![Software Software](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/software_64.png)
![News News](http://a.fsdn.com/sd/topics/news_64.png)
UN Summit Tones Down Open-Source Stance 147
akb writes "CBR is reporting that the latest draft of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Plan of Action has considerably removed language that promoted open source awareness, the creation of intellectual property mechanisms supporting open source and the creation of a UN 'Programmers Without Frontiers' body to support open source software in developing nations. This language was removed from earlier versions to make the document more palatable for business and commercial interests. In recent years commercial software interests, notably Microsoft, have lobbied hard to keep governments from openly preferring open source over proprietary software. Other issues to be debated include the archiving of and access to government information, access to wireless spectrum, government subsidies of Internet access, Internet taxes and international cooperation on information security."
This is riddiculus (Score:3, Funny)
FBS clause (Score:2)
Unfortunately, I dont think it will be left in. Sigh...
dirty Lobbying in the EU (Score:3, Informative)
"Board of Govenors 12 political members Board of Management 12 "Board of Governors" 6 "Business Steering Committee" 4 Observers(Associate Members)2 Note: all of these are MEP's
Congressman Bob Goodlatte (Score:2)
Re:This is riddiculus (Score:2, Funny)
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Too bad. It was a nice idea while it lasted.
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:1, Interesting)
Poor countries need paying jobs created. It's relatively easy to pay the bills writing proprietary software. It's relatively hard to pay the bills writing Open Source software.
First thing's first. Paying jobs. Americans/Canadians/Europeans have the luxury of taking a chance and coding up Open Source for the morality of it. But in other places, food on the table comes first. Closed software puts food on the table -easier-. I p
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly. Because all the jobs for writing that proprietary code are created in the developing country in question. By using a proprietary software package, you are esentially paying coders in your own developing tech job market.
Oh. Wait. No. Most of this development happens off-shore. If your countrymen are being hired to code for these projects, they had to emegrate first to do it - further weaking your own tech market.
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
If someone is being paid to code (or to modify existing code) it really dosn't matter if they are dealing with proprietary or OSS software.
Oh. Wait. No. Most of this development happens off-shore. If your countrymen are being hired to code for these projects, they had to emegrate
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
No. Poor countries need increased production of things that have value. In the industrial age, there was a strong correspondence between production and labor, so you could get away with that type of sloppy thinking. But nowdays, you can recycle someone else's labor (reuse a software product that someone else already paid to create, e.g. Apache, Linux, Python, etc).
This is efficient and good.
Free Software means
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
So the situation is that they HAVE to pay to get software, one way or another.
Poor countries need paying jobs created.
How does buying foriegn closed source software help them create jobs? Or are you suggesting that 100 poor coutries pay 100 different local companies to
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
In which case you only need to write/alter the bits which don't already exist. The most obvious would be translating into local language/dialect. Which is something best done by natives anyway.
They have to pay someone for what they need. Why shouldn't they create local
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:1, Flamebait)
These poor countries, are these the same countries where people actualy believe that Microsoft's Windows XP costs $5.00 and $199.00 is twice the meadian anual per capita income?
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:4, Insightful)
Software companies are afraid that governments are going to start to realize they have done the equivalent of paying a company to build their roads while giving them the rights to put tollbooths wherever they want. It's ridiculous. There is a lot of infrastructure software out there (operating systems, relational databases, office suites, etc.) that have been paid for 100 times over by governments and they still don't own them.
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:1)
It shouldn't matter whether the building was built by volunteers or by a private construction firm, all that matters is which building is better. The same applies to software. When looking at software, Governments should evaluate based on TCO, reliability, maintainability, and
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
Yes. The point here is that they are fighting laws that do direct the consideration of merits.
The laws and draft laws that they are opposing generally say to give prefference to a products that comes with the ability for the government to modify it. This means the government is able to fix it themselves, they can improve it themselves, the data never get lost in an unreadable format, and there is no danger if the seller goes out of business
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
This is not true. From the customer's standpoint maintainability of closed source software is necessarily worse than that of open source software because only the company that owns the source is allowed to modify it. Also the software owners aren't required to make modifications you want if they don't want to. For example, if my organi
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
For several of these the difference between OSS and proprietary software is relevent.
