[wilhelmtux-discussion] which language? erklaerung... declaration...

[Dietrich Feist]

Dear Anne,

thank you for your interesting comments. Unfortunately, my French is a
little too rusty to answer you in the same language but I was at least
able to follow your arguments. I hope that's ok.

To clarify one thing: there is no official language on the Wilhelm Tux
mailing lists. However, postings in certain languages will naturally be
understood by more readers than others. Quite many people here are
German native speakers but I guess that the majority understands English
and French.

> Si je suis d'accord de promouvoir les logiciels libres dans les 
> institutions publiques suisses, je ne suis pas sûre qu'il faille
> l'exiger aujourd'hui.

It is a gradual process. A lot of proprietary software in government and
administration could immediately be replaced by open source/free
software that works just as well. For example, why does the Swiss
parliament run its website on a Microsoft IIS webserver? The free
alternatives to such a setup are not only cheaper, they are also much
better and more secure.

By the way, studies in Germany have already shown that free software
alternatives exist for practically all applications in government or
administration use. That is why the German federal government is
strongly heading towards free software not only on servers but also on
desktops. The department of interior has just signed a multi-million
Euro contract with IBM and the German Linux distributor SuSE.

> Par contre, lutter pour des formats libres me paraît très important.
> Et des logiciels à source ouvert pour ce qui importe au niveau de la
> démocratie. Je souscris aux points 1 et 2.

Agreed, open standards and formats are our most important goal. I don't
mind which word processor someone uses as long as I am not forced to use
the same software from the same manufacturer to read  its output files.

> "Le fonctionnement de Logiciels Libres est connu et dans la plupart 
> des cas le code source est disponible publiquement."
> Je ne comprends pas bien cette phrase. Pourquoi "dans la plupart des 
> cas". Tout logiciel libre doit avoir le source disponible $
> publiquement, sinon ce n'est pas un logiciel libre.

I agree, the wording is somewhat strange and it is not a translation
error. The source code of free software should always be available. I
could imagine cases where free software has to rely on external programs
or libraries that are not free.

> "Il est ainsi possible de détecter des points faibles ou problèmes..."
> Je dirais plutôt:
> "L'accès au code source permet de détecter des points..."

Weaknesses and errors in software can also be detected if you don't have
access to the source code. However, they cannot easily be fixed.

> "...l'utilisateur/l'utilisatrice n'est pas "espionné" par le 
> logiciel."
> Rigoureusement, le logiciel libre n'empêche pas que quelqu'un écrive
> un code qui espionne. Mais on a la possibilité de le découvrir, 
> d'avertir et de modifier.

I agree.
 
> Le paragraphe où on mentionne explicitement u$ est peu judicieux.
> u$ n'est pas le seul monopole dans le marché des logiciels. Il l'est
> dans le marché des systèmes d'exploitation et dans celui de la 
> bureautique.

The M$ monopoly is not the only one but the biggest and most dangerous
by far. There are basically two reasons why software monopolies exist:

a) there exists only one product for a special application

b) one competitor dominates the market so stronlgy that alternatives
   have no chance

The M$ monopoly is certainly of the second type. Eeven worse, they have
not only one but many monopolies in different areas. If if was for M$,
it would be the only software producer in the whole world. They try to
get into any market, even if it is ruinuous to them. A good example is
the Xbox. There is no rational reason why M$ has entered the console
market. They will never make money there but they don't care. It is a
strategic goal to dominate this market in the future - just like the
browser war against Netscape. 

> Mais Matlab est monopolistique dans le domaine des programmes de 
> calcul.

I don't agree. First of all, alternatives to Matlab do exist, for
example IDL. Secondly, Matlab covers only a very limited market segment.
They are not using their position to get into other software markets.
Thirdly, Matlab uses well-documented data formats. Even the source code
to most toolboxes is available. Therefore, the Matlab-"monopoly" is not
by far as dangerous as the Microsoft-monopoly.

> Et si le logiciel libre dominait tout, que dirions-nous? Avons-nous de
> bons arguments? Il ne faut pas confondre la lutte pour l'ouverture
> de points de vue technique et la lutte (politique celle-là) pour une
> société de partage. Parmi la communauté libre, il y a diverses 
> tendances.

If everything was dominated by free software, the situation would be
completely different than today. There can be no such thing as a
free-software monopoly. If somebody is unhappy with the free software
products that exist, he/she can just use them and make something
different/better.

> Même si nous oublions celles et ceux pour qui ce n'est que la gratuité
> qui importe, il y a encore un spectre large. Je pense intéressant de 
> rester
> pluraliste au niveau politique et de se concentrer sur les arguments
> techniques, d'ouvertures, etc. Je crois que c'est ce qui fait le plus
> avancer les logiciels libres. Ceci ne nous empêche pas de vouloir 
> aussi
> une société du bien commun (la GPL a un rôle très important dans ce
> contexte). Mais si on scande tous les aspects à la fois, on est mal
> compris, considéré comme des idéalistes ou extrémistes et finalement,
> on n'est plus écouté. 

We realize that we walk a thin line here. However, technical arguments
will not be enough. It is a political issue if the government of a
country deliberately becomes more and more dependent on the goodwill of
the world's largest software company (and the US government). When will
this dependency become so big that it affects the nation's sovereignity
and national security?

I have said it several times in interviews so far: the choice of
software to run a democratic state is at least as much a political as a
technical decision. The governments of Germany and other EU countries
seem to have learned that lesson but in Switzerland this issue is not
yet part of the political discussion.

> "Une des tâches d'un état libéral dans un marché libre..."
> Quelqu'un peut me dire ce qu'on entend par un état libéral? Ce mot
> change tellement de sens suivant les lieux géographiques que je ne 
> peux
> le percevoir ici. Voulons-nous que la Suisse soit libérale? 
> Personnellement, je ne crois pas.

Maybe the translation is not very good. The German text reads
'freiheitlich geordnet' (= organized on freedom-based principles)
instead of 'liberal'. In fact, 'liberal' means the same (among other
things: free of prejudice, based on freedom) but today the word has a
negative bias for some people.

What we mean is that, when it concerns economic activities, the state
should be a neutral referee and not a player or coach. The state should
only provide conditions for a fair market and not favor one of the
competitors. It is a duty of the state to protect the citizens from
monopolies instead of sustaining them.

> Sous la rentabilité, quand on dit moins de frais de licences, ne 
> devons-nous pas honnêtement dire plus de travail, plus de main 
> d'oeuvre? Et ce serait bien d'imaginer aussi que la Suisse contribue
> aux bien commun. Je reverrais ces points de façon précise en les 
> formulant un peu autrement.

I guess we could always find a better formulation. At least the points
that we raise are all backed by studies and well know facts. Even
Microsoft has given up to argue that using their software costs less.
The new argument line is "we may be more expensive but is is worth it".

> Voilà mes commentaires sur un projet que je soutiens fortement. Mais 
> je ne peux le cautionner pleinement en l'état actuel. Est-elle
> définitive?

It is definitely not a draft version. More than 500 people have signed
this declaration so far, so we are not going to change it lightly.

However, discussion about our goals and ways to achieve them will still
go on in the future. I would be happy if you would contribute to this
discussion and take an active part in the future - even if you are not
happy with every formulation in this declaration.

Kind regards,

Dietrich