On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 22:19 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On 9/17/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 9/16/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > 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. > > > > The institution I worked for made that choice. The government as an > > institution has that choice as well. > > > > Yes, but saying government will make one choice for every situation is > tantamount to removing choice! No, it's not about government making one choice for everything. It's rather government setting a standard to base its choices from. Take note of the spirit of the bill - it aims to remove vendor dependence - which in turn gives more choice FOR the government. Contractors are still FREE to CHOOSE if they want to play the game or not. > What I'm saying is, that government should be free to choose on a case > to case basis _without preferential bias for a certain party or type > of product/service_. The technical requirements and criteria for > eligibility should not include any preferential criterion like gender, > race, religion -- and in the case of software, type of license. At > least, that's how _I_ see how it should be. Take note also that there IS a limitation to what governments can do. It is merely wrong if you think that the government should be free to choose _without preferential bias_ - if there must a bias for something, a government should be biased towards its citizens. If the government should see fit that FOSS is more advantageous to government rather than proprietary software, it's BUT INSANE that government should continue on terms DISADVANTAGEOUS to the interests of its citizens. That bias goes first for any government undertaking. > How I see it, making FOSS "the rule" is essentially problematic > because without appropriate study for specific cases a decision is > already made. Making non-FOSS alternatives to the main decision only > because there is no FOSS equivalent is a big mistake especially if > you're taking into consideration real-life case to case basis issues > like cost, timeline, and objectives which are external to the > technical requirements of the government on a case to case basis. > > > It is right for the government to choose the terms which are clearly > > advantageous to it and not simply accept the terms it is being > > offered. > > > > True, but I beg that this be done on a case to case basis, and not by > blanket policy because it's not reallistically beneficial for > government for the short and long term. Why? > > On the short term, you're dealing with migration issues, compatibility > issues, performance issues, adoption issues, and deployment issues. > You then need to build the required support infrastructure both > in-house and through third party VAS providers, which will take an > enormous amount of effort and will strain the government's operational > capacity. That's what I call a short-sighted view-point of solving the problem. If you really think that foregoing long-term benefits in favor of short-term "savings", you're not solving the problem. Focusing too much on short-term disadvantages rather than long-term advantages in foregoing solutions is already disastrous for any business - moreso in governments! > On the long term, you're dealing with maintenance, support, upgade, > modification, among other issues which are things that you cannot > ignore. All these points above are at the mercy of an army of > developers which are not even in the Philippine sovereign territory > especially if it's FOSS that you just pull down from the Internet. If > in case FOSS is made in the Philippines and used by the Philippine > government, maintaining software is not an easy task especially if > you've actually tried doing it (and especially if you're not the one > who wrote it). It costs lots of money because developer time is not > cheap, and the only way we're going to improve the IT industry here in > the Philippines is by paying the developers (_us_ developers) the > right due -- otherwise, we'll just go to where people will pay us more > to do FOSS programming, because that's the pragmatic choice to make. With proprietary you're also at the mercy of an army of developers who aren't even in Philippine sovereign territory! And they're charging an arm and a leg for software licenses and support licenses! AND guess where that money comes from? From every tax-paying citizen! The difference here is that with FOSS - governments have MORE choice on who'd do the maintenance, support, upgrade, modification and a lot of other issues that cannot be ignored. Contrast with proprietary software wherein YOU ONLY have the vendor to rely on. YOU have to BLINDLY trust the vendor's purported good will that said vendor wouldn't tank up and go bust! > > > 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. > > > > The technical requirements should not be the sole basis for the > > selection of appropriate software. Other requirements must be met > > whether or not these fall within the realm of technicality. This is > > what the bill is currently trying to address. > > > > There are two types of requirements: functional and non-functional > requirements. Functional requirements involve the technical operations > of a solution, while non-functional requirements deal with somewhat > external factors that are not directly tied but intimately related to > the solution (issues of user interface and ouput designs, scalability, > reliability, stability, icon design, and the likes). The software > license, is neither a functional nor non-functional requirement: it's > merely an expression of the rights granted to the end-user as can be > upheld by existing international IP laws. Take note that though this may not fall under functional or non-functional requirement - a license is still important. Without it, an end-user doesn't have any right to do anything with it, as by virtue of copyright law. > The license to the software is slapped on to the software _by choice_ > much like how religion is chosen by people (and people have the right > to practice a religion of their choice). The State (in our case, the > government) should not discriminate on the basis of gender, race, > religion, height, weight, facial features, foot size, and in the case > of software the type of license in policies set by congress, > especially the ones which affect all agencies. > > But unfortunately, some people seem to think that giving FOSS > preferential treatment is a good thing: while I feel alone in opposing > it. The State should first and foremost decide on what is more advantageous to its citizens, before applying everything else. This can be effectively called a discriminant, but it exists in principle of law. That is how governments are governed, and laws are enacted and decided. > Sorry, but no. The argument applies