Hi Sir Dex!
On 9/16/06, Ian Dexter R. Marquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hello, Dean:
Please read the bill *in its current form* again.
Yes, I have read it again -- that being the one entitled 'FOSS Bill'
attached as a PDF. Unless we're talking about different things...
So it doesn't make
the cut -- your cut -- but hey, at least there's a need that's being
addressed. Why not give your dissent -- formally and in writing -- on
the particular points of the bill you dislike, and submit it to
Congress? You can do that. You paid for their salaries, right?
I was actually looking for an administration congressman to talk to
just to get my points accross. I'm too cynical to think that congress
will actually read a letter from a lowly citizen like me, and would
rather go through the channels via "connections". What are they for
anyway? ;-)
I'm not being sarcastic, man. I just don't understand what your point
is (forgive me for being thick or, in your words, *anal*): maintain
the status quo, perhaps?
If I have expressed that I want status quo, then I need to clarify
myself: I want change, but I believe this is not the right change to
make. I want a federal parliamentary government, where we have
self-reliant states who know what's better for their regions. I want a
unicameral legislation, with a prime minister and a liberal party
that's united. But then that's a dream I don't think a lot of
Filipinos share with me -- and which is besides off topic.
As far as the FOSS bill goes, I believe (and am adamant) that there is
a better way of approaching FOSS than requiring it be the only thing
used in government. There should be promotion of open standards
without requiring that only FOSS will be used by government. There
should be a comprehensive study on the viability of FOSS for the
myriad of agencies we already have but not mandatory requirements.
I have a problem with the approach taken, and I'm not afraid to let my
thoughts known. Especially when it comes to politics.
The bill, which has the most obvious defect of being called the "FOSS
bill" (they could have just as well named it "The Enforcement of Open
Source and Standards in Government IT Initiatives" bill, but that's
way too tedious), should really be seen as a way to promote -- and
encourage, and *enforce* -- the use of technologies that are
nonproprietary (using open standards, among other things) and not
locked in to monopolies and single-owned entities.
Why don't we just declare war against Microsoft if that's the case?
But the thing is, I don't want to do that (nor declare war against
Oracle, IBM, Sun, or whatever legitimate software company there is in
the world) because that's not my agenda.
If the bill *is* a way to promote open soruce, then you're taking it
to the wrong venue: Congress is not Mendiola, and promotion should
happen through Mass Media. Congress is not some militant's playground
where we insult the institution by filing bills that are just "meant
to promote an ideology/religion".
What is so wrong with compliant proprietary software anyway? So what
if I the government uses Dreamweaver to come up with nice looking web
pages which are in HTML, and accessible over HTTP, over TCP/IP -- all
in themselves open technologies ?
If you don't believe in FOSS, and don't want to write software with
FOSS-related licenses, then that's your choice. You can opt out of
bidding on government projects (which, I think, is really a profitable
industry for some). The thing is, it's the State's choice to use FOSS.
I actually believe in Open Source Software (I write open source
software too) -- but stay away from infectious licenses like the GPL
(I just don't need the dogma). I like the idea of being able to use
software as it is _even to make profit out of selling or supporting_
it.
I however am against the discrimination FOR FOSS, because I sincerely
believe that if it's good enough, it doesn't need the special
treatment.
And biased for FOSS, you say? What, would you have it the other way
around, like what is currently the case? Would you rather that all
government information -- public and *ideally* accessible to all -- be
locked to a single nonproprietary de facto standard that the State or
the people would have no control over?
No, I am just against the bias for FOSS -- but am in favor of making
sure that government information be made available to everyone using
open standard technologies.
I would rather that government publish the information in an
accessible and open fashion using standard technologies that are
"license agnostic". It doesn't matter to me if the software you used
to create the HTML document is proprietary or free: what matters is
that I be able to access that public information in a format that's a
recognized standard.
There's a choice to make here: the State is exercising its freedom --
its mandate -- to choose. Better the devil you know, as they say.
*shrugs*
The State has a freedom (right even) to choose -- but it does not have
the right to limit its future choices. Making a choice to not use
anything else in the future aside from what will be mandated today is
reducing choices and therefore a violation of your fundamental
right/freedom to choose.
Now, where is that administration/majority congressman...
--
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
