246 lines
13 KiB
HTML
246 lines
13 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||
<html newsdate="2013-07-03">
|
||
<version>1</version>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<head>
|
||
<title>German Parliament elections: The parties' positions on Free Software</title>
|
||
</head>
|
||
|
||
<body>
|
||
<h1>German Parliament elections: The parties' positions on Free Software</h1>
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
Today, the Free Software Foundation Europe publishes its
|
||
Free Software related election questions for this fall's elections
|
||
to the German parliament, which will take place on
|
||
September 22.
|
||
All political parties have responded to the questions, which cover
|
||
issues like users' control over their electronic devices, the
|
||
release of publicly funded computer programs as Free Software, and
|
||
software patents.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
From the responses, it's clear that most parties now know more about
|
||
Free Software than they did in the past. Below is the translation -- <a href="/contribute/translators/translators.html">done by FSFE's volunteers</a> -- of FSFE's summary
|
||
and an evaluation of the <strong><a
|
||
href="/activities/elections/askyourcandidates/201309-germany-bundestagswahl.html">complete
|
||
answers</a></strong>. In addition, FSFE encourages Free
|
||
Software activists to use these questions as an inspiration for
|
||
their own questions to candidates on federal and local level.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
First, something pleasant: SPD, the Greens, the Pirate party, the
|
||
Linke and the Free Voters want software where development was funded
|
||
by the public administration to be published under a free
|
||
licence. The SPD states that "publicly funded software should be
|
||
available to the general public as far as possible". The Greens
|
||
demand the publication of such programs as Free Software in their
|
||
manifesto (see <a
|
||
href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/WahlUndParteiprogrammeDeutschland">FSFE's
|
||
overview on the election and party manifestos in Germany</a>
|
||
(German)). In their reply, they justify this demand with benefits
|
||
such as "bigger and more sustainable innovation potentials,
|
||
broadening of competence in handling software, but also
|
||
security-related advantages". They continually criticise the
|
||
migration away from Free Software in the Foreign Office. The Pirates
|
||
and the Left Party both advocate a general publication of all
|
||
software and content funded by the state. The FDP does not directly
|
||
address the question, but generally claims to "consider both
|
||
proprietary and Free software" in public procurement.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
The CDU however points out "budget law restrictions" for the
|
||
publication and advancement of Free Software by the public
|
||
administration. In their answer, they refer to a paragraph in the
|
||
Bundeshaushaltsordnung (BHO § 63 para. 2). The federal government
|
||
however states the following in its accompanying legal document to
|
||
the <a
|
||
href="http://www.cio.bund.de/DE/Architekturen-und-Standards/Migrationsleitfaden-und-Migrationshilfen/migrationsleitfaden_node.html">migration
|
||
guidelines (German)</a>: This paragraph "does not constitute a
|
||
limitation for the dissemination of software" (p. 41) and "in the
|
||
practically most important case, the further development of GPL
|
||
licenced software, a public authority can share its own development
|
||
portions to private parties without levy of licence fees"
|
||
(p. 43). In contrast, these guidelines highlight a problem in the
|
||
gratis distribution to private parties for development of new
|
||
software or continuing development of non-copyleft software. It is
|
||
worth noting that in its past eight years in government, the CDU has
|
||
not improved the BHO law if they perceive it to be
|
||
problematic. Furthermore, the CDU/CSU state that in every single
|
||
case, it should be checked "if obvious modifications of the software
|
||
would allow it to be used for illegal purposes" and if this was the
|
||
case, the software should not be published.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
The <a href="https://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=1031">refusal to release a
|
||
GNU/Linux version of the ElsterFormular tax software (German)</a>
|
||
meets with a lack of understanding, regret and criticism among the
|
||
parties. The FDP points to the platform independence of the upcoming
|
||