Usability unfortunately is the most important for most users and unfortunately is not the most important goal for most OSS software I've used.
Plenty of software is poor when it comes to usability. Difference is that OSS can be fixed, with proprietary software you are dependent of the original supplier for an
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:2)
Except that if software was evaluated on its merits then in plenty of cases open source software would be chosen over proprietary software. Also involved here is the idea that a "name" gives some sort of support. Even though proprietary
Re:Meet the new boss, same as the old boss (Score:4, Informative)
I was there and was able to follow the process very closely.. The text is a compromize, which was negotiated between US, EU and Canada (and some African countries). It was actually first intented only for the action line section but was later used for the draft declaration because a compromize was needed. Even this was a hard fight because certain big country wanted first to remove all references to open source and free software based on "technological neutrality princeple" (a very hot buzzword at WSIS.)
Another thing: it is good to remember that the biggest Open Source companies are nowadays IBM, HP Oracle etc. which really have enough marketing muscle to fight against Microsoft in all fronts (expect in the US Department of Trade..)and in thus govermental intervetions are no longer needed.
Ville
it's possible they have a point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's possible they have a point (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:it's possible they have a point (Score:1)
Re:it's possible they have a point (Score:2)
It doesn't have
Re:it's possible they have a point (Score:2)
Re:it's possible they have a point (Score:2)
If this is a foreign owned proprietary software vendor and the alarm labelled "National Security" isn't going off, then something is seriously wrong.
Re:it's possible they have a point (Score:2, Informative)
Once we had verified that we had a large enough data sample that showed the software performed accuratly, then we could trust it.
Open source tools w
Re:it's possible they have a point (Score:2)
I might agree on that: software (open or proprietary) is a means, not an end.
But, free software is an end: it means an enrichment of the body of public and freely available knowledge by adding to it valuable software packages(which are basically detailed knowledge formalised in a computer language).
And the existence of a rich body of freely available knowledge is vital for any modern society (what if math and physics were IP-protected? ).
Therefore, c
Re:it's possible they have a point (Score:2)
Open source does not equate to non/anti-commercial. It works best within a tertiary business
Goes to show.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most of the world has the best politicians money can buy.
the future... (Score:1)
Fueld by Windows Small Buisness Server 2005
bleh.
Re:the future... (Score:1)
Not likely, IMHO. They seem to be *really* into Linux, from what I've heard.
Open Source is not the only source (Score:3, Insightful)
However, I am not sure that we all believe that open source software is perfect for every single situation. Even if you do believe this, I am not sure that it should be the stance of the UN.
"Business has consistently stated that it is essential for governments to ensure technologically neutral policy towards different software models," said the delegate from the business lobby, during the conference debate.
I just don't see how you can't agree with this. Open source deserves the freedom to grow and expand for its benefits. However, closed source software should not be punished in the market.
Closed and opened source software provides jobs and services for an ass load of people. The UN should treat them equally and fairly.
Davak
I could not fail to disagree with you less. (Score:2, Interesting)
But closed source software is not punished in the market. Closed sourse software is substantially favored. In the US it occurs in part because some closed source vendors have what amounts to monopolies that close out other alternatives (not just Microsoft). In part it occurs because the vendors who make money advertise heavily, subsidize use of their software in education and otherwise make their products almost impossible to ignore. In part its because vendors indulge in FUD campaigns. In
Thank You (Score:2)
I keep reading these posts where people keep saying "let's be fair" and "it's not right to exclude commercial software". Well guess what. That's exactly what has been happening to OpenSource Software for years now. Inferior closed source commercial software has dominated the scene to too long and its time we get to take a shot. What so some "inferior" opensource software gets promoted just because it
Re: Open Source is not the only source (Score:4, Insightful)
> Closed and opened source software provides jobs and services for an ass load of people. The UN should treat them equally and fairly.
