +
    + +

    A few days ago +an +article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version +2.0 of +European +Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the +proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. +Nothing very surprising there, given +earlier +reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in +this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of +an +open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I +believe should be used also in the future, alongside +the +definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open +standard definition from its content.

    + +

    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 +my +source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some +background information about that story is available in +an article from +Linux Journal in 2002.

    + +
    +

    Lima, 8th of April, 2002
    +To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
    +General Manager of Microsoft Perú

    + +

    Dear Sir:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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:

    + +

    +

      +
    • Free access to public information by the citizen.
      • +
    • Permanence of public data.
      • +
    • Security of the State and citizens.
      • +
    +

    + +

    To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is 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.

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

    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.

    + + +

    From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
    +

  • the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not specify which concrete software to use
    • +
  • the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
    • +
  • the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
    • + +

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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..."

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    On security:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    In respect of the guarantee:

    + +A

    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.

    + +

    On Intellectual Property:

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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?"

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    Cordially,
    +DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
    +Congressman of the Republic of Perú.

    +
    + +
    +
    + + + Tags: english, standard.
    @@ -6215,7 +6433,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -6278,7 +6496,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -6312,7 +6530,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/fiksgatami/index.html b/blog/tags/fiksgatami/index.html index d9c50a2cd0..e3341904d1 100644 --- a/blog/tags/fiksgatami/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/fiksgatami/index.html @@ -96,7 +96,7 @@ med dem. Dette blir bra.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -159,7 +159,7 @@ med dem. Dette blir bra.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ med dem. Dette blir bra.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/fildeling/index.html b/blog/tags/fildeling/index.html index 9df9e53bc2..22fba7a45d 100644 --- a/blog/tags/fildeling/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/fildeling/index.html @@ -610,7 +610,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -673,7 +673,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -707,7 +707,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/kart/index.html b/blog/tags/kart/index.html index fe2c5d03c4..09d336f0ae 100644 --- a/blog/tags/kart/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/kart/index.html @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ dermed være noe for enhver smak.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -379,7 +379,7 @@ dermed være noe for enhver smak.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ dermed være noe for enhver smak.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/ldap/index.html b/blog/tags/ldap/index.html index abaf5e5bba..da53b721b9 100644 --- a/blog/tags/ldap/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/ldap/index.html @@ -990,7 +990,7 @@ auxiliary object class.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1053,7 +1053,7 @@ auxiliary object class.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1087,7 +1087,7 @@ auxiliary object class.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/lenker/index.html b/blog/tags/lenker/index.html index 87c8a3a853..557e76590c 100644 --- a/blog/tags/lenker/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/lenker/index.html @@ -217,7 +217,7 @@ forslag for et rent og sikkert Internet.
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -280,7 +280,7 @@ forslag for et rent og sikkert Internet.
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -314,7 +314,7 @@ forslag for et rent og sikkert Internet.
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/ltsp/index.html b/blog/tags/ltsp/index.html index 4db964c35a..1aec16d9ed 100644 --- a/blog/tags/ltsp/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/ltsp/index.html @@ -92,7 +92,7 @@ of these cards.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -155,7 +155,7 @@ of these cards.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -189,7 +189,7 @@ of these cards.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/multimedia/index.html b/blog/tags/multimedia/index.html index fd72db6646..6613f7ae97 100644 --- a/blog/tags/multimedia/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/multimedia/index.html @@ -772,7 +772,7 @@ what is going on.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -835,7 +835,7 @@ what is going on.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -869,7 +869,7 @@ what is going on.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/norsk/index.html b/blog/tags/norsk/index.html index bd5701cb04..2c828d01a3 100644 --- a/blog/tags/norsk/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/norsk/index.html @@ -5105,7 +5105,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan fÃ¥ med ogsÃ¥ disse.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -5168,7 +5168,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan fÃ¥ med ogsÃ¥ disse.