On Fri, 22 Sep 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
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?
It's about both, obviously. Some people emphasize one benefit, others
emphasize other benefits. But that's irrelevant and does not make for an
rational argument against the bill.
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?
Because the free alternatives work just as well and are FREE (in both
senses). This is good fiscal policy and brings about other benefits as
well. So it makes no sense to even consider the non-FOSS solution except
in cases where FOSS cannot do the job.
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?
Precisely because the license brings other benefits.
Good government and proper use of software is NOT only about technical
merit. There is also the need for good FISCAL POLICY, which you have been
ignoring. And that is why all your arguments fail. You're pretending that
it's only a matter of technical merit, when it ISN'T.
Software isn't used in a vacuum, only to see its technical prowess. The
best software in the world isn't worth squat if it is too expensive to
use. Government must consider the fiscal aspects as well as the other
benefits that FOSS brings (those benefits have been enumerated many times
before by RMS, etc.).
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 because your questions are based on WRONG assumptions.
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_.
Why not? If FOSS does the job, then why should the government even
consider paying for expensicve software that does the same thing as the
free option? That doesn't make fiscal sense at all.
God bless!
_________________________________________________
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
