On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 23:20 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > On 11 Jul 2006 22:45:48 +0100, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > "Andre John Cruz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > which is exactly Dean's point. it's stupid to make it a requirement to use > > > *ONLY* GPL > > > > I don't think anyone suggested that governments should make a requirement to > > use only GPL. On that point, we all agree. > > > > There was discussion on the use of "Free Software" which is a very > misleading term usually connotated to software under the GNU GPL. I > for one am just being cautious about making the mistake of restricting > the software to be proposed "favored" by government. > There is nothing wrong if government favors a solution - as long as it will favor the better welfare of its constituents (how government really does that mandate is another matter that we could discuss over a few bottles of beer though).
Economically speaking, Free Software for general infrastructure is very favorable for a developing nation. It's quite cheaper to acquire and maintain, and government would have lots of choices to source its requirements. Expanding it as more people get skilled in the technologies would be also favorable as government would have the rights over the code, and can choose without getting their hands tied to a single vendor. Progressively speaking, having people trained to become producers of software infrastructure rather than mere users and consumers of proprietary software infrastructure is indeed favorable for a developing nation - no country ever developed by just importing and consuming - a nation must produce as well. > Although there wasn't a suggestion, I was merely being prudent about > the use of the appropriate terms granted that it was going to be for > the purpose of writing the bill. :) > > > The disagreement arises over whether governments should use proprietary > > software, or should they only use free software. I argue for the latter, > > with my reasoning and implementation in my previous post: > > http://archives.free.net.ph/message/20060707.150213.050c0de4.en.html > > > > I'm sorry if I glossed over that reply, I have a hard time reading > Tagalog/Filipino -- and forgive me if I didn't understand what you > mean in that reply. > > At any rate, I don't see still why government should only use free > software still when proprietary "source available" _locally developed_ > software does the job as well if not better than open source software. > But then I think that's just me. Having source code is useless for government if the government does not have the right to reuse it freely to further the public interest. With the source code under a Free Software license, the source code isn't merely present - it now becomes an enabler. That, along with the right people who could use the code - which government can choose freely, would serve the public interest better. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________ 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