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -5202,7 +5202,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan fÃ¥ med ogsÃ¥ disse.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/nuug/index.html b/blog/tags/nuug/index.html index cde36a29a8..44ecd4b506 100644 --- a/blog/tags/nuug/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/nuug/index.html @@ -7131,7 +7131,7 @@ vote this year.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -7194,7 +7194,7 @@ vote this year.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -7228,7 +7228,7 @@ vote this year.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/opphavsrett/index.html b/blog/tags/opphavsrett/index.html index ac8f4bfd52..1b82fbc609 100644 --- a/blog/tags/opphavsrett/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/opphavsrett/index.html @@ -1153,7 +1153,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1216,7 +1216,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1250,7 +1250,7 @@ til Ã¥ fÃ¥ denne sangen over i norsk sprÃ¥kdrakt, ta kontakt med video
  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/personvern/index.html b/blog/tags/personvern/index.html index e905e8283e..3f07293ff5 100644 --- a/blog/tags/personvern/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/personvern/index.html @@ -1827,7 +1827,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan fÃ¥ med ogsÃ¥ disse.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1890,7 +1890,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan fÃ¥ med ogsÃ¥ disse.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1924,7 +1924,7 @@ kontakt slik at jeg kan fÃ¥ med ogsÃ¥ disse.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/reprap/index.html b/blog/tags/reprap/index.html index 2b6ca34fef..da459ae896 100644 --- a/blog/tags/reprap/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/reprap/index.html @@ -574,7 +574,7 @@ very cool 3D scanner.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -637,7 +637,7 @@ very cool 3D scanner.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -671,7 +671,7 @@ very cool 3D scanner.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/robot/index.html b/blog/tags/robot/index.html index 29501358b5..5cf802fdd0 100644 --- a/blog/tags/robot/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/robot/index.html @@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ please let me know.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ please let me know.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ please let me know.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/rss/index.html b/blog/tags/rss/index.html index c8e7b82daa..fff305609f 100644 --- a/blog/tags/rss/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/rss/index.html @@ -81,7 +81,7 @@ forsøk.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -144,7 +144,7 @@ forsøk.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ forsøk.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/sikkerhet/index.html b/blog/tags/sikkerhet/index.html index 81f0ae2e7d..a5b3846dfb 100644 --- a/blog/tags/sikkerhet/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/sikkerhet/index.html @@ -1462,7 +1462,7 @@ equally valid for gold, which was used as a currency for many years.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1525,7 +1525,7 @@ equally valid for gold, which was used as a currency for many years.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1559,7 +1559,7 @@ equally valid for gold, which was used as a currency for many years.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/sitesummary/index.html b/blog/tags/sitesummary/index.html index 442c59115b..ef8436062d 100644 --- a/blog/tags/sitesummary/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/sitesummary/index.html @@ -224,7 +224,7 @@ collector.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ collector.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -321,7 +321,7 @@ collector.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/standard/index.html b/blog/tags/standard/index.html index 3f8d2c9afe..ca2ded2120 100644 --- a/blog/tags/standard/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/standard/index.html @@ -1026,6 +1026,224 @@ got such a great test tool available.

    + Tags: english, standard. + +
    + +
    + +
    +
    + The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru +
    +
    + 2010-12-25 10:50 +
    + +
    + +

    A few days ago +an +article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version +2.0 of +European +Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the +proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. +Nothing very surprising there, given +earlier +reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in +this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of +an +open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I +believe should be used also in the future, alongside +the +definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open +standard definition from its content.

    + +

    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 +my +source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some +background information about that story is available in +an article from +Linux Journal in 2002.

    + +
    +

    Lima, 8th of April, 2002
    +To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
    +General Manager of Microsoft Perú

    + +

    Dear Sir:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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:

    + +

    +

      +
    • Free access to public information by the citizen.
      • +
    • Permanence of public data.
      • +
    • Security of the State and citizens.
      • +
    +

    + +

    To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is 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.

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

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

    + +

    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.

    + + +

    From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
    +

  • the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
    • +
  • the law does not specify which concrete software to use
    • +
  • the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
    • +
  • the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
    • + +

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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..."

