A great expectation has been created in Europe with the imminent release of a report favorable to the Free Software for the European Commission. The recommendations of the report and raised their voices, somewhat distressed, advocates of proprietary software or as they call it owner.
below my translation of a letter circulating in cyberspace and can be downloaded from the site ISC, www.softwarechoice.org , the organization comprised of proprietary software, among many others for the Venezolana CAVEINSOFT.
-
Mrs Francoise Le Bail
Deputy Director General European Commission Directorate
Industry and Business
Rue de la Loi 200
October 10, 2006
Dear Ms Le Bail, I am writing to
name of "the choice Iniativa Software" to respond to the results of a study commissioned by the European Commission and conducted by UNU-MERIT, the Netherlands, to identify the role of Free Software and Open Source, FLOSS in the economy ("Economic Impact Study Free Software on innovation and competitiveness of the sectors of information technology and communication in the European Union, draft of September 26, 2006).
The "Initiative for Software choice" (ISC, www.softwarechoice.org) is a global coalition of 300 companies in the ICT sector which offer a wide variety of services, hardware and software. Our purpose is to promote an open and competitive market in which companies can pursue their business without fear of discrimination.
THE ISC welcomes the initiative of the commission to conduct a study - the more information we can gather about the market dynamics particularly with regard to FLOSS, more coherent and better understood is the software ecosystem.
That said, the short window with which we and others have been commenting on that report has precluded a more complete answers. While we believe this study adds light on this complex issue, not holistically reflect all the dynamics that occur now in the booming software market. To this end, we offer our experience and we declare ourselves ready to meet the authors of this report to help them understand the very limited role of governments in promoting the development of software.
FLOSS has proven a successful business model
must reiterate that FLOSS is merely a business model to distribute software, as are many other business models including the hybrid and proprietary model (they say owner). The method has shown considerable FLOSS market penetration and continues to expand daily.
As they say the results of the report, open source software has actively taken sid firms in Europe during the last 2 years so that by the end of 2005 the share of companies using these systems reached 40%, another 8% planning pilot projects such systems in 2006. Moreover, the report predicts that the expansion FLOSS participants will be 20% per year.
Moreover, the study illustrates that Europe is leading the rest of the world in terms of market penetration and development of FLOSS. Given the success of FLOSS business model, the need for measures to increase support for this model is already blooming on his own seems unnecessary.
This report ignores the positive existence of non-FLOSS models
The ISC regrets that the focus of this report does not consider the achievements of several other forms of software licensing and business models. This is somewhat understandable because the report is primarily a study of the FLOSS model. However, the FLOSS model can not be separated from the environment in which it exists - is not an island. In those passages where the report acknowledges this, he admits the existence of other models in a demeaning manner, indicated that only cause "headaches to FLOSS" instead of contributing to competitive dynamics. Alternative models of software distribution - such as the proprietary model and the hybrid - produced great results but this success has been blurred and distorted (in the report). It took more balance with what we believe is cast doubt on the overall performance and make the study look more like a marketing document than a serious review of this subject as complex and dynamic.
The market for software that works extremely well today there
At ISC would like to emphasize that both the owner and other forms of licensing including permissive free software licenses, have offered substantially innovative technology solutions. These results can not be underrated: the software market that exists today works extremely well generating innovative solutions for all areas of business and government operations.
Choosing a business model is, ultimately, a market decision. In practice the market so far has largely opted for the proprietary model, a choice should not be ignored, regardless of other supposed benefits offered by the FLOSS system.
(Translator's Note: Suppose it is true that every individual and organization should have the right to choose your model. The public organizations NO. If a public employee chooses a proprietary software are deciding on their behalf, but also on behalf of audience. For example, if the employee decides not interested in knowing the source code of their programs, to purchase (public funds) would be forcing that decision on its audience (I should say people).)
Moreover, the proprietary model is supported largely by a complex system of rights (IPR Intellectual property rights) that has spread from social experiences to provide incentive to the advancement of technological innovation.
(Translator's Note: In other words, they admit that intellectual property rights were not originally designed for software and its sole purpose is to seek further technological innovation, not the global impact of technology).
This system is still valid in its own right. It is a stimulant of innovation and market-oriented intricate that clearly works.
(Translator's Note: So, why worry?).
The alternatives ensure standards of innovation dynamics
As the report emphasizes, the FLOSS model has developed a wide range of high quality. We should not assume, however, that this model has all the answers. A variety of standards must be maintained to allow more efficient and feasible solutions are developed. At this time, a lot of standards are in operation in several governments and business platforms, and have been developed to meet the more efficiently with specific operational requirements. More clearly, both standard licensed as unlicensed (the friendly FLOSS) are used throughout the market. Any promotion of FLOSS-friendly standards (ie, NO-RAND standards) should take this into account. Actions that may affect these standards could significantly affect the entire ecosystem of software.
(Translator's note: This paragraph is a veiled threat. Some of these standards are anchored to software patents that could be used to prevent the use of some software that implements the standard. That if it would affect the industry and its users)
Affect the IPR can be disastrous
(NT: for certain monopolistic practices will be).
system IPR has evolved over centuries of knowledge work and business practices
(NT: None of which has to do with the software. THE software industry has not been 100 years!).
