Hi Sir Obet,
On 12/3/06, Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the mandatory implementation of F/OSS within the Gov't, I am on the side
> of pro-choice. Same with my clients, I always promote and recommend
> M$....but also inform them of the alternative, F/OSS. Then I leave up to
> them to decide which technology platform to use. If my clients want M$,
> then good for me.
This is where things get complicated. You say "pro-choice". Yet, when the
government finally *makes a choice*, and says "let's choose FOSS", the
commercial software reps cry out "mandatory".
Hmmm... Should the government make a choice by law? Or shouldn't
government play fair and do it on a case to case basis?
The commercial reps misunderstand (or misrepresent) FOSS as a technology. It
is not. FOSS is about insisting on a bundle of rights with respect to
software -- the right to use, to share with other, and to modify the
software.
Sorry, IIRC FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. If the software
part isn't clear, I don't know what you mean... Free and Open Source
are descriptions of a piece of software -- when you're talking about
the license, then you say FOSS Licenses : these are the ones that deal
with the rights and "respect" that you may be referring to.
Although FOSS is not any one piece of technology, it certainly refers
to technology -- specifically software -- licensed under a FOSS
License.
Unless you're referring to a different FOSS...
And but of course this is just semantics -- which is what's very
important really.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com
+63 928 7291459
_________________________________________________
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
