[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-promo
Subject:    [kde-promo] Re: [Important] When talking about Aegypten or Kroupware on fairs or to the press,...
From:       Marc Mutz <mutz () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-02-03 22:29:38
[Download RAW message or body]

[v2: the first one apparently didn't make it through (and doesn't need 
to)]

On Saturday 01 February 2003 05:24, Andreas Pour wrote:
> Tim Jansen wrote:
> > On Friday 31 January 2003 23:26, Mark Bucciarelli wrote:
> > > Funding a Free Software project is not part of a free market?
> >
> > Depending on your point-of-view you could also say that funding a
> > free software project is subsidizing it, because you could also get
> > it for free... (even if it is not written yet, but sooner or later
> > somebody else will fund it)
>
> Purchasing proprietary software is, in that view, also subsidizing
> the proprietary software vendor.  Funding Open Source is subsidizing
> some competition.  Since the government has apent many many years
> subsidizing the proprietary software, I think the stronger argument
> is that it is *anti-competitive* *not* to fund free software, as its
> competitor has already been quite heavily funded.

The difference to make here is that, normally, the government is 
required to send out a public invitation to tender for the particular 
task at hand and then choose between the bids according to price and 
trustworthiness of the bidding party. So, in theory, every competitor 
has the same chances to get the contract, so the tendering procedure 
ensures that the government doesn't favour one competitor over the 
other. Again, that's in theory, of course.

OTOH, funding or sponsoring means giving money to a project without 
competitive tendering procedures (or at least raises the chance of this 
misunderstanding). IOW, the government decides where the money goes and 
not the competitiors by themselves through mutual competition. In this 
sense, it's an interference with the free market, b/c the government 
misuses it's monopoly to foster a particular technology or development 
model.

Regardless of how desireable governmental funding of Free Software is 
and although _we_ agree that we see software as part of the 
infrastructure of modern society just as roads are and thus the 
government has not only the right, but the mandate to care for it. 
Regardless of that, it's (currently) not the way things are supposed to 
work according to law.

The Aegypten project was done "properly", ie. with an open call for 
tenders. That the Aegypten consortium won the bid is just a 
"coincidence". AFAIK, the call didn't include the requirement to 
integrate the result into the original Free Software project, and it 
didn't even mandate using KMail!

It basically was "write us an Sphinx-enabling extension of a popular 
Free Software mail client that can run on Linux".

It was definitely not "let's fund KMail/KDE". It was not "let's support 
Free Software". They did it b/c they want to use Linux on their 
desktops and a Sphinx compatible MUA was missing. They don't use it b/c 
it's Free Software (at least not primarily), but because they see a 
benefit _for themselves_. They can look inside and go and hire someone 
to change it to their need, probably. Probably b/c it's cheaper. Or 
because it creates more German jobs than Microsoft products would. 
Whatever.

With Kroupware, it's a little different - and better for KDE. The call 
was closed to a certain set of people and companies, and it mandated 
KMail and KDE and it _required_ that the result be merged back into the 
mainline development. But that is also a risk, b/c it comes close to 
what is still legally allowed in Germany. So if we want the BSI and 
other Governmental agencies to keep "funding" KDE and it's parts or 
indeed Free Software generally, we should take care to not speak 
lightly of "funding", but always explain that the "funding" was based 
on proper (public or restricted) calls for tenders and that the 
Aegypten and Kroupware consortiums properly won the bids.

In addition, esp. Intevation tends to care about the fact that Aegypten 
could have never happened and that just as well the German government 
could use a modified KMail which would never see the light of KDE CVS 
again[1]. And IMO (speaking as a KDE developer and apart from the fact 
that I'm currently employed by Intevation), they (and g10code and KDAB 
as well) should _really_ get the fame of having made sure that 
KMail/KDE gets back those governmental improvements and of having 
"helped" the BSI a tiny bit to write better (for Free Software 
projects) requirements.

I hope to have made my/our point clearer.

Marc

[1] Or of which we didn't even know a thing, b/c who of us watches the 
call for tenders of his government, not even speaking of their outcome?

-- 
It's one thing to accept a risk to your own data, but quite another to
standardize on something that imposes that risk on others, no matter
how unlikely you think it is that anything "really bad" will happen,
and no matter how desirable the outcome.  -- Bart Schaefer, on ietf-822



[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]
_______________________________________________
This message is from the kde-promo mailing list.

Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-promo to unsubscribe, set digest on or \
temporarily stop your subscription.



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]