Hi Jeff!
On 9/14/06, Jeffrey Ian Dy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sorry for double posting but I think I also have to clarify some issues....
The bill is not all about saving money. Please check policies of the state
at Section 2.
Right... And the opening speech is about saving money...
Bayan Muna's vision is all about the "real freedom of choice", by making us
non-dependent on vendors and conscious about vendor lock-ins
This isn't choice, this is discrimination against otherwise capable
software development firms who just don't happen to produce FOSS.
FOSS had become Bayan Muna's advocacy because we are anti-monopoly, as a
matter of fact, anti-imperialist domination.
That's your choice, and I don't see anything wrong with it. But using
it to close down all other possible choices would be contrary to any
democratic notion of choice.
Bayan Muna believes that FOSS, with its unique ability on rapid technology
convergence and localization will help develop local IT industry. It helps
foster self-reliance in IT.
This is a myth. Who's coolaid are you drinking anyway?
We believe that opening source codes aside from safeguarding consumer
protection ensures the sanctity of the public's right to access public
information.
FOSS has nothing to do with "the sanctity of the public's right to
access public information". ANY government document is _public
information_. We need a library, or an online search mechanism for all
this public information.
This bill has made an impression that it is all about FOSS. Such a statement
is only 50% true. The bill is also about open standards, specifications and
protocols without which, the people's freedom of choice and the right of the
people access to public information is endangered.
Which is both pointless and needless.
What are you talking about when you say "the people's freedom of
choice and the right of the people to access to public information is
endangered" anyway? Are you equating the public to the government? Do
you think it would matter if the NOT-FOSS software you're using to
host a website over HTTP which is an "open standard" over TCP/IP which
is another "open standard" using HTML which is another "open standard"
will endanger the public's right to access the information?
Despite some of our differences, we agreed on major points raised by
Stallman which is the reason why we are re-writing the bill. Making it
stronger, with more teeth and even more comprehensive to plug loopholes
regarding.
Oh, so you're drinking RMS' coolaid... Which explains the zealotry and
fascist approach to legislation...
I TOTALLY AND SINCERELY AGREE with points raised regarding the decadence in
the Philippine government and legislature which has diminished our faith of
this bill being enacted to law. I ALSO AGREE that the political system is
corrupt to say the least, and at most times have shown to be anti-people.
However, to argue that we should not right progressive bills because such is
DEFEATIST. Where lies victory but not in engaging the wrongs in society in
every field and arena we can fight. A dream is not a dream but a revolution.
PROGRESSIVE BILLS?! This bill is a throwback to the Marcos era where
his word was law, and that there is absolutely no choice when it comes
to running government. I don't see this bill as PROGRESSIVE, rather
Draconian and an extreme defiance of the fundamental rights to choose.
It's like seeing Chairman Mao saying that all of China's government
computers should run only FOSS: it's wrong, and that's the same reason
why communism and the associated agenda with it is anti-humanity
removing choice and individuality from society.
I think this is lengthy enough. To conclude, while the decadence of
Philippine society is apparent, this is not an argument not to forward
progressive legislation. And to reiterate, this is where we need your help.
No, this is not lengthy enough. You don't get a last say especially in
a public forum.
This is not progressive legislation: this is legislation which
stiffles choice, and which promotes discrimination and close-minded,
heads down, ignore other choicese draconian approach at pushing your
agenda. Instead of ensuring that software used by government is up to
technical standards and technical requirements are fulfilled, the bill
chooses to make a requirement based on an arbitrary decision of
zealotrous proponents. I reiterate: IT SHOULDN'T MATTER IF THE
SOFTWARE IS FOSS OR OTHERWISE.
Having heard from the major proponents of the bill already, I'm
convinced I wouldn't want this bill to be even discussed in the
Congress.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co.
web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mobile: +63 928 7291459
phone: +63 2 8943415
other: +1 408 4049532
blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
