Hi Paolo,
On 9/23/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> This only supports the situation where inferior FOSS will be used just
> because it's FOSS, compared to competent non-FOSS when the bill does
> get passed into law in its current incarnation.
Huh? The current law doesn't even recognize FOSS to a degree, as it has
problems with "license transfers". I suggest you review the laws on
procurement again, then get back here.
So we're arguing that the bill's amendments to the IP law will not
take into effect? There's an amendment there saying that FOSS licensed
software will be recognized as valid solutions.
If it's the current law you're talking about without the amendments
proposed by this bill, then you're right _unless the software was
going to be produced by government_ or _unless the software was
consciously chosen by government without third party intervention_.
Now, if currently the third party was being subcontracted to produce
the software wherein the copyright is transferred to the Philippine
Government (look at the eLGU project, which IMO is a very big
failure), then that's alright.
Now there's an example of crappy FOSS getting into government.
>
> So opposing the FOSS bill is corrupt? Now you're equating FOSS with
> good governance and seeing FOSS as the silver bullet or "the one ring
> in the darkness bind them".
This is getting truly idiotic... what I'm referring too is the "do it
once, do it well" mantra. It simply DOES NOT WORK in the real world (if
you're living in this same planet as we all do).
Please make it clear what you're referring to.
Do it once, do it well doesn't work? How many times have you had the
chance to graduate from College? Wouldn't you want to do it well the
first time? (I know I'd want to graduate eventually, but that's off
topic ;-) ) For surgeons, how many chances do they have to operate on
someone to save that person's life?
In Government, how many chances do you have to write a constitution?
How many chances do you have at making the right choice to vote for or
against a bill?
If you screw it up the first time, there will be enough precedent and
political momentum to stop an effort dead in its tracks. If you don't
do it right the first time, then you're pretty much screwed. Remember
the GMA impeachment?
> Real world politics aside, I don't care. I oppose the mandatory FOSS
> only provision because I feel it's wrong and extremist. I don't care
> if it's going to be watered down in congress, because the proposition
> is still the same and that is what I'm against.
So you really don't care what happens... oh well.
If the bill gets watered down, that's irrelevant to my opposition of
the FOSS bill in it's current incarnation. I don't assume it's going
to be watered down -- and if it so happens that it doesn't get watered
down, then we're stuck with legislation that's making the government
use FOSS only in all future ICT projects. That's what I personally
don't want to happen.
>
> You're talking about a non-open standard file format, which is what
> the bill is against!
>
> You're using an example, where youre using an open standard technology
> to render data into a non-open standard format, which is what the open
> standards bill is against! Read your own example, and see what you've
> missed man...
I used that to counter your example, imho, that it's merely enough to
use XML. It's not merely enough that you use an open standard such as
XML if it's just for the purpose of lip service. What I've shown is how
you "corrupt" the spirit of an open standard.
Hmmm... I thought open standards were supposed to be clearly defined.
>
> OpenXML is not an open standard format!
Exactly! Now you get my drift :) OpenXML is an application of XML, which
is an open standard. But OpenXML itself is NOT an open standard, since
it refers to other technologies that CANNOT be implemented by anyone
else.
So therefore we're not really disagreeing on the point of open standards. ;-)
>
> Because it's better for them? It's a business decision? They want to
> play with the DOD?
Idiotic response. The real reason (if you bothered reviewing networking
history) was that the DOD DID NOT WANT TO BE LOCKED BY A SINGLE VENDOR.
This is the same DOD back then that didn't even allow the use of COTS,
and had their own standards of programming (ADA), which they only
relaxed during the later years of the 20th century.
So if the DOD did not want to be locked to a single vendor, what has
that to do with IBM's decision to support and use TCP/IP?
We have the same position here. However, I've already given my rationale
why I choose the extreme route - as this bill is sure to be watered
down. Call it stupid, but it's how things do happen. You're free to lead
your own revolution though to oust X government official(s) if you want
more drastic, across the board changes.
Thank you, we finally get to a conclusion.
And no thank you, I'd rather be President... NOT! hehehe
--
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