For commonly used software this provision of jobs increasingly depends on artificial barriers to the acceptance of free alternatives. Now that millions of people are programmers with supercomputers on their desks and an itch to scratch, and now that the cost of software distribution is approximately zero, the unconstrained market value of a line of code for a commonly used application is rapidly converging to zero.
The anti-FOSS lobbying is merely an example of the artificial barriers that prop of the prices and keep all those people employed. (Though I doubt that there are actually that many people earning their living by programming operating systems, Web browsers, and word processors these days. In the future the way to make money as a programmer will be to implement special-purpose applications that only scratch the itch of some company's shareholders.)
Re:Open Source is not the only source (Score:2)
No! UN is supposed to be a democratic institution and any democratic institution should promote transperancy and openness in all levels including governance. Proprietory softwares are exactly against this philosophy. They are not transperant and hence there is no point in UN treating them equal with open source.
Re:Open Source is not the only source (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Open Source is not the only source (Score:2)
Re:Open Source is not the only source (Score:2)
Do you honestly think that Redhat said that? Or may be Microsoft and alike said that the governments should be technologicallt neutral (i.e. preserve the status quo)? Open source doesn't involve spending a lot of marketing and PR, that's why the competition with closed-source is not fair. And that is why governments should do something to raise the awareness of t
Re:Open Source is not the only source (Score:1)
Sorry, it is not the government's (at least the USA government) job to advertise products of any type, nor would I want it to be.
And yes, raising awareness of a product is advertising.
OSS typically advertises by word of mouth. If that's not enough to keep it going and other methods that the projects employ do not work either, it should die a
Re:Open Source is not the only source (Score:2)
Re:Open Source is not the only source (Score:2)
So are you calling for a level playing field? If so, maybe they'd be better off drawing up giudelines based upon criteria other than licencing terms.
Price, or example, would seem a valid consideration. Corporations make descisions based on price internally all the time. That's not just cost of software - there's forced hardware upgrades, subscription based licences, a
Re:Open Source is not the only source (Score:2)
Lobbying (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Lobbying (Score:1)
Here you go. (Score:1)
It's spelt p-a-l-i-s-t-i-n-e.
Massachusetts makes a related statement (Score:4, Interesting)
Also note that a Massachusetts official makes mention of 'Open Source Overstatements' too. Could be people don't want to be hassled by the thought on instability due to SCO's antics regarding their lawsuits. Maybe people are starting to wonder whether it's going to cost them more in the long run or something...
A senior state official said Friday that reports about a planned shift to open source software platforms by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts were inaccurate and that the state has no "Freeware Initiative," as stated by a number of software industry lobbying groups opposed to the
Eric Kriss, the state's secretary for administration and finance, said that statements released by groups like the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW), based in Washington D.C., were "very inaccurate." The state is simply considering ways to integrate disparate systems using open standards such as HTTP (Hypertext Transfer Protocol), XML (Extensible Markup Language) and Java, he said.
Reports about a plan to favor open source platforms like Linux over proprietary software platforms surfaced in the media last week and claimed that state Chief Information Officer Peter Quinn was instituting a "Freeware Initiative" to invest in open source software such as Linux whenever possible. Those reports followed a leaked memo from Kriss to Quinn, Kriss said.
etc... etc... etc... ful article [kungfunix.net]
Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement (Score:3, Interesting)
Oh, hell.....Here's a scary thought. What if Microsoft is underwriting, supporting or even directing SCO in their attacks on Linux and other *NIX? SCO stance plays right into the Microsoft playbook of the past few years.
Probably not the case, but......what if.......?
Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement (Score:2)
Okay, I'll play the "straight man"
So how would Microsoft channel all that money into SCO to keep them going? And it's not like some mystery people are bidding up the price of SCO stock just so the SCO executives can sell their shares for much more than they are really worth...
Okay, your turn
Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement (Score:2)
I was really only joking......well, perhaps partially.
So how would Microsoft channel all that money into SCO to keep them going?
