On 9/20/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Rage,
I took my time before replying to this message of yours, because I
wanted to jump on your side or where you're coming from and try to see
it the way you're seeing it. I may have made the same arguments a few
years ago when I was deep in the "FOSS is the light" and "FOSS is the
right way" paradigm. Now business, money, and reality, make a very
good case for making pragmatic assessments at least in my case --
making me shed the "rose tainted glasses" that I know I once wore.
I don't wear glasses -- rose tainted or otherwise. I am as pragmatic
as you claim to be.
So with that, I continue presenting my opinions regarding your responses.
Good. Stick with that please.
Yes, but the act of Congress is arbitrarily defined by the people who
propose the bill. All the laws that congress enacts start with an
arbitrary rationale and objective from a partisan representative. Of
course, a member of a party will push his/her agenda because that's
what they do. And they do this arbitrarily.
Perhaps, but don't deny the fact the although this bill as drafted
"arbitrarily" so are other bills that are filed in Congress. But
you're only showing one side of this process. Getting the bill drafted
is one thing. Getting it passed in Congress is another and requires
the *consensus* of a majority of the people there.
I had been a junior board member of Laguna, and thank God I saw how it
worked: some representative pushes an agenda and writes a bill to
propose a course of action which is in line with his agenda. The party
will have to decide if the agenda is in line with the party's internal
politics or convictions and political positions.
Eventually the party does not get to decide on its own what becomes
law. Which is why the legislative approach is an ideal venue to thresh
out any differences and come to a consensus. That is how it works.
Yes, but saying government will make one choice for every situation is
tantamount to removing choice!
Then of course the exemptions. Ask any lawyer and he will tell you
that where the law makes a rule there is always an exemption to that
rule.
What I'm saying is, that government should be free to choose on a case
to case basis _without preferential bias for a certain party or type
of product/service_. The technical requirements and criteria for
eligibility should not include any preferential criterion like gender,
race, religion -- and in the case of software, type of license. At
least, that's how _I_ see how it should be.
I know what you're saying. You've already made your point and
reiterating it is not helping move this discussion forward. But I'll
oblige.
Using the *case-to-case" basis approach is only effective if you have
a standard. This way you can evaluate whether or not something applies
or is an exemption. The *case-to-case* analysis alone is like saying
everything is an exception. For instance, why should we use a
classroom setting to teach students when clearly each person is
unique. By defining a rule, it is like saying the everyone may be
different but still have similarities.
On your second point. The license is critical because it identifies
what you can and cannot do with the software. It is not like gender,
race or religion so don't lump them together. Gender has no affect on
how you use the software. Religion has no effect on how you use the
software. Race has no effect on how you use the software.
How I see it, making FOSS "the rule" is essentially problematic
because without appropriate study for specific cases a decision is
already made. Making non-FOSS alternatives to the main decision only
because there is no FOSS equivalent is a big mistake especially if
you're taking into consideration real-life case to case basis issues
like cost, timeline, and objectives which are external to the
technical requirements of the government on a case to case basis.
There is no meat in your pudding. The alternative-to-FOSS approach
saves the government unnecessary waste of resources in terms of both
time and money. See jan gestre's post on that.
> 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.
>
True, but I beg that this be done on a case to case basis, and not by
blanket policy because it's not reallistically beneficial for
government for the short and long term. Why?
On the short term, you're dealing with migration issues, compatibility
issues, performance issues, adoption issues, and deployment issues.
You then need to build the required support infrastructure both
in-house and through third party VAS providers, which will take an
enormous amount of effort and will strain the government's operational
capacity.
These issues have to be dealt with and they do need a lot of effort. A
case needs to be made on the cost vs. benefit of making that move. But
none of it is insurmountable. Even if I do say so myself in my ivory
tower.
On the long term, you're dealing with maintenance, support, upgade,
modification, among other issues which are things that you cannot
ignore. All these points above are at the mercy of an army of
developers which are not even in the Philippine sovereign territory
especially if it's FOSS that you just pull down from the Internet. If
Same thing whether you use proprietary software. I can help thinking
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt here.
in case FOSS is made in the Philippines and used by the Philippine
government, maintaining software is not an easy task especially if
you've actually tried doing it (and especially if you're not the one
who wrote it). It costs lots of money because developer time is not
cheap, and the only way we're going to improve the IT industry here in
the Philippines is by paying the developers (_us_ developers) the
right due -- otherwise, we'll just go to where people will pay us more
to do FOSS programming, because that's the pragmatic choice to make.
Which helps the local IT industry.
There are two types of requirements: functional and non-functional
requirements. Functional requirements involve the technical operations
of a solution, while non-functional requirements deal with somewhat
external factors that are not directly tied but intimately related to
the solution (issues of user interface and ouput designs, scalability,
reliability, stability, icon design, and the likes). The software
license, is neither a functional nor non-functional requirement: it's
merely an expression of the rights granted to the end-user as can be
upheld by existing international IP laws.
Thanks for the lesson. The software license is crucial because it
defines what you can and cannot do with the software. It is so crucial
that your functional/non-functional requirements do not matter if in
the end you cannot use the software.
The license to the software is slapped on to the software _by choice_
much like how religion is chosen by people (and people have the right
to practice a religion of their choice). The State (in our case, the
government) should not discriminate on the basis of gender, race,
religion, height, weight, facial features, foot size, and in the case
of software the type of license in policies set by congress,
especially the ones which affect all agencies.
Again with the lumping. All the other things you mentioned has nothing
to do with software. The State is not being discriminatory but is
merely exercising its sovereign right to choose. Software developers
are still free to sell their wares to anyone under any license they
choose.
But unfortunately, some people seem to think that giving FOSS
preferential treatment is a good thing: while I feel alone in opposing
it.
