Re: [ox-en] Open Source at the UN
- From: Graham Seaman <graham seul.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Dec 2003 07:26:07 -0500 (EST)
On Fri, 12 Dec 2003, Casimir Purzelbaum wrote:
"But Zambrano said the UNDP is cautioning them not to mandate
open source for their governments because that creates another
type of monopoly."
What he wants to say is: Liberation means loosing the _freedom to
be unfree_. He should have become a philosopher instead of "UN
adviser on information and communication technologies" ;-)
It may sound silly, but it is exactly the kind of argument that leads
government parties to accept the changes proposed by the 'independents'
who always seem to pop up when such proposals are discussed at national
level. IIRC the very first example was a local government in Brazil,
but M$^H^H the like minded independents have obviously got it down to a
fine art now.
Todays example comes from Australia:
<quote>
The bill was later amended by independent member Helen Cross to substitute
"consider" for â"prefer", and then passed by the Labor government.
</quote>
http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php?id=792934018&fp=16&fpid=0
leaving a toothless law of the kind that philosophers of unfreedom
prefer..
Graham
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/