Microsoft is worth how many Billions? It would take perhaps 5-6 million to prop up SCO to this point, much of that would be returnable. That much money in terms of investments for a company the size of Microsoft is nothing.
And it's not like some mystery people are bidding up the price
Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement (Score:1)
> to keep them going?
Buy a UNIX software licence, in spite of not shipping a UNIX or Linux product. License some patent for an 'undisclosed fee'. (One leaked report put this at an initial payment of 10 million US dollars.) Done as of May 19. 2003.
The hand in the sock puppet:
http://www.crn.com/sections/BreakingNews/dailya
Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement (Score:2)
Well, what they've done so far is buy overpriced short term licences from SCO. This was a significant portion of SCO's revenue last quarter.
Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement (Score:2)
That sould be in the past tense. How DID Microsoft channel all that money into SCO. It is all spelled out in legally required stock filings by SCO. There's a PDF of it online somewhere.
Microsoft paid SCO (roughly) $8 million upfront, plus an another $5 million to be paid over the next 3 or 4 quarters. The deal also includes an option for Microsoft to simply hand SCO more money at will (an undisclosed amout) if Microsoft decides they "need" additional
Re:Massachusetts makes a related statement (Score:2)
Or maybe officials have better things to do than get hastled by lobyists pushing the existing status quo (namely the so-called CCAGW and Initiative for Software Choice).
I don't get it... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's gotta be something else going on...
Re:I don't get it... (Score:1)
Oh, I'm quite sure it's money money money, or promise of. Human and corporate greed is one of the biggest sources of irrational decisions here, it seems.
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously, the office of the US Trade Rep is exceedingly efficient at throwing weight around to get developing countries to toe the line on trade issues.
Microsoft has been doing this for a long time, like back in '98 when they got Sri Lanka to change their IP laws to be more friendly. Ballmer and Ga
Re:I don't get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
Enter, lobbyists. These guys actively hands out information that support their case. Corporations, having lots of money, can hire professional lobbyis
Because they are extremely stupid (Score:2)
You have no idea how idiotic these people are when it comes to technology. They are all diplomacy bureaucrats (i.e. incompetent).
Re:I don't get it... (Score:1)
Re:I don't get it... (Score:2)
And that difference would be... what, exactly?
Seriously, it's like the tax breaks the US government gives major corporations. If a corporation doesn't pay $1M in taxes, that's like the government giving them $1M. It's corporate welfare. And if a company gives the US Government money, and expects something in return (like, being represented as a special interest in international
Papa knows best..... (Score:4, Interesting)
But Microsoft knows what's best for us right?
Seriously though, a little lobbying is just fine in my book as long as that lobbying is truly an education of lawmakers on the issues and solutions to problems. The problem becomes when individual companies have such power and control as to dominate the lobbying process with money and resources so as to eclipse all other concerns.
So, when the article states "Business has consistently stated that it is essential for governments to ensure technologically neutral policy towards different software models," said the delegate from the business lobby, during the conference debate." I find it disturbing that removal of open source materials is allowed from the "business lobby". This argument is then followed by this statement "Governments cannot know, case-by-case, what software solution is best for every user," she said, urging the deletion of the open-source provisions. "Each user should be allowed to make a choice that meets their individual needs." which makes absolutely no sense and again argues that Microsoft knows what's best for me and my government.
Microsoft does not have governments best interest in mind when they say this. Rather they have their own best interest in mind by making these illogical arguments, and I suppose that these arguments could be interpreted and taken at face value, but then backfire upon Microsoft when governments say "enough of the security problems, virii and worms and associated costs associated with Microsoft, we're going with Apple computer".
Re:Papa knows best..... (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree with you, if lobbying was just people attempting to talk to, inform, and educate etc lawmakers about whatever than I would have no problem with lobbying. However, I b
Re:Papa knows best..... (Score:2)
Lobbying is just one facet of the plutocracy that is modern America, where everyone is equally entitled to all the democracy money can buy. Any semblance of truth or justice is lon
Re:Papa knows best..... (Score:1)
Reason I ask is because I'm still not sure if this is lobbying or something different, and I just wanted to see what other people though.
