Hi Jeff, On 9/14/06, Jeffrey Ian Dy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The logic is simple, it's better to have policy than not at all. CICT commissioner Lallana believes so, participants in the forum yesterday believes so, people at DOST ASTI believes so, RedHat managers believe so, Stallman believes so. Filipino industry players of FOSS technology that came in the forum believes so, academicians (at least from UP who attended the forum yesterday) believes so. I think that would carry.
Having policy is better than having none at all, even if your policy is clearly draconian and anti-choice? Forgive me for being a bit *anal* about choice, but I personally believe that being able to choose is sacred and being limited in my choices is defiling the sanctity of that ability to choose. I'd rather have choice than anything else. If the government can't choose between FOSS and Commercial Proprietary applications because it will only be allowed to use FOSS anyway, what kind of policy is that? What kind of democracy are you running? What kind of government do you want?
Do you know that government cannot exactly transact with FOSS VAS companies because it does not fully recognize GPL and got into some legal difficulties arising from interpretation of "transfer of copyright" of free software? That is the reason why Section 5 of the bill is there. Without it, we are giving FOSS VAS companies are hard time to transact with gov't.
Then make Section 5 (I believe this is the amendments to the IP Law) a bill that stands on its own. You don't need to require government to use just FOSS to push the amendments.
Oh, the answer is yes Danny, use of proprietary software is allowed under exigent circumstances subject to limitations. As per your suggestions, we are going to ask CICT to regulate the "asking of exigent circumstances" for agencies resisting migration.
So it's the CICT's call whether or not the choice to use proprietary software is alright?! Do you even realize how preposterous that sounds?!
We took the mandatory path because our representation believes that there is no time. Time is running out. Even as we speak, M$ already redefined it's licensing to at least match the cost benefits of FOSS. Hundreds of thousands of IT students are being "compelled" by some private HEI to take MCP and CCNA courses before graduation. This is a distortion of technology education which is supposed to be neutral. If we do not mandate some things, these MCP, CCNA trained individuals, who will later on take on positions in government WILL resist migration making our efforts fruitless and this bill a piece of scrap.
On one hand, you're arguing that this is an urgent matter. On the other hand, you're stating a hypothetical situation in the future. What is wrong with this picture? If you have beef against educational institutions and their educational policies, *attack those*. If your proposed "mandate" is to make government use *just FOSS*, then I strongly disagree with this mandate. If your proposed "mandate" is to set technical standards on all software development contracts engaged in by government with third party contractors *regardless of the license of the software being produced/used/procured* then I would most certainly agree. It shouldn't matter if Windows 2003 is used in the server, just as long as it meets the technical standards specified by the government. It shouldn't matter if the Windows XP/Vista is the operating system in all government computers if it meets the technical stanards specified by government. What *would* matter is that Linux and other FOSS licensed OSes like the BSD's have to abide by the same techinical requirements set for proprietary software. I'd say it again: it's FOSS' burden to prove that it's better than the status quo for Government -- and it should go through the same hoops that the proprietary software go through when being considered for use in government. Giving FOSS an unfair advantage is just that: unfair. This begs the question: do I want FOSS to be used in government? Of course I do! But I don't see why FOSS will need this bill to be able to move into the government computers granted that it's already touted to be better than proprietary software. If the problem is that the agency heads choose to use something other than FOSS, then that's all fair: they should have the right to choose. Taking away that right to choose from the agencies and moving it to a "CICT commission" isn't the very least effective IMO -- and just because FOSS is in government due to a bill does not reinforce the "it's better than proprietary software" argument, which is being used as a rationale for the bill.
As per strategy, THIS BILL WILL BE WATERED DOWN in Congress. Hence it's better to gun the maximum then negotiate until we reach acceptable points (I hope the final outcome is acceptable).
This is a TRAPO strategy. Do it once, and do it well. I like the amendments to the IP law to recognize the licenses and prevent software (among other things) from being patented. Make that a separate bill. But for goodness sake, don't make government require FOSS without giving the same due to other NON-FOSS.
On the comment that nothing will happen unless the people who wrote this bill knows what FOSS is all about? We assure you that we have at least basic competence on the matter and consultants for some. We will not pose as experts nor we won't act as if we have a monopoly of knowledge because we don't. Like most of the common Filipinos, we are striving to understand FOSS and trying to legislate an anti-monopoly, anti-vendor dependence bill. FORGIVE US PLEASE FOR OUR SHORTCOMINGS.
If you missed the point: FOSS is about choice and freedom, and preserving these two things. Choice to use it in any way or form and freedom to redistribute and modify granted that it (the modifications) honors the original license slapped onto the software. Requiring FOSS in government is anti-choice and anti-freedom: because then you're trampling on the rights that it was originally trying to promote/preserve. Having said this, do you know a majority congressman I can talk to about it? I want to let them know how I feel about it too.
HAVING SAID THAT, THAT IS WHY YOU FOLKS ARE HERE. TO HELP US OUT. AND SO FAR YOUR HELP WAS FRUITFUL. FOR THAT I THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF OUR HEARTS over here at the office of Rep. Casiño.
Why we folks are here is because of choice and freedom. We choose to help, and we are free to help. Please remember that when you continue on pushing an anti-choice and anti-freedom policy. -- 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 [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