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    On security:

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    In respect of the guarantee:

    + +A

    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.

    + +

    On Intellectual Property:

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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).

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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."

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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?"

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    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.

    + +

    Cordially,
    +DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
    +Congressman of the Republic of Perú.

    +
    + +
    +
    + + + Tags: english, standard.
    @@ -1067,7 +1285,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1130,7 +1348,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1164,7 +1382,7 @@ got such a great test tool available.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/standard/standard.rss b/blog/tags/standard/standard.rss index e5838887d0..9ab0d254f5 100644 --- a/blog/tags/standard/standard.rss +++ b/blog/tags/standard/standard.rss @@ -796,5 +796,210 @@ got such a great test tool available.</p> + + The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html + http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html + Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:50:00 +0100 + +<p>A few days ago +<a href="http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece">an +article</a> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version +2.0 of +<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework">European +Interoperability Framework</a> has been successfully lobbied by the +proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. +Nothing very surprising there, given +<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe">earlier +reports</a> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in +this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of +<a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">an +open standard from version 1</a> was very good, and something I +believe should be used also in the future, alongside +<a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the +definition from Digistan</A>. Version 2 have removed the open +standard definition from its content.</p> + +<p>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 +<a href="http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html">my +source</a> to ensure it is available also in the future. Some +background information about that story is available in +<a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099">an article</a> from +Linux Journal in 2002.</p> + +<blockquote> +<p>Lima, 8th of April, 2002<br> +To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ<br> +General Manager of Microsoft Perú</p> + +<p>Dear Sir:</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p> +<ul> +<li>Free access to public information by the citizen. </li> +<li>Permanence of public data. </li> +<li>Security of the State and citizens.</li> +</ul> +</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + + +<p>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:<br> +<li>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software</li> +<li>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software</li> +<li>the law does not specify which concrete software to use</li> +<li>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought</li> +<li>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.</li> + +</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p>On security:</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p>In respect of the guarantee:</p> + +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> + +<p>On Intellectual Property:</p> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<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> + +<p>Cordially,<br> +DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ<br> +Congressman of the Republic of Perú.</p> +</blockquote> + + + diff --git a/blog/tags/stavekontroll/index.html b/blog/tags/stavekontroll/index.html index 6058149abb..5746e0831d 100644 --- a/blog/tags/stavekontroll/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/stavekontroll/index.html @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ stavekontrollen.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -164,7 +164,7 @@ stavekontrollen.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -198,7 +198,7 @@ stavekontrollen.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/video/index.html b/blog/tags/video/index.html index a3b68144cc..63e7aa5851 100644 --- a/blog/tags/video/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/video/index.html @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ what is going on.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -1060,7 +1060,7 @@ what is going on.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1094,7 +1094,7 @@ what is going on.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/vitenskap/index.html b/blog/tags/vitenskap/index.html index 0966a6e20f..42cbaa51ce 100644 --- a/blog/tags/vitenskap/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/vitenskap/index.html @@ -146,7 +146,7 @@ skyskrapere. Takke meg til en tur til mÃ¥nen.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -209,7 +209,7 @@ skyskrapere. Takke meg til en tur til mÃ¥nen.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -243,7 +243,7 @@ skyskrapere. Takke meg til en tur til mÃ¥nen.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)
    • diff --git a/blog/tags/web/index.html b/blog/tags/web/index.html index 05319bcf93..2751f0e9aa 100644 --- a/blog/tags/web/index.html +++ b/blog/tags/web/index.html @@ -934,7 +934,7 @@ what is going on.

  • November (13)
    • -
  • December (8)
    • +
  • December (9)
    • @@ -997,7 +997,7 @@ what is going on.

  • debian edu (53)
    • -
  • english (78)
    • +
  • english (79)
  • fiksgatami (1)
    • @@ -1031,7 +1031,7 @@ what is going on.

  • sitesummary (3)
    • -
  • standard (17)
    • +
  • standard (18)
  • stavekontroll (1)