No proprietary software for mail infrastructure

I disagree with the sneaking enforcing of Microsoft programs for the internet and mail infrastructure at the University of Oslo (UiO), and want to call for an open discussion of why not use free software in a public university as a guarantee of independence, both scientific and political.

which so far more than 120 people have signed. In an attempt to make other people aware of this, I am sending the current letter to the university newspaper. My initial (personal) posting, with a link to the signature campaign, is at http://folk.uio.no/dssantos/nooutlookatuio/ Note that the text was written to raise the isse at HF, maybe also the social sciences faculty, but soon people began to sign from all over UiO, especially IFI, where people know about free software, and I thought it was a good idea to spread it further.

I do not think the IT director has legitimate power to do such political decision under cover of a technical issue.

The "explanation" provided for this brutal attack on the university's freedom and independence is another cause for concern: It is because administrative employees (or "administration") badly want an "integrated calender + mail + room booking system". And for this (fair enough requirement, if it had no consequences, but note how far it is from the university's main aims), all other parts of the university: research, teaching, technical developers, students, have to suffer. (See below for consequences.)

In order to legitimate this decision, the following argument is invoked: a questionnaire has been sent to users. And apparently a clear question was: do you want an integrated system? Now, there are two problems with this justification, you don't need to be a sociologist to wonder: who decided to put those questions there in the first place (maybe knowing that there was only one technical answer for that requirement)? Who interpreted the numbers so that the decision was clear?

Worse still: was there any hint on the consequences of such decision? This is a moral question. Again, you don't need to be a moral philosopher to see that this is wrong. You cannot ask people to decide, or better you cannot make people responsible for a choice, when you omitted relevant information.

Given that any moderately intelligent person can understand that the way the change is being justified is purposefully misleading, the only possible conclusion is that UiO leaders are leading the university misleading the employees.

This is why I think the university employees should react to the way they have been treated, and that they should require another explanation for this behaviour. And that they should absolutely say no to something which is being enforced as a "technical" issue when it is political.

Why I think they should say no:

1. First of all, because we do not want a big change in infrastructure in a university, which by definition should have teaching and research as goals -- not internal administration--, for reasons concerning only a specific fraction of their employees
2. Second, because there has been no attempt to explain, from the decision makers, that such a change into proprietary software had any benefits for
   • research infrastructure
   • teaching quality
   • (any) services improvement
   that might compensate for the -- in my view -- extremely grievous issue of losing control and becoming dependent of a private company for future changes and functionalities.
3. And third, because this is not the way to deal with the people who are the university. We are not (basically, or only) users. I know that many individuals sent complaints to their leaders and/or the people they thought were responsible -- and note it is not USIT that is responsible! They just obeyed orders. The answers -- if they were answered at all -- were published on the university's web, anonymously, in a page called "Ryktebørsen".

1. Do you have any reason to believe that a public institution which uses free software should stop doing it?
2. Do you have any argument for proprietary software?
3. Do you believe that if everyone at UiO were sent a questionnaire where they were asked between choosing free software or proprietary, together with the isse that with free software one could freely choose whatever programs they liked for their desktop, instead of having to be educated in a particular one, most would vote for the choice you want to enforce upon us without discussion?

While waiting, I ask the readers to read the arguments by Richard Stallman, the founder of the GNU/Linux movement, on why this is an important issue.

• http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html
• http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html