Hi Rage!
On 9/15/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/14/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Right... And the opening speech is about saving money...
It does not deny the fact that it in itself is a compelling argument.
We are not talking "barya" here so it needs to be put in the proper
perspective.
Sorry, but that wasn't the point of the bill as I am being told or
made to believe.
And no, it's not a compelling argument either. In terms of government,
"barya" is 1M pesos. Now that's perspective for you.
> This isn't choice, this is discrimination against otherwise capable
> software development firms who just don't happen to produce FOSS.
The government, through the authority of the people who have been
elected to define and implement its policies, has the choice whether
to use/purchase software that meet its standards.
Let's backtrack a bit... The government you're talking about is just
the executive and legislative branches. You don't elect your judiciary
branch, and you don't certainly elect the SSS chairman or even the
CICT commission members.
Now, about the choice: that choice should remain an open choice, not a
"this is the only choice I will make" choice.
These standards are
a matter of policy which is what is being proposed here.
What standards, that the software be licensed under a FOSS license?
Software
providers also have the freedom to choose whatever terms they want to
apply to their products.
Indeed, I am not contesting this.
But ultimately it should be the government
demanding the terms which will allow it to fulfill its mandate and not
simply give in to the terms it is offered.
True. Now demanding terms such as "the software should be under a FOSS
license... I don't care if it meets the technical requirements, I'm a
zealot and I want FOSS only." is the mandate I want to give my
government.
To fulfill its mandate, it doesn't have to require FOSS.
> 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.
The government chooses the terms that it deems acceptable under its
mandate. This legislation is all about making that choice.
This legislation is about using only a certain kind of software --
licensed under a FOSS license. This legislation takes away the choice
from the agencies and essentially the government, by making the choice
for it. If that's not anti-choice, than I don't know what is.
> This is a myth. Who's coolaid are you drinking anyway?
Just because you say so does not make it so. Who's Kool-aid are you drinking?
Now wait, are you contesting my statement that it's a myth, or that
the statement brought forth was true?
I am not imposing that the earlier "wishful thinking" (which you have
so conveniently snipped out) is a myth, I'm merely pointing it out.
Let me quote that part to which I reacted to for your amusement:
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.
I'm talking about the myth that FOSS has magical properties and unique
abilities on "rapid technology convergence and localization" and that
it will "help develop local IT industry [sic.]" and that it "helps
foster self-reliance in IT" (or whatever that means).
FOSS is software that's licensed under a license that allows for
unlimited and unrestricted use in its current form without warranty
and allows for modification granting the license is honored.
Being subjective about FOSS does not help.
> 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.
FOSS by its very meaning is about the right to access information.
Sorry, this is a rash generalization. FOSS is about the right to
access _the source code_, not "information" in general. There's a
difference you know...
> 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?
The government is the caretaker of public data/information.
Which textbook did you read this from?
Its not
just about putting information online for everyone to see.
Oh yeah, government is about protecting the sovereignity of a country.
Its also
about storing it in some way that can easily be retrieved. Without any
standard, that public information that government holds in behalf of
the citizens of this state is constantly at risk of becoming
inaccessible or impermanent.
That's why you set the standards for publishing information. You don't
need FOSS to do that...
> Oh, so you're drinking RMS' coolaid... Which explains the zealotry and
> fascist approach to legislation...
Tsk, tsk.
What? You don't think RMS' coolaid is zealotrous and fascist? Then
disagree, I don't mind... That is my opinion anyway, so I don't
anticipate anyone else will agree to it.
RMS IMO is the Osama Bin Laden of the Software World. He's an
extremist, doesn't take to personal hygiene that much, and is a load
of hot air. You can quote me on that.
> 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.
Don't equate personal choice with the government as an institution's
right to choose. Your logic is draconian and a throwback to the Marcos
era.
Where did I equate personal choice with government's institutional
right to choose?
The government should only set standards, but not stiffle choice. If a
government agency head, given the authority by the state to make
management decisions should have the choice on what management
practice to abide by, so should he have the right to choose which kind
of software system to use without government stiffling the choice he
can be made to choose. I'm sorry, but I'll use the white shirt example
again of a draconian policy: "Let it be set, that all government
emloyees should only wear white shirts in public office." -- you want
a government that runs this way?
FWIW, choice is the same in any context -- be it personal choice, or
an institution's choice.
> 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.
FOSS == communism?
Jeez, you seem to try to misconstrue every argument I make...
Chairman Mao saying all of China's government computers should run
only FOSS == communist, anti-choice, anti-freedom
FOSS == Free Open Source Software.
What is wrong, is Chairman Mao making that choice for all government
agencies. So what happened to the bidding process, to the democratic
and transparent way of choosing, and the level playing field that the
government offers to its constituents? Oh wait, it's a communism,
that's why there's nothing of that sort.
Wow, what a stretch. And here FOSS is becoming
accused as being an agent of globalization. Tsk, tsk.
Your assesment was a stretch. FOSS is being accused as being an agent
of globalization?! Who implied that?
FOSS is just software...
> No, this is not lengthy enough. You don't get a last say especially in
> a public forum.
Neither do you.
See, which is precisely my point. :-)
> 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.
Again with the failed logic.
Quoting http://www.opensource.org/docs/peru_and_ms.php
"For software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it
is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the
contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding
the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen
adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity,
confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very
critical aspects for its normal functioning."
This is PERU you're quoting. I don't want the government of PERU in
the Philippines!
I don't *care* what Peru, Brazil, or China's government policy is, I'm
concerned about Philippine legislation. Your quote means nothing
unless it came from the FOSS bill being proposed.
> 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.
Ah, and there's the rub.
So you got a problem with it?
--
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
