On 7/11/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 7/11/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I personally would think this is a bad idea (forcing the government to
> adopt open source software) and I will outline my reasons below.
What I consider worse is that we're forced to adopt proprietary
software just like what is happening now.
I personally do not think anybody is being _forced_ to adopt
proprietary software. Government has had some initiatives already that
require software be made and released as open source software -- read
up on the NCC's eLGU project.
The government is using proprietary software because for projects that
require IT infrastructure, only proprietary software vendors are the
ones that actually join the bidding.
> 1) Restriction of Trade -- whenever the government becomes biased for
> or against a certain class or type of any
> device/service/product/anything of value in the free trade market
> (like software for instance), you might run into issues like the
> restriction of trade with government. The bill will be hotly
> contested, and since cost is an issue that will always come in
> whenever open source software will be considered for any purpose, you
> need to remember that people need to make money too -- especially
> Filipinos.
Government is well within their purview to restrict trade if it
considers the subject to be detrimental to society (e.g. drugs). I
would argue the point that proprietary closed source software is
detrimental to society but not on this thread.
_If_ it considers the subject to be detrimental to society.
Please argue away because I don't see how proprietary _closed source_
software is detrimental to society _pragmatically_ . It's hard to do
that without riding a slippery slope.
Case in point: The LTO's IT infrastructure runs Windows on the client
side -- I doubt it would make any difference if it was running Linux
because the service itself will still be the same. I would even go
ahead and say that we should let the agency choose the platform they
will need, and set guidelines such that software to be built for the
government be released/developed under a "source available" license.
> 2) Licensing Issues -- please do _not_ restrict the license to the
> GPL, because there are many other open source licenses out there to
> which a lot of quality software are released under. The GPL looks
> good, but it's really bad in so many instances, it doesn't even make
> sense anymore.
If you're using Linux right now, more that 2/3 of the software
installed is GPLed. Linux would not have gotten this far without that
GPLed code. What doesn't make sense to me is advocating the open
source development model without giving credence to the free software
philosophy that empowers it.
I use Linux on the servers I have had the chance do manage/deploy,
recommended Linux on the servers that my clients will need, and have
used libraries that are _not_ under the GPL which are far more useful
and more successful than a lot of the GPL'ed licenses:
Boost C++ Library
Apache Tomcat and Apache Commons
Berkeley DB
ACE Framework
I currently use Windows on one of my notebooks, and Ubuntu LTS on my
other notebook. I also have projects under the GPL in sourceforge, and
not in sourceforge.
What I am saying is that although GPL should be fine, it should _not_
be the only license to be considered for the term "Open Source"
software in case the government will favor open source software for
the IT infrastructure.
> Consider using correct terminology -- do _not_ get
> bulldozed by the Free Software Foundation and the hype surrounding the
> GPL. Instead, use relaxed terms for general "source-available" and
> "redistributable-source" software. A good idea is to clearly define
"Open source" is hyped more that "free software". Why? Because its
business friendly. "Relaxed" terms do not obligate users to share
software or improvements. This defeats the purpose of free software
and we will all likely end up with closed source proprietary software
if this continues.
I personally do not agree to the "free software" philosophy anymore
because the politics gets in the way most of the time for being
productive and creative. Government should protect the constituency
and if among the constituency are people that do business by
leveraging on "business friendly" technology, then these people should
be heard as well.
The BSD Unix has gone a long way too without being too restrictive
with their licensing, and so have the projects under the Apache
license.
Example: If the government will require that only Free Software as
defined by the FSF will be used, what HTTP Server will you use that's
under the GPL _as good as_ if not _better_ or with a similar track
record as the Apache HTTP Server?
That's just one reason why we should not restrict the license to the
GPL. The GPL is not the only Open Source license.
> The government should also be aware that Open Source is not just Linux
> -- there are other development projects there that are locally grown
> that also need the support that Bayanihan Linux is currently enjoying.
?
CHITS -- just one of the many local initiatives that need all the
support they can muster.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
C/C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs
http://3w-agility.blogspot.com/
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
Mobile: +639287291459
Email: dean [at] orangeandbronze [dot] com
_________________________________________________
Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List
[email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph)
Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists
Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