One thing I am sure about however, is that if movements online th
Re:Papa knows best..... (Score:2)
What's worse than finding a worm in an Apple?
Finding half a worm in an Apple.
-
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
Like it or not, open source software isn't always the best choice. Why not try using the best software for the job, open sourced or not? Purchasing software is
Need (Score:2)
What is higher is pulled down, and what is lower is raised up;
What is taller is shortened, and what is thinner is broadened;
Nature's motion decreases those who have more than they need
And increases those who need more than they have.
It is not so with Man.
Man decreases those who need more than they have
And increases those who have more than they need.
To give away what you do not need is to follow the Way.
So the sage gives without expectation,
Accomp
Re:Need (Score:2)
Basically, one of the gists of that passage (maybe this translation is a bit too poetic) is that the best choice is chosen, naturally, because that's the way. Things equalize. The part about Man is just an analogy to help point out the way of nature: that needs are met, and no gratuity is required.
Re:Need (Score:1)
Re:Need (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:1, Troll)
Like it or not, anti-AIDS drugs aren't always the best choice. Why not try doing something else, like asking people to abstain from sex while we put our heads in the sand? Chastity isn't evil.
Re:Good (Score:1)
If you ask me, AIDS education is far more important. They should learn that sleeping with virgins won't cure the disease (and please, don't try to imply that message is intended for all people, but
Re:Good (Score:2)
Re:Good (Score:2)
However, while the government is being bought by commercial interests, and while the government does so much spending (on the military, infrastructure and bureaucracy), that isn't going to happen. Just by buying a huge system from one vendor, it promotes that vendor. Part of checks and balances is that the government should review the effects of such policies and purchasing, and inform its own procurement and policy staff wher
Re:Good (Score:2)
This is rather hard when the status quo, for many years, has been to favour a certain type of proprietary software. As for the "huge disadvantage" anyone can use or distribute OSS. If OSS were to be mandated a free open m
Doesn't really matter does it? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't see how this will make a difference anyway. People have heard of linux, bsd, apache, mozilla, openoffice and so on. And once the word is out they'll give it a try. And once other people have tried and found success it becomes a viable option. No-body likes policies dictated from the top down: And even in places where they have a windows-only policy you can still find the occasional linux/*bsd box or mac.
Doesn't really matter, until... (Score:4, Insightful)
My favorite example is government web sites that "work better with particular browsers associated with expensive desktop operating systems" and have subtle problems that interfere with my attempts to access them using the tools available on my engineering workstation.
Sad state of affairs? (Score:3, Insightful)
And no, this isn't the end of the world. This isn't the most important issue the UN is dealing with right now, and it certainly isn't time to 'welcome our new proprietary commercial software product masters'. However, it seems pretty clear that they had a plan going when they were going to look favorably on Open Source solutions for governments and developing nations, a position that was likely hatched internally. A position that was changed by outside pressure. Bet they thought it was a pretty good idea they had going!.
This probably isn't one of those "Who is REALLY in charge" issues, but it makes one think. Then again, maybe it doesn't.
U.N. Irrelevant, Governments Irrelevant (Score:5, Insightful)
I love hearing that Munich or Massachussets, or Brazil has adopted open standadrs or open source but if they didn't that wouldn't matter either.
Open source succeeds when and where it is better. The way for OSS to get better is for the people involved to concentrate on making it better.
The Open Source movemnet existed long before the first Government Organization realized it was a good idea. If another government never decides to recogniza or adopt it, it won't miss a beat.
What will hurt Open Source is corruption by organizations that don't get it and never will. The UN is inherently about compromise. The GPL is about take it or leave it. Theres not alot room for agreement there.
Re:U.N. Irrelevant, Governments Irrelevant (Score:2)
This is part of the problem. I don't want eternal lock-in with a monopoly, even if the products delivered by that monopoly are "better", and free software is "worse" (according to some arbitrary metric).
