On 9/16/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hmmm... Let's get this straight: you say that making something mandatory (in this case FOSS) does not remove the right to choose fro the government. Does that even make sense?
Perfectly. The government is free to exercise that right to choose and not just arbitrarily but by an act of Congress which is the case here.
Ah, but the institution you worked for had a choice right? It could have chosen FOSS or Propreitary software. They set a policy internally which said "okay, guys and gals, we will use this software.". But the next day, the higher ups still has the choice to use FOSS, because nobody took that choice away from them.
The institution I worked for made that choice. The government as an institution has that choice as well.
Hmmm... It's requiring every government agency to use FOSS only. Now if the government agency heads really had the choice, then they could say "I'm sorry, FOSS doesn't cut it for us so let's use proprietary software..." but unfortunately, even the government itself is removed of that choice because _it had already been required to use FOSS only_. This removes choice on all cases where software will be procured, because the government will only use FOSS. You see the difference?
The legislation allows for circumstances that necessitate use of non-free software. What is proposed here is to make that an exception rather than the rule as what is currently taking place. It is right for the government to choose the terms which are clearly advantageous to it and not simply accept the terms it is being offered.
If government really had the choice, then on a case to case basis where software projects are bid on, every software that fulfills the technical requirements and other contractual requirements have the same chances of being selected -- now *that* is choice. If government already has a bias against any type of product based on a non-technical requirement arbitrarily set due to legislative preference is tantamount to discrimination. I will say it again: it's like not choosing an applicant who fits the requirement because she's a Muslim.
The technical requirements should not be the sole basis for the selection of appropriate software. Other requirements must be met whether or not these fall within the realm of technicality. This is what the bill is currently trying to address.
The policy then should read differently. It should not require the license to be FOSS, but instead that source code is made available to the government upon turnover -- regardless of whether the license is under a FOSS license.
I agree that the source code must be made available to the government upon turnover.
So just to clarify, when you mean "free terms", that the software is not paid for by government? If that's the case, how do you achieve the goal of establishing an IT industry here in the Philippines by making government not pay for the software?
Free as in freedom.
This is PERU again. So let's say that's the case...
If the argument applies, it applies wherever you are in the world.
So you mean to say, even if the product was made technically compliant to whatever technical requirements the government set, then it wouldn't qualify for bidding even because of a license issue? How fair does that sound to you? Oh wait, I'm asking the wrong person: you want government to use FOSS only.
It won't qualify not because of the license issue but because it is not as advantageous to the government if it were freely (as in freedom) licensed.
After all : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Peru <quote> The Republic of Peru is in a state of ongoing democratization. Led by President Alejandro Toledo, the executive branch is attempting to be transparent and accountable. Previously a rubberstamp body, Peru's unicameral Congress is emerging as a strong counterbalance to the once dominant executive branch, with increased oversight and investigative powers. The executive branch and Congress are attempting to reform the judicial branch, antiquated and rife with corruption. Peruvians, whose expectations were raised during the 2000 and 2001 election campaigns, are frustrated at the slow pace of economic recovery and job creation. As discontent rises, the Toledo administration is in a race to strengthen the economy so that popular pressures do not force a shift to more radical measures. So far, the Toledo government remains committed to neoliberal economic policies and structural reform in the hope of attracting sufficient international investment to generate growth and job creation. </quote>
Think. We're talking the same things here. The same arguments do apply.
Oh wait, it does: only FOSS. So of course, Windows is out of the question because of a "non-technical contractual requirement" read: "bias against proprietary software".
Not biased against proprietary software because it does not rule out the use or purchase of proprietary software but merely sets it out as the exception to the rule on what government uses or purchases. There is a difference.
Okay, on one hand you're arguing administrative problems such as "cohesion", "integration", "standardization", "rules and procedures". Then you go about "data integrity and accesibility" then jump to "unsustainable cost of government".
All valid arguments for the use of FOSS.
I maintain: the policy should set technical requirements on all software to be procured by government -- that only standard protocols and open file formats be used. However, it should not specify that *only FOSS* will be used. Certainly people can write (and have written) proprietary software that's good enough for government's technical requirements but is not under the FOSS license (Safari browser, Apple's Mac OSX, Microsoft Visio, etc.) -- I personally don't want government to be restricted to just FOSS like Firefox, Linux, GNOME and KDE, Dia, etc.
The policy should not simply be about meeting the technical requirements but also by the terms which are clearly more advantageous for the government.
It's not a secret that there are software firms that don't write FOSS -- but they should not be excluded from the government's choices because of a bias for FOSS. Our government doesn't need this bias, and can set better policies that are less dogmatic about software.
The rule is there as well as the exception. If there is a bias, it should be in favor of the government and not the other way around.
Save this speech for the congress... It's like a poetic cry for support appealing to emotion.
I can say this *speech* here. Like you said this is a public forum.
And mind you, it should be the other way around: your objectives should define your policy. Guidance is required to define policy, keeping the objectives in mind.
I completely disagree. A policy statement on the use of FOSS in government will provide clear roadmaps.
So the objective is to have the government use FOSS and open standards. Then make policy that requires the use of open standards as technical requirements in software procurement projects, and come up with a comprehensive plan for evaluating FOSS and its viability in government.
That is the big picture.
I believe you're preaching to the choire here. However, proposing a policy that's anti-choice and anti-freedom is paramount to asking the Communist Party. Not that there's anything wrong with Communism, it just doesn't work.
Well, some members of this choir are clearly not in tune. I have also proven that this legislation is not discriminatory and is clearly within the sovereign right of the government to make that choice.
I have used the terms Zealot and Fascist to describe this bill, and I am on topic. It aptly describes properties of the bill which are totalitarian and adhering to the concept of "command and control" which removes choice from government -- the last thing I want to happen.
In any case using those terms is offensive to those who do not see things *your* way. Friendly, Rage Callao Free Software :: empower :: educate _________________________________________________ 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