version of Elsteronline, which will not need Java to run. Still,
|
||
they regret that the Elsterformular is not available in a platform
|
||
independent way. The Free Voters perceive the given platform
|
||
dependency as incomprehensible in view of system security. The tying
|
||
to a single operating system development company is unacceptable for
|
||
the SPD and they want to engage to "make according software
|
||
available for alternative operating systems as well". The Greens
|
||
want to advocate the possibility to use the ElsterFormular for users
|
||
of Free operating systems. The Left Party voices its criticsm: "The
|
||
provision of the Elster-Formular solely for Microsoft Windows and
|
||
the refusal to release the GNU-Linux and Mac OS X versions by the
|
||
Bayerisches Landesamt für Steuern (Bavarian tax administration), which is in charge of the
|
||
development, is not acceptable." The Pirates demand the publication
|
||
of the software – even if it was of bad quality – and its
|
||
documentation under a Free licence to allow others to further
|
||
develop the software.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
All parties agree that public authorities should demand all rights
|
||
(access to the source code, the right for further developments (also by third
|
||
parties), the right to distribute the software to others) when
|
||
contracting out software development. The FDP states: "This creates independence
|
||
from the producer, strategic reliability and freedom of choice when selecting a
|
||
service provider." SPD and the Greens mainly justify their demands from an IT
|
||
security point of view. According to the Linke, the state "should
|
||
ensure that it has discretion over how the software will be
|
||
distributed, and use this discretion in the common interest". The
|
||
CDU attaches "special importance to [...] the possibility of further
|
||
development of the software from the beginning" in the future. The Pirates and the Greens point to the fact
|
||
that governmental usage rights are a necessary condition to publish software
|
||
of the public administration under a Free licence as demanded by the parties.
|
||
The Free Voters state that they will consider fines for officials and
|
||
employees who sign contracts without these usage rights.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
Asked about the control over mobile devices, the parties mainly focus on
|
||
aspects of data protection. The SPD sees "challenges especially regarding the
|
||
right of informational self-determination". The Greens, Linke, Pirates and SPD
|
||
demand data protection-friendly technology as a basic adjustment ("Data
|
||
protection by technology"), while CDU/CSU, FDP and the Free voters target a
|
||
better education of citizens. However, the parties do not answer the question
|
||
about the rights the users should have on the software on these devices – a
|
||
question that for example is asked by FSFE's <a
|
||
href="/activities/android/android.html">FreeYourAndroid.org campaign</a>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>On the subject <a
|
||
href="/freesoftware/secure-boot.html">"Secure
|
||
Boot"</a> all parties are in agreement: the <a
|
||
href="/news/2012/news-20121120-01.html">White Paper of the federal
|
||
government</a> contains important demands which they want to
|
||
support and implement. "With the implementation of Secure Boot the
|
||
owners of IT devices get limited in the possibility to entirely
|
||
control contents and applications", writes the Left Party. The FDP
|
||
wants to "assure that users can make an informed decision about
|
||
their devices", and the CDU wants to pursue this issue on national
|
||
and international level. In their detailed answer the Pirates
|
||
write: "Systems which prevent the user from installing specific software
|
||
are inacceptable on political and economical grounds. This inevitably
|
||
leads to promotion of oligopolies or monopolies in the software
|
||
market. But more important is the socio-political relevance of
|
||
control over IT systems [....]". The Greens doubt how the federal
|
||
government will implement the key issue paper "with the extensive
|
||
ties to Microsoft services" and SPD demands an "initiative on
|
||
European level [...] to let these targets not only be a political
|
||
declaration of intention, but to really stick to them."</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Except for CDU and Free voters, all parties explicitly support
|
||
the royalty-free licensing of standards. The Greens point to their
|
||
demand in the <a
|
||
href="http://www.bundestag.de/internetenquete/">Enquete Kommission