Freedom is more important than advance of technology, and freedom requires choice.
Re:U.N. Irrelevant, Governments Irrelevant (Score:2)
That's, of course, assuming that Open Standards are enforced. If 90% of Government documents are distributed in a closed, proprietary data format, and only a single company has the capability to write software that displays these document without glitches, then a better, more cost-effective solution still doesn't stand a chance. Closed standards distort the market a
WSIS? - WE SEIZE! (Score:5, Informative)
WSIS? WE SEIZE!
Over the past months, activists and artists with different backgrounds ranging from indymedia centers to the noborder-networks, from the Free Software movement to community media, from grassroots campaigns to hacker collectives, have been discussing how to intervene in, outside of, counter to, or as an alternative to the agenda and organisation of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) from December 10th to 12th in Geneva, Switzerland.
WHAT IS WSIS?
WSIS is the first of two global summits dealing with information and communications to be held by the United Nations in Geneva. But the Summit is a smokescreen. Although it talks about the digital divide, knowledge dissemination, social interaction, political engagement, media, education, and health, this language is used to mystify the continuing use of information to protect and advance the interests of global capital.
GENEVA-03
Geneva-03 is an open, loose and temporary association of groups and individuals who are currently preparing a series of events around the WSIS. Its common goal is to create autonomous physical and network spaces for diverse tactical, grassroots, activist and community media actions and discussions in and around the WSIS meetings.
The issues at hand are many:
* Shaping and subverting the information technologies that are now part of everyday life.
* Refusing both war and infowar.
* Countering the exploitation of immaterial work and informalized labor.
* Resisting border management and digital rights management.
* Defending our commons of ideas, including indigenous knowledge, scientific data, free software, educational systems and creative expression against the immense pressures of privatization.
* Fighting for freedom of movement and freedom of communication for all people, not just those who promote and benefit from capital. The actions taking place at WSIS? WE SEIZE! will seek to promote new ways of communicating, what is communicated, by who and for whom: to create new social formations that can address the systems of domination that surround and inform our world.
The struggle takes place from the local, regional and global infrastructure (radio and TV spectrum, wireless frequencies, cable rights of way, satellite orbital paths) to the content that traverses those structures. These networks should be for the benefit of and use by all the world's people, organised to nurture and sustain social cooperation.
WSIS? WE SEIZE!
The event will work around these areas:
* A strategic convention before the UN summit in Geneva, comprising discussions, panels and presentations.
* A polymedia lab to share tools, skills, experiences, and knowledge.
* A three day netcast which will follow the revolution of the earth, streaming independent media activism and community media projects from across the globe.
Geneva-03 is asking all interested people to get involved with this initiative. We are working to establish venues and schedules, as well as options for accomodation and general survival in the expensive city of Geneva.
There will be a further preparation meeting at the European Social Forum in Paris in November. For all people interested in the Geneva-03 project, this is the open working list: http://lists.emdash.org/mailman/listinfo/prep-l and the website: http://www.geneva03.org/. The Geneva03.org website is an open publishing forum where you can post your proposals, ideas and contributions.
MS: Your customers want OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
MS adds features that their large clients want, so why can't they respond with the source as well? Rather than fighting OSS so much, they should realize they're not losing so much based on the price of the product, but on the license and the source. As a customer that has spent thousands on MS software, I have lately done it grudgingly because I do not yet know enough to migrate everything I do to an open-source OS.
At my office, many new machines go up as Linux or BSD boxes because we fear the recent Windows licensing terms. Rather than making us, their customers, nervous about MS and the impact their licenses have on our business, MS should respond with a soft hand rather than the iron gauntlet. Some licenses we've read even make us nervous to have our own source code on a Windows box. I know I haven't said anything that hasn't been said a million times before, but if my OS vendor of choice -- Microsoft -- would get a clue and be responsive to me and the business I work for, I'd consider the alternatives much less than I do now.