only to places where the > government operates under a democratic process: you can't make the > same case in North Korea, Syria, and Iran where the conditions and > principles of government are very different from what we have. Even > Peru's government is different from ours, and the arguments that apply > to our setting may not be the same for them -- and AFAICT, the > arguments for their policy don't apply to our government. > > > > 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. > > > > It won't qualify not because of the license issue but because it is > > not as advantageous to the government if it were freely (as in > > freedom) licensed. > > > > Oh wait... Look at the quoted sections again above. It seems that > you're mis-construing the provisions set in the bill with the concept > of "advantageous to the government". > > It clearly shows that any software that's not FOSS will not qualify > for bidding for government ICT projects because according to section > 6.2, only FOSS will be used for government ICT projects. See also the other section re: Exceptions. The rationale already refers to the savings that can be sought once the cost of software licenses is brought out of the equation. That, along with not having to buy the same software all over again (by implementing the advantage of FOSS licensed software to be reused for other government agencies) are advantages that FOSS licensed projects can give to the government. > I'm sorry, I beg to differ. It's apples and oranges: Peru is not the > Philippines, and the Philippines is not Peru. The United States of America is not the Philippines, and the Philippines is not the United States of America. The USA has different circumstances (being the only remaining superpower on Earth, and has standards of living different from what we have here). They may not benefit as much from a FOSS bill there compared to how much can us Filipinos benefit from it. > > > 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". > > > > Not biased against proprietary software because it does not rule out > > the use or purchase of proprietary software but merely sets it out as > > the exception to the rule on what government uses or purchases. There > > is a difference. > > > > Sorry, there is a difference between "bias against something" and > "exception to the rule"? There is. > > > 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". > > > > All valid arguments for the use of FOSS. > > > > But you've conveniently snipped out the section of your comment I was > referring to: > > " 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". > " > > You're not supporting the point that FOSS should be used by citing the > administrative and fiscal issues _you wish_ will be solved by just > using only FOSS in government. You're merely saying that the bill is a > panacea to set about the rosy ivory tower picture you and other people > want to paint when only FOSS is used in government. > > Microsoft Sales people can also make the same case for using just > Microsoft based products in government, so there's nothing really new > to what you're saying. You're just using the same argument that the > proprietary software people will use to push an agenda. > > The same points you're using are the same points that make a case for > proprietary software, so there's nothing new in that. > > > > 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. > > > > The policy should not simply be about meeting the technical > > requirements but also by the terms which are clearly more advantageous > > for the government. > > > > Clearly more advantageous for the government? I hardly think "using > only FOSS in government" is clearly more advantageous than "using > software solutions which fulfill functional and non-functional > requirements, which allow for extensions and future modifications, and > which use open standard technologies for interoperating with other > solutions _regardless of the software license_". > > > > 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. > > > > The rule is there as well as the exception. If there is a bias, it > > should be in favor of the government and not the other way around. > > > > The point is that there should be no bias for or against any software > based on the type license it comes with. > > > > Save this speech for the congress... It's like a poetic cry for > > > support appealing to emotion. > > > > I can say this *speech* here. Like you said this is a public forum. > > > > And because it's a public forum and public discussion, we should try > to keep it on topic. > > > > 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. > > > > I completely disagree. A policy statement on the use of FOSS in > > government will provide clear roadmaps. > > > > Sorry, but a policy statement should be guided first and foremost by > the objectives. Setting policy not aligned with any objectives is a > poor way of planning and running government. > > Roadmaps will come only when the objectives are clear and policies consistent. > > > > 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. > > > > That is the big picture. > > > > Sorry, but the big picture is not supported by the FOSS bill we've > been talking about. > > > > 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. > > > > Well, some members of this choir are clearly not in tune. I have also > > proven that this legislation is not discriminatory and is clearly > > within the sovereign right of the government to make that choice. > > > > I speak for a lot of people when I say that we in the Philippine Linux > Users Group are Free/Open Source Software users and advocates (some > even contributors). That doesn't mean that we all sing just one song, > or for the matter believe in the same ways of promoting FOSS. > > What you have proven, is only that you can seem to argue and seem to > sound convincing. You have not proven that the policy is not > discriminatory because of the quoted section 6 already makes it > discriminatory. > > The government has the sovereign right to protect itself from policies > that limit choice -- like this FOSS bill -- and unnecessarily favor > anything based on partisan agenda. Maybe the president can Veto this > bill when it comes to the point of enactment, which gives me an > idea... > > > > 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. > > > > In any case using those terms is offensive to those who do not see > > things *your* way. > > > > Sorry, but these two terms are objectively defined: > > zealot -- partisan: a fervent and even militant proponent of something > > fascist -- an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views > > [gotten from googling "define: zealot" and "define: fascist" respectively] > > Which is consistent with how I describe the bill supported by the > points that I've been raising. > -- 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