That can not refuse (the same FLOSS depends on a strong IPR to stay).
(NT: FLOSS puts the current IPR serving the community). Such facts
demand the utmost caution when considering changes. The level of capital investment in the EU is struggling to stay in the fierce global battle and many blame their problems on a very weak protection of intellectual property. Many of the recommendations policies proposed by the report could further weaken the European IPR, potentially affecting the level of capital investment and innovation in the EU.
The R & D sector of European industry needs encouragement attorney general, not just the FLOSS model
is widely recognized that innovation needs more stimulus. Increasing investment in R & D has proven to be an effective method to promote innovation. Tax credits for R & D can be a valuable tool for ESOT. THE ISC suggests that government support for basic R & D and pre-trade, through tax credits significantly stimulate innovation in Europe, but only if applied in a technologically neutral and unbiased.
(NT: Another technological neutrality. Concept empty. We demand neutral in politics or religion. In the best technology imposes on society ..).
government support to reward the most appropriate technological solutions and innovative without discriminating between different models and standards is the most effective way of stimulating innovation.
(NT: For what it is innovation that is never transmitted to the larger community?).
The recommendation made reporting to tax credits apply only to FLOSS seems extreme. Besides causing significant implications for distorting the market and technological development will be extremely difficult to enforce / control considering how easy it is for people to "empty" code in the OSS community, regardless of the quality of that code, with the sole intention to claim tax credits.
(NT: It seems that ignore something well known in software. The software is made to work. The best work will claim the credit. He who does not operate can not claim).
Moreover, both the time spent evaluating development as the value of a piece of code is virtually impossible.
(NT: Why?).
should be noted that, by 2005, more than half of all FLOSS developers earn income from their FLOSS activities. This is reflected in a footnote on page 75 of the report. This shows that the market rewards the FLOSS development that has significant value and social use. With this in mind, it is difficult to see the need to consider the development of FLOSS as a "charitable contribution to society", as suggested by the report.
(NT: Here's an example. A government invests in the development of some free software for business management and then release it for any employer (the world) what you use and take advantage. Is not that a generous donation. Certainly not with the contemptuous tone that is attributed to charity. But generosity).
A similar line of argument can be applied to licensing schemes created by default on contributions by R & D financed by governments. Society benefits when the choice of business model is subject to minimal restrictions.
(NT: This is not true. All the world's societies severely restrict certain practices that could become highly profitable business, considering them harmful in other words).
more developers come to the table to develop more robust solutions and marketing input the results of the R & D may follow market trends more quickly. Licensing schemes R & D - as the model "Bayh-Dole" in the U.S. - allows those who use public funds to make the decision about how they want to license their innovations.
(NT: However, the NSF requires generating openly disseminate knowledge and free terms the results of research funded with public funds).
This system has a record fail-safe and has served the technology transfer and the interests of society as well.
(NT: Too bad they did not have time to explain this)
Using this model - one that allows the operator to choose, and that is technologically neutral and neutral about the type of license - we will provide the greatest benefit without artificial distortions in the market. Both FLOSS license as other models can proliferate without excluding other default under this scheme.
cooperation among all involved in the training will ensure that appropriate e-skills are taught.
As explained reporting, capacity building and training should be ensured in order to keep an open mind when it comes to software platforms. With this, the ISC agrees, but insists that while the public sector work in coordination with the private sector and that this work is maintained independently of technological disciplines, market mechanisms ensure that the training scheme to adapt to changing nature of the technology ecosystem.
(NT: Second translation: While the public sector do indicate that some private, competition will ensure that people receive the most appropriate training (for those private)).
barely discussed the definition of FLOSS / Open Standard
The ISC was surprised to find that an academic study of this nature does not relate to the lack of a general definition of "open standards" and "FLOSS" .
(NT: Poor resource. The definition of FLOSS is everywhere. Wikipedia, www.fsf.org, www.osi.org. Seek definition: Google Free Software.)
Moreover, the ISC will IDABC concerned that the definition of open standards is offered as a 'benchmark' in the studio, where the Commission has expressly stated that this definition is no official policy of the Commission. Given the fact that the interpretation of FLOSS and open standards permeates the whole discussion this matter should be considered in much greater depth.
(NT: A classic fallacy: "The argument can not be right if it does not describe all the right words.")
SE should make a discussion of this issue
The ISC would like to reiterate once again that the extremely short time that we were to comment on the report - 10 days only in a 256-page report written for more a year by dozens of individuals and institutions - does not permit a good answer thought.
(NT: It's pretty obvious)
From this one might assume that the Commission is intolerant of opposing comments do not align with the agenda of the Commission and thus has set a closed process, with clear limits the views of diverse and opposing views.
Having discussed these issues for almost 5 years, we perceive this ironic lack of transparency - ie open source but closed process - as a more widespread practice, not only with respect to this report. We can not understand why this behavior occurs when the success of the FLOSS model is supported by itself and is closely connected with the software ecosystem, which is largely oriented FLOSS.
(NT: Second translation: To make people aware of the threat of monopoly, this should remain).
To this end, we offer to help with this report with a more open consideration of non-FLOSS side of the argument.
Sincerely, Hugo Lueders
Director of ISC Europe.
-
Free Report: Don Luis Zambrano. Talking in memory. 
