The ACTA Internet Chapter: Putting Pieces Together
ACTA Guide, Part 1: The Talks To-Date
ACTA Guide, Part 2: The Documents (Official and Leaked)
ACTA Guide, Part 3: Transparency and ACTA Secrecy
Quebec Group Sues Provincial Government for Failing to Consider Open Source Alternatives |
| Print | |
|
Thursday August 28, 2008
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
FACIL, a Quebec-based open source software advocacy group, has filed a lawsuit against the Quebec government for failing to consider open source software alternatives. FACIL argues in its filing [unofficial English translation] that the government spends millions on proprietary software without objectively evaluating open source alternatives that could enhance the local economy and provincial technology companies. It cites legal regulation that require contracts be placed for tender, yet notes many Microsoft contracts that were never subject to the process. The group also notes that it has tried to develop a dialog with government officials without success and therefore resorted to the lawsuit.
Comments (15)
Pencil Pusher
said:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
That\'s only the tip of the iceberg Having worked in some government offices, I was told it was impossible to acquire free software since most of the writers won't/can't give you a proof of licensing, which is required for any acquisition. |
|
... That's a ludicrous bureaucratic answer though! Perhaps they should not use the internet save their bits travel through some open source software... And when you get proof from Microsoft, it means nothing like when they stole that 3D software from that French company.... |
|
Support and liability Government offices needs to have access to a technical support representative from the software used. But more importantly, if you just take a look at the case of using servers running apache for using PHP instead of going with ASP. You lose someone to blame if Apache/PHP were to present any bugs responsible for important data lost, and as quick as the open-source community is to fix bugs, and as slow as microsoft is to fix asp. With the case of Microsoft, they can be sued for misreprensation/etc, if their software fails. Anyway, something like that is the big reason. |
|
... "Government offices needs to have access to a technical support representative from the software used." -> So buy a support license from someone? There are plenty of companies that would take your money for Apache/PHP support. You'd still save cash on per-installation fees. Anyways I'm glad to see this happening, both for the benefit of the people, the government, and for open source. On that note, I always thought it was kind of ridiculous that the TAX software they provide isn't open source and only runs on Windows. |
|
... This lawsuit opens up all sorts of new issues. I think we should all use this as a chance to educate ourselves about open sources and dispell some myths. First of all, open source does not mean there is no support. It's just a different approach at a business model. Many new companies choose to made their computer code open source so that they can easily collaborate with others and produce a cheaper and hopefully better product. But they are still companies and service and defend their products. There was even a recent case that upheld copyright for open source software. But there are clearly some problems here as well. While the difference between Word and OpenOffice is really rather small, the difference between Windows and Linux is HUGE! Frankly, I think the argument could be made that the operating architecture is different enough to disqualify Linux and other open source operating systems in a competition. And what about security? Open source software is fundamentally more open and hence more liable to abuse and attack. I'm not defending Microsoft's security record here, but at least they are gatekeepers. Open source software doesn't have a gate or even a fence! Compatibility issues are also important. It is a real issue, but I'd accuse Microsoft of anti-competitive practices, making it deliberately difficult to access comparable file types. But that's not the Quebec government's fault. On a final note, I'd say the real problem is that the Quebec government did not take open source seriously and did not engage in open dialogue or hold public bids. If they had held public bids, they could have made the requirements prohibitive enough to thwart unsafe, incompatible open source software. But in the process, open source companies would have gained a clear idea of the hurdles they need to jump to gain access to government and business contracts. |
|
@post 3 Was the one that posted on #3. Just to specify, I don't agree with this point of view, but it is the archaic one they have at most of the offices. Me and some coworkers keep pushing to get PHP at work (heck we don't even have the ability to code in asp either). So offices uses it from what I heard back when I was studying multimedias in college. To Steve, the support is just the small part of it. The second part of what I said is what seems to be the bigger problem in the view of those that take those decisions. |
|
