Policy/Strategy
From Schoolforge-UK
Who are the different constituencies that influence the choice of software in schools? What issues need to be addressed with each constituency? How should they be approached?
Background
The majority of software packages purchased today are delivered as "object code", which means the package will only run on a specific type of computer and operating system, such as a Windows or Macintosh PC. Any change to the object code will likely prevent the package from working, and certainly invalidate the purchase licence terms. We call this "proprietary" software because all the knowledge about how it is built, etc. is kept private by the vendor.
Because proprietary software is so ubiquitous, many legislators and users at all levels of government are unaware of the alternative provided by FLOSS, which has only recently gained prominence. As a result, many rules governing the purchase and use of software in education were framed for proprietary software, and now turn out to be biased against FLOSS.
The goal of influencing legislators is therefore to create a "level playing field" by getting rid of factors that entrench existing proprietary applications through government subsidies or preferred treatment, etc., through which schools become "locked-in" to a single supplier.
European Union institutions
Software patents represent by far the greatest threat to FLOSS, and hence to its use in education. Software is protected by copyright, which prevents copying a particular expression of an idea, but the owner of a software patent can claim payment for any use of the underlying idea itself.
The legal costs of developing software in an environment where software can be patented would cause many smaller IT companies to go out of business. While developers of both proprietary software as well as FLOSS would be affected, small FLOSS developers would be hardest hit because their costs are more often recovered through provision of consultancy and support services, raher than software licences.
Information about the EU "Computer-Implemented Inventions" directive can be found elsewhere on this site. The focus of this battle has now moved to the European Parliament, where the "Computer-Implemented Inventions" directive is likely to receive its second reading during the first half of 2005. Any changes to the directive, which must be introduced if it is to preclude software patents, will require an absolute majority of 367 MEPs. Unfortunately, UK MEPs of all parties are among the least-informed about this issue, and most inclined to allow the directive to pass as it stands.
The Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure (FFII) web site provides comprehensive information about who are your MEPs and how to lobby them. Nosoftwarepatents.com also provides useful background information.
Members of Parliament (MPs)
Education is one of the most visible things that MPs are held accountable for, so they really should be receptive to hearing from people involved in the field. When writing to your MP, it helps if you can describe a specific instance where the opportunity to use FLOSS has been missed, for example, by the way a tender was constructed, or PCs that can be used as thin clients have been dumped.
== Department for Skills
