Hi Rage, On 9/15/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A lot of the arguments presented here centered around the freedom of choice and that making it mandatory to use FOSS in government is tantamount to removing that freedom of choice. I could not disagree more.
Hmmm... Let's get this straight: you say that making something mandatory (in this case FOSS) does not remove the right to choose fro the government. Does that even make sense?
When I was working in a private institution, I did not have a choice as to what software I would like to use or have installed in my PC because that choice has already been made for me as a matter of policy. That policy was in place for a reason. In order to make it more efficient for the company to manage its data it is necessary that an orderly and uniform system be in place. It included a policy on which specific format was used to save data which allowed everyone access to the data. In order to implement this policy, the company made sure that everyone understood it and were provided with sufficient training on how the policy was applied to each person's work. In this case, the choice exist. But it is not the individual's choice to make rather the institution's as a whole.
Ah, but the institution you worked for had a choice right? It could have chosen FOSS or Propreitary software. They set a policy internally which said "okay, guys and gals, we will use this software.". But the next day, the higher ups still has the choice to use FOSS, because nobody took that choice away from them.
In the case of this legislation, what is proposed here from what I understand, is that it is the government as an institution that decides on the policy and thus makes the choice. The government is free to choose the means by which it can effectively and efficiently serve and govern.
Hmmm... It's requiring every government agency to use FOSS only. Now if the government agency heads really had the choice, then they could say "I'm sorry, FOSS doesn't cut it for us so let's use proprietary software..." but unfortunately, even the government itself is removed of that choice because _it had already been required to use FOSS only_. This removes choice on all cases where software will be procured, because the government will only use FOSS. You see the difference? If government really had the choice, then on a case to case basis where software projects are bid on, every software that fulfills the technical requirements and other contractual requirements have the same chances of being selected -- now *that* is choice. If government already has a bias against any type of product based on a non-technical requirement arbitrarily set due to legislative preference is tantamount to discrimination. I will say it again: it's like not choosing an applicant who fits the requirement because she's a Muslim.
This legislation is not discriminatory since what it seeks to establish as policy is how the software it purchases or uses have to be provided (free terms) and not who has to provide them. Software providers are free to choose what licensing terms apply to the software they provide and the government is free to choose the terms by which it will purchase software. This proposal merely sets that policy in place.
The policy then should read differently. It should not require the license to be FOSS, but instead that source code is made available to the government upon turnover -- regardless of whether the license is under a FOSS license. So just to clarify, when you mean "free terms", that the software is not paid for by government? If that's the case, how do you achieve the goal of establishing an IT industry here in the Philippines by making government not pay for the software?
To quote http://www.opensource.org/docs/peru_and_ms.php "By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved."
This is PERU again. So let's say that's the case... So you mean to say, even if the product was made technically compliant to whatever technical requirements the government set, then it wouldn't qualify for bidding even because of a license issue? How fair does that sound to you? Oh wait, I'm asking the wrong person: you want government to use FOSS only. After all : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Peru <quote> The Republic of Peru is in a state of ongoing democratization. Led by President Alejandro Toledo, the executive branch is attempting to be transparent and accountable. Previously a rubberstamp body, Peru's unicameral Congress is emerging as a strong counterbalance to the once dominant executive branch, with increased oversight and investigative powers. The executive branch and Congress are attempting to reform the judicial branch, antiquated and rife with corruption. Peruvians, whose expectations were raised during the 2000 and 2001 election campaigns, are frustrated at the slow pace of economic recovery and job creation. As discontent rises, the Toledo administration is in a race to strengthen the economy so that popular pressures do not force a shift to more radical measures. So far, the Toledo government remains committed to neoliberal economic policies and structural reform in the hope of attracting sufficient international investment to generate growth and job creation. </quote>
In fact, there is no mention of which software to use, rather it only mentions the conditions which the government requires for software it uses or purchases.
Oh wait, it does: only FOSS. So of course, Windows is out of the question because of a "non-technical contractual requirement" read: "bias against proprietary software".
Much has also been said about whether or not it is even necessary to have such a policy in place. I argue that it is necessary for the reason I set forth above and in the following. Without a policy on the use of software in government we are in danger of creating critical systems that do not integrate well as a whole. We are at risk that state bodies may use software that is not at par or compatible with what others are using. Without a policy in place, government institutions who have already decided to migrate to FOSS -based solutions are doing so on there on without any guidance whatsoever. Without policy, we cannot rationally set rules and procedures that need to be enforced when implementing FOSS. Without policy, public data is at risk of being inaccessible and impermanent. Without policy, basic services and the government institutions that provide these are going to be crippled by the "unsustainable cost of government".
Okay, on one hand you're arguing administrative problems such as "cohesion", "integration", "standardization", "rules and procedures". Then you go about "data integrity and accesibility" then jump to "unsustainable cost of government". I maintain: the policy should set technical requirements on all software to be procured by government -- that only standard protocols and open file formats be used. However, it should not specify that *only FOSS* will be used. Certainly people can write (and have written) proprietary software that's good enough for government's technical requirements but is not under the FOSS license (Safari browser, Apple's Mac OSX, Microsoft Visio, etc.) -- I personally don't want government to be restricted to just FOSS like Firefox, Linux, GNOME and KDE, Dia, etc. It's not a secret that there are software firms that don't write FOSS -- but they should not be excluded from the government's choices because of a bias for FOSS. Our government doesn't need this bias, and can set better policies that are less dogmatic about software.
Policy defines the objectives we want to meet. It provides guidance on how we can achieve these objectives. Without policy, there is chaos.
Save this speech for the congress... It's like a poetic cry for support appealing to emotion. And mind you, it should be the other way around: your objectives should define your policy. Guidance is required to define policy, keeping the objectives in mind. So the objective is to have the government use FOSS and open standards. Then make policy that requires the use of open standards as technical requirements in software procurement projects, and come up with a comprehensive plan for evaluating FOSS and its viability in government.
It is therefore important that the subject of this discussion (the use of FOSS and open standards in government) comes within the purview of those who, while not being aware that such a possibility exists, stand to benefit from it the most.
I believe you're preaching to the choire here. However, proposing a policy that's anti-choice and anti-freedom is paramount to asking the Communist Party. Not that there's anything wrong with Communism, it just doesn't work.
Having said the above, may I ask everyone to refrain from using derogatory terms like zealots or fascists. There is no need for name calling or a shouting match. We are all rational people here so please keep your arguments to the point.
I have used the terms Zealot and Fascist to describe this bill, and I am on topic. It aptly describes properties of the bill which are totalitarian and adhering to the concept of "command and control" which removes choice from government -- the last thing I want to happen. -- 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