Which makes me wonder...
> > 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.
>
Then we agree to some extent.
Naturally. When this bill is deliberated in Congress, people will need
to agree to some extent too.
So Free as in Freedom software will help establish an IT industry here
in the Philippines? I'm sorry, I don't see how it does.
You've already proven it. There is a lot work on the way to the local
IT industry if this bill pushes through.
> > This is PERU again. So let's say that's the case...
>
> If the argument applies, it applies wherever you are in the world.
>
Sorry, but no. The argument applies only to places where the
government operates under a democratic process: you can't make the
same case in North Korea, Syria, and Iran where the conditions and
principles of government are very different from what we have. Even
Peru's government is different from ours, and the arguments that apply
to our setting may not be the same for them -- and AFAICT, the
arguments for their policy don't apply to our government.
The argument is that government has objectives to meet in order to
fulfill its mandate. In a way, as the argument goes, FOSS and open
standards helps it meet those objectives. Tell me, how does that not
apply?
> > 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.
>
Oh wait... Look at the quoted sections again above. It seems that
you're mis-construing the provisions set in the bill with the concept
of "advantageous to the government".
It clearly shows that any software that's not FOSS will not qualify
for bidding for government ICT projects because according to section
6.2, only FOSS will be used for government ICT projects.
With exemptions.
> > 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.
>
I'm sorry, I beg to differ. It's apples and oranges: Peru is not the
Philippines, and the Philippines is not Peru.
I wasn't comparing the Philippines and Peru. I was merely pointing out
the argument they made in favor of FOSS and nothing more.
> > 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.
>
Sorry, there is a difference between "bias against something" and
"exception to the rule"?
Paolo was very eloquent in answering this one.
> > 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.
>
But you've conveniently snipped out the section of your comment I was
referring to:
" Much has also been said about whether or not it is even necessary to
have such a policy in place. I argue that it is necessary for the
reason I set forth above and in the following.
Without a policy on the use of software in government we are in danger
of creating critical systems that do not integrate well as a whole. We
are at risk that state bodies may use software that is not at par or
compatible with what others are using. Without a policy in place,
government institutions who have already decided to migrate to FOSS
-based solutions are doing so on there on without any guidance
whatsoever. Without policy, we cannot rationally set rules and
procedures that need to be enforced when implementing FOSS. Without
policy, public data is at risk of being inaccessible and impermanent.
Without policy, basic services and the government institutions that
provide these are going to be crippled by the "unsustainable cost of
government".
"
I conveniently snipped it out because it was too long. I don't
particularly like long emails.
You're not supporting the point that FOSS should be used by citing the
administrative and fiscal issues _you wish_ will be solved by just
using only FOSS in government. You're merely saying that the bill is a
panacea to set about the rosy ivory tower picture you and other people
want to paint when only FOSS is used in government.
You don't need to tell me what I'm saying. I know what I'm saying.
You're the one saying all those things above.
Microsoft Sales people can also make the same case for using just
Microsoft based products in government, so there's nothing really new
to what you're saying. You're just using the same argument that the
proprietary software people will use to push an agenda.
That's what you say. They can't make the same case because that isn't
how they do business which brings us back to the bill.
The same points you're using are the same points that make a case for
proprietary software, so there's nothing new in that.
In what way?
> > 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.
>
Clearly more advantageous for the government? I hardly think "using
only FOSS in government" is clearly more advantageous than "using
software solutions which fulfill functional and non-functional
requirements, which allow for extensions and future modifications, and
which use open standard technologies for interoperating with other
solutions _regardless of the software license_".
Extensions and future modifications are only allowed if the software
license says its so. Therefore it cannot be *disregarded*.
> > 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.
>
The point is that there should be no bias for or against any software
based on the type license it comes with.
That's your point. Its clear. You don't need to keep saying it.
> > 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 because it's a public forum and public discussion, we should try
to keep it on topic.
When was I not on topic?
> > 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.
>
Sorry, but a policy statement should be guided first and foremost by
the objectives. Setting policy not aligned with any objectives is a
poor way of planning and running government.
The objectives are in the proposed legislation. Read it again.
Roadmaps will come only when the objectives are clear and policies consistent.
Thank you for the lesson again. Here's one for you. The proposed
legislation may help make inconsistent policies (case-to-case basis)
more consistent. The objectives are clearly stated in the bill.
> > 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.
>
Sorry, but the big picture is not supported by the FOSS bill we've
been talking about.
Lets agree to disagree.
> > 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 speak for a lot of people when I say that we in the Philippine Linux
Users Group are Free/Open Source Software users and advocates (some
even contributors). That doesn't mean that we all sing just one song,
or for the matter believe in the same ways of promoting FOSS.
Singing a song and singing out of tune are clearly different.
What you have proven, is only that you can seem to argue and seem to
sound convincing. You have not proven that the policy is not
discriminatory because of the quoted section 6 already makes it
discriminatory.
Personality attacks are cool but way off topic. The policy is not
discriminatory is my honest opinion. I simply have not proven it to
your satisfaction.
The government has the sovereign right to protect itself from policies
that limit choice -- like this FOSS bill -- and unnecessarily favor
anything based on partisan agenda. Maybe the president can Veto this
bill when it comes to the point of enactment, which gives me an
idea...
Now wouldn't that be draconian.
> > 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.
>
Sorry, but these two terms are objectively defined:
Objectively defined by google but not objectively used by you.
zealot -- partisan: a fervent and even militant proponent of something
We are all zealots then in our own way.
fascist -- an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
Since when have Bayan Muna become right-wing and authoritarian.
[gotten from googling "define: zealot" and "define: fascist" respectively]
Which is consistent with how I describe the bill supported by the
points that I've been raising.
Just because you describe it as such doesn't mean it is.
--
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
