Hello there, A riend of mine translated into english the letter from microsoft to th eperuvian congressman, so here it is! Enjoy.
DISCLAIMER: the translation hasn't been done by a professional:-) but it is I think good enough to give a perfectly good idea of the content! So please, don't bother flaming, revisions are however welcomed.
_____________________________________ Hi Greg.
Here's a rough translation of the letter from Microsoft Corp. to 'a Peruvian congressman' on the subject of the proposed Free Software Law.
Editorial/particularly uncertain bits are in []'s.
Disclaimer: Spanish is my n+1th language, where n is a sufficiently large number to permit considerable uncertainty.
Em
etonkin@free.REALLY_NOSPAM.fr ----------------------------------------
San Isidro, 21 of March of 2002
Sir:
Edgar Villanueva Nun~ez
Congressman of the Republic
Present. -
Dear Sirs:
[complicated first paragraph- spanish person, help out!]
Firstly, we should like to thank you for the opportunity that we have been offered to make known how we have been working in this country [for the?] benefit/advantage/profit of the public sector, always looking for the optimal alternatives, that allow the implementation of programs that permit the consolidation of the initiatives of modernization and transparency of the State. Indeed, due to our meeting today, you are aware of our advances on an international level in the design of new services for the citizen, within a State that respects and protects the author's rights.
This, as we discussed, is part of a world-wide initiative. Nowadays, a number of experiences exist that have allowed collaboration with programs to support both the State and the community, towards the adoption of technology as an strategic element[?], that has an impact on the quality of life of the citizens.
On the other hand, during this meeting, we attended the Forum made at the Congress of the Republic the 6 of March, with regard to the legal proposal that you lead, where we could listen to the different presentations. It is due to this that we explain our position, in order that you have a fuller overview of the real situation.
1. The plan establishes the obligation that all public [state] organisations must use free software exclusively, which is to say open source code, which transgresses on the principle of equality before the law, of nondiscrimination and the rights of free private initiative, freedom of industry and protected contracts [contracting, in the sense of hiring...] within the constitution.
2. The plan, whilst making the use of open source software an obligation, would establish discriminatory and noncompetetive treatment in the hiring and acquisition of public organisations, contravening the basic principles of Law 26850 of Hirings and Acquisitions of the State.
3. Thus, while forcing the State to favor a model of businesses that would support exclusively open source software, the project would be discouraging to the local and international manufacturers that are those that make significant (important) investments, create a significant number of positions (jobs), directly and indirectly, besides contributing to the GIP [was the translation I found - gross internal product? PBI in Spanish] - versus the open source software model, that tends to have an less significant economic impact because it creates jobs mainly in the service industry.
4. The proposed law imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can entail, from the point of view of security, guarantee [EULA?!] and possible violation of the Intellectual Property rights of third parties.
5. The plan mishandles the concept of open source software, as this does not necessarily imply that it is either free software or of zero cost, causing ambiguous conclusions on the possible savings made by the State, without considering the cost/benefit maintenance [sustento costo beneficio???] consideration [required to] validate this position.
[Total cost of ownership consideration, I think]
6. It is a mistake to believe that open source software is free. The Gartner Group (a well-known group researching the technology market at a world-wide level) have indicated that the cost of acquisition of software (operating systems and applications, is reduced to only 8% of the total cost that companies and institutions must assume as a result of the real-world use of the technology. The other 92% constitute: costs of implementation, qualification, support, maintenance, administration and [inoperatividad... operation?].
7. One of the arguments on which the plan is based is the supposed freeness [as in beer] of open source software, compared with the cost of the commercial software, without considering that there exist forms of licencing by volume [multi-user licencing] that can be very advantageous for the state, as has been obtained in other countries.
8. Additionally, the alternative suggested by the plan is: i) clearly more expensive due to the high cost of migration ii) poses a risk to the compatibility and interoperability of the information systems within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions that exist of open source software within the market
9. Open source software generally does not offer adequate levels of support or the guarantee of recognised manufacturers to achieve greater productivity on the part of the users, which has caused several public organisations to back down on the decision to use open source software - they are using commercial software in its place.
10. The plan would lower the incentive for creativity on the part of the Peruvian software industry, that sees 40 million US dollars per year, 4 million US dollars of export (10mo. in [nontraditional export product ranking?], more than crafts), and is as previously discussed a major employer. Laws that stimulate the use of open source software cause software programmers to lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment.
11. Open source software, due to the ability of free [as in beer] distribution, cannot be exported in such a way that it generates income for developers. For this reason, there is no benefit to be gained from selling the software to other countries and therefore adversely affects the growth of the industry. This is contrary to the normal motivation of a Government - to stimulate local industry.
12. During the forum, the importance of the use of open source software was discussed, but the failure of this initiative in, for example, Mexico, was not mentioned. There, the civil employees of the State where the project was attempted today state that open source software did not permit a learning experience to students in the school, that they did not realise the qualification levels required on the national level to give suitable support to the platform, and that the software did not provide an adequate level of integration for the system which exists in schools.
13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of the State entities, why is there any necessity to pass a law guaranteeing its adoption? Would the free market not decide of its own accord which products give most benefits or best value?
I am very thankful for your attention on this matter. We would like to restate our interest in meeting with you in order to present in more detail our points of view on the subject of the plan that you have presented. We are at your disposition to share our experiences and information; we trust that this will contribute to a better analysis and implementation of an initiative that has, for objective, the modernization and transparency of the State, in benefit of its citizens.
Yours sincerely,
Juan Alberto Gonza'lez
General Manager
Microsoft Peru