|
||
"Internet und Digitale Gesellschaft" (EIDG, commission of inquiry
|
||
in internet and digital society)</a> where they want to place the
|
||
public administration under an obligation to bring forward
|
||
interoperability and sustainability of their IT systems "to be
|
||
independent from interests of individual market participants at
|
||
the further development of the systems." Criticism of SAGA, the
|
||
German guideline for IT standards in federal government
|
||
organisations, comes from the Left Party and Pirates. The Left
|
||
Party (LINKE) don't see in the specifications without restrictions and licence
|
||
fees an automatism for increased implementation of Free
|
||
Software. "On this, active political will and proactive action of
|
||
federal government is required", so says the LINKE. The Pirates
|
||
criticise that ODF in SAGA is only a recommended format what
|
||
results to the fact "that non-free software and closed formats can
|
||
still be used in administrative practice." For this reason, they
|
||
consider SAGA to be merely a "paper tiger".</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Unfortunately the CDU sees no problem in <a
|
||
href="/activities/pdfreaders/pdfreaders.html">advertisement on
|
||
public administration's websites</a> for non-free software as long
|
||
as such adverts serve usability. The other parties reject this
|
||
kind of advertisements, and want to prevent them in future. The
|
||
Greens refer in their answer to their request "Advertisement for
|
||
proprietary software on websites of federal ministries and public
|
||
administration" (printed matter 17/8951) in which they picked up
|
||
on this issue, and to the following discussion of this subject in
|
||
the IT planning council. The Free Voters offered their help for
|
||
solutions on municipal level.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>FSFE's ongoing work against software patents shows effects: By
|
||
now all parties on federal level agree that patenting of software
|
||
should be limited effectively. To this they refer to the <a
|
||
href="/news/2013/news-20130612-01.html">inter-fractional request titled
|
||
"Secure competition and dynamic of innovation in software sector -
|
||
limit patenting of computer programs effectively"</a>.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
The CDU/CSU is generally in favour of using "Serious Games",
|
||
i.e. learning games with the primary goal of imparting knowledge in
|
||
an entertaining way, in schools and universities and thinks about
|
||
releasing those games under a Free licence. The FDP wants to get
|
||
more children into programming and "ensure that newly acquired
|
||
learning aids can be used platform independently". The Free Voters
|
||
want to promote Free Software in the municipal sector. The Greens
|
||
especially demand a consistent procurement practice for software
|
||
funded by the public sector, continue to criticise regression like
|
||
for example in the <a
|
||
href="/news/2011/news-20110511-01.html">Foreign Office</a> and want
|
||
to serve as a good example by releasing their own software
|
||
("betatext"). The Linke sees Free Software in the context of common
|
||
property economics and thinks about ways of funding Free Software
|
||
development, e.g. using parts of the broadcasting fees. The SPD
|
||
wants to primarily promote Free Software in the administration. In
|
||
the commission of enquiry on the internet and the digital society
|
||
(EIDG) the party had demanded that the state should "provide
|
||
subsidies for usability analysis and the improvement of user
|
||
friendliness of selected projects".
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<ul>
|
||
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/elections/askyourcandidates/askyourcandidates.html"> More
|
||
election interviews</a> done by Free Software Foundation Europe and <a
|
||
href="/activities/elections/askyourcandidates/200909-germany-bundestagswahl.html"> publications about the last Bundestag
|
||
election</a>.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>References to Free Software in <a
|
||
href="https://wiki.fsfe.org/WahlUndParteiprogrammeDeutschland">election
|
||
and party manifestos in Germany (German)</a>.</li>
|
||
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
|
||
</body>
|
||
<tags>
|
||
<tag key="front-page"/>
|
||
<tag key="ayc"/>
|
||
<tag key="de"/>
|
||
<tag key="policy"/>
|
||
<tag key="public-administration"/>
|
||
</tags>
|
||
<translator>Martin Gollowitzer</translator>
|
||
</html>
|
||
<!--
|
||
Local Variables: ***
|
||
mode: xml ***
|
||
End: ***
|
||
-->
|