Re:MS: Your customers want OSS (Score:2)
MS adds features that their large clients want, so why can't they respond with the source as well? Rather
Outstanding! (Score:2, Flamebait)
I've worked on UN ops before. Let me assure you: the biggest barrier ANY goal can ever have is having the UN supporting it. Now that that's out of the way, Open Source software should have no trouble flourishing.
Re:Outstanding! (Score:2)
Why the hell was this modded flamebait? He has a valid point.
The UN is a joke. Why should we care whether or not it supposed open source software? Things get done despite the UN, not because of it. The UN is a nice concept that has a horrid implementation.
OSS will spread no matter how much FUD is
World Forum on Communication Rights (Score:3, Informative)
Its goals are:
- To demonstrate and document the importance of communication rights for people and communities in an emerging information society
- To contribute to the emergence and understanding of a coherent concept of communication rights
- To generate cooperation in promoting the concept, recognition and realisation of such rights.
The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) is a full UN Summit that will be held in December 2003 in Geneva with a second meeting in Tunis in 2005. Early hopes that the WSIS would tackle a broad range of information and communication issues have been dashed and the agenda that has emerged is concerned mainly with telecommunication and internet related issues, viewed from a technical perspective and a narrowly construed development agenda. Broader communication and media issues, an essential feature of any information society, and human and communication rights that must animate its core, have been largely sidelined.
The World Forum on Communication Rights brings together civil society organisations, NGOs, governments and others in a civil society-driven event to be held alongside the Summit, not in opposition to it but to highlight and make practical progress in spheres the Summit fails to cover. It welcomes all stakeholders committed to ensuring such rights are integral to an information society.
The Forum focuses on four themes:
- Communication and Poverty
- Communication, Conflict and Peace
- Communication, Copyright, Patents and Trade
- Communication and Human Rights
Given the utter incompetence of everyone involved (Score:2)
Besides, who wants the world's worst bureacracy, least effective and least meritocratic band of inept fools "endorsing" your work or "taking over" Internet governance and "recommending" your product or service?
Any effort expended on WSIS shuld be expended to mock and ridicule its irrelevance
Don't believe everything your govt tells you (Score:2)
You're an American, aren't you?
Re:Don't believe everything your govt tells you (Score:2)
No, I'm someone who pays attention to the UN.
I was a UN Programmer (Score:2)
The UN now is a completely Microsoft-dominated organization. The Web sites are exclusively ASP/VB MS SQL Server, etc. There was some interest by a few of us to move toward PHP while I was there, but the bureaucracy is so thick, that once a standard becomes adopted, it's impossible to change.
The UN still
Some Sorces, Material ... (Score:1)
Open Source & Free Software Advocacy @ WSIS (Score:4, Informative)
LPI will tentatively be holding a number of events at the WSIS conference in December, including an open source workshop and a certification exam lab; it is also our intention to put a Linux "live" CD in the hands of every WSIS delegate. We will have at least six people at the conference, working to ensure that the delegations are capable of overcoming the anti-open-source FUD which is no doubt going on.
To that end, LPI has submitted a commentary on the WSIS activities [itu.int], now part of the official WSIS documentation, that is stirring some interest. Anyone who is interested in helping LPI's efforts at WSIS is invited to subscribe to the LPI@WSIS mailing list [lpi.org].
The FSF is participating through the WSIS Working Group on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks [wsis-pct.org]; RMS is on the group's steering committee and Georg Greve of FSF Europe is one of the co-ordinators.
United Nations (Score:2)
Hmm, business and commercial interest bloc in the UN? It's still called the United Nations not United Businesses right?
Re:Programmeur Sans Frontieres (Score:1)
Could have? Can you mean. What's so hard about becoming accreditted, raising the money, and sending a "delegation" there anyway?
I'd bet the Free software foundation, and/or some combination of apache/gnome/kernel coodinators or some high profile collage or higher education group would be accepted.
As far as raising enough money to send some guys to Geneva for a week. How much is that anyway? $20000? That's only $20 from 1000 people.
It might be that u
Re:A message from Stallman: (Score:2)
Like the UN itself?