Hi Manny!
On 9/22/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> Right... And the opening speech is about saving money...
As it SHOULD be!
I don't understand this... On one hand, people say using FOSS only in
government is not about saving money. Then you say otherwise. So what
is the bill really about then?
> This isn't choice, this is discrimination against otherwise capable
> software development firms who just don't happen to produce FOSS.
No, it's just good fiscal policy. Why should the government even consider
paying when FREE alternatives can do the jpb.
Because the free alternatives don't cut it just because they're free?
If the non-FOSS solution works as how government needs it to work then
what's the rationale for changing it? Or for the matter, why shouldn't
it be considered just because of the presence of FREE alternatives?
Your continued MISrepresentation of the bill is hardly honest.
Section 6 is what I have a problem about. I like the other parts of
the bill, and I have to say it again: I have a problem with the
approach in which the adoption of FOSS usage in government is being
proposed: by making it mandatory.
The truth of the matter is that the bill mandates a preferential option
for FOSS. The existence of a provision that allows proprietary software in
cases where FOSS cannot fit the bill is clear evidence of this. But you
conveniently gloss over that fact.
That preferential option and making it mandatory in the first place is
what I'm against. Why should FOSS get preferential treatment over any
other software licensed under a different license? Why not use
software based on the fulfillment of technical requirements on a case
to case basis and just require that source code to the software be
reusable by government and modifiable by either government or a third
party -- and not require the license to the software be a FOSS
license? Why not base the selection of software to be used on
technical aspects and just define the stipulations that the software
license must contain compared to requiring the software license be of
a specific type (in this case be a FOSS license)?
These questions I have raised have not yet been satisfactorily
answered, and I doubt it might even be entertained because apparently
some people just prefer that FOSS get preferential treatment in
government.
> 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.
More dishonesty on your part.
Dishonesty? You think I'm lying?!
That's how I understand it: if you don't see it that way, then make
your point with valid arguments. Note, my opinions are based on my
interpretation. If you think my interpretation is wrong, correct me --
but with all honesty I post my opinions for everybody else to see and
comment on.
If the bill stands as how I understand it, then the following code I
license under the GPL may then be used for every ICT requirement that
government has:
<code>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main (int argc, char * argv[]) {
cout << "This software can be used for the Philippine government's
every ICT requirement, licensed under the GPL and may be modified to
suit any purpose the Philippine government or anybody sees fit." <<
endl;
return 0;
};
</code>
Because there's a FOSS option shouldn't mean that the free option
should _always_ be chosen especially in the case of government _just
because it's FREE_.
--
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
