The Peruvian government has introduced legislation to require government offices to use free (as in speech) software. Microsoft doesn't like the idea, of course. Congressman Dr. Edgar Nuñez responds to Microsoft's concerns with some fantastic, well-reasoned arguments.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indespensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.

To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.

These are all reasons I worry about using non-free (as in speech) software for my own stuff. As long as I have basic rights regarding how I use personal technology, and non-free commercial solutions maintain a certain degree of interoperability and adherence to open standards, I'm willing to use non-free solutions that offer useful advantages to free alternatives, but I don't have the priorities of a government to the rights of its people at stake.