FUD!!!! re: "Jon at Trent" >And what about security? Open source software is fundamentally more open >and hence more liable to abuse and attack. I'm not defending Microsoft's >security record here, but at least they are gatekeepers. Open source >software doesn't have a gate or even a fence! Standard FUD! The reality is, because the source code is out there, it means that if you have any doubt of the security of a program, you can do your own code audit! Try and get Microsoft to allow you to do a code audit of, say, Office! or even something as simple as Notepad! It ain't going to happen unless you have millions of dollars, and are well connected with MS. Furthermore, if you don't like the way an opensource program does something, you can modify it! Another freedom that MS will not give you. As for compatibility...Microsoft is not very compatible with Linux, so, you shouldn't be using Microsoft! That's the same thing your "argument" is, and it doesn't make any sense! The one and only reason many companies, government bodies and NGOs have for not using Open Source Software, is that there is no one to sue for non-performance. And that is a *STOOOPID" way to look at software, via the sue-ablity of the company who makes it. But having worked with both Canadian Government, and a number of Fortune 500 companies, that's how their CIOs see things. The fact that many companies have independent groups that use Open Source shows how it is easy to integrate into a company, and that it is very secure. I mean, there are hundreds of thousands of viable viruses for Windows, and there are no viable viruses for Linux. ttyl Farrell |
|
You need guts I'm a software engineer and I work for the government of another country. We have replaced any kind of proprietary software with open source (linux, open office, jboss, apache and so on). Instead of spending money on proprietary SW and corporations helpdesks (which most of the time are useless) you spend money on human resources like me who are able to decide what software to use and even fix it if needed (being open source you have access to the code). It is over three years that we are doing great. An example. We used to have lots of problems with IBMs application server websphere. To fix those problems IBM used to send experts charging thousands of dollars per day and blaming us for those problems. We then replaced websphere with jboss and the problems are gone since. Who needs support when an open source solution is hundreds time superior ҅ and free? |
|
... For the technical support issue mentioned above... well, Novell provides commercial Linux technical support. It's not like they can be dismissed as open source zealots either, Novell as a company predates Linux by over a decade. [ link ] Not news to anybody who anybody who pays attention, but one way to derail the old tired line about 'no support'. |
|
Support and liability "... more importantly, if you just take a look at the case of using servers running apache for using PHP instead of going with ASP. You lose someone to blame if Apache/PHP were to present any bugs responsible for important data lost, and as quick as the open-source community is to fix bugs, and as slow as microsoft is to fix asp. With the case of Microsoft, they can be sued for misreprensation/etc, if their software fails." Can you refer me to ANY case where a customer has successfully sued Microsoft for redress due to data loss, system compromise, or any other software quality or performance issue? |
|
@Mark M. Chill out, I simply said that's the reasoning behind it. Never said I thought that was a good excuse. Also even if there were case, doesn't mean it would be made public. I'm not necessarily pointing Microsoft.. Was just the easiest way to make a quick picture of it. |
|
opensource me baby Open source is a beutiful idea for government that could save billions in infrastructure and technology costs. The issue is whether government - typically infested with sub-performing mouth breathers - would be able to engage, manage, and prosecute such a project. Sadly, not likely. Much as I'd like to see gub'mint save millions and direct spending locally, it's best to give the kids safe, non-toxic crayons and toys to play with. |
|
... After reading all the misconceptions in these comments I'm certain that this lawsuit is a good idea. This IBM commercial says it all [ link ] |
|
opensource is more secure When I read comments like this one below, I have to scratch my head and wonder if the writer is a spokesperson for Microsoft. Written by Jon at Trent on 2008-08-28 10:52:31 "And what about security? Open source software is fundamentally more open and hence more liable to abuse and attack. I'm not defending Microsoft's security record here, but at least they are gatekeepers. Open source software doesn't have a gate or even a fence!" Opensource is indeed more "open." But this is the reason it is MORE secure than proprietary software, not less secure. When security flaws are found, they are spotted and repaired quickly. For Governments concerned about IT support and "who to blame" when things go wrong. Well, let's just say that there is plenty of commercial support for opensource software and operating systems. Governments, including the Quebec Government need to ask themselves who has a better track record in security, Microsoft or Unix-based operating systems? The money saved in IT support alone, to say nothing of purchasing licenses for MS Windows, MS office etc could be better spent on health care and a whole host of other programs and infrastructure. I hope this lawsuit is a wake up call for all Governments, not just the Quebec Government. The Quebec Government has nothing to lose in trying out opensource alternatives - other than the giant IT departments they support. |
Subscribe to this comment's feed