On 12/7/06, Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Dean.
> Hi Sir Obet,
Obet lang pls... We are not members of a round table...
Okay. :)
Hi Obet,
>
> Hmmm... Should the government make a choice by law? Or shouldn't
> government play fair and do it on a case to case basis?
In fact, today, the law and govt rules require that among bids which meet
specifications, the bidding committee of a government agency should choose
the LOWEST BID. This is a general rule and not case-to-case. Nobody questions
this policy. We FOSS advocates are simply saying that government agencies
should choose the free (in both sense of the word) software from commercial
one, as long as the former meets specifications.
I am also a FOSS advocate, and I think I've done my fair share of
advocating in my own ways. However I disagree with making government
agencies choose FOSS over commercial licensed software _ALL THE TIME_
in cases where there is a choice -- I would rather have the government
agencies make the choice on a case to case basis _without the FOSS
bill/law_.
I for one stand for freedom, but I don't see how legislating prejudice
FOR FOSS works as something that promotes freedom. If it is truly the
freedom to choose which the FOSS bill is promoting, then the mandatory
clause should be taken out.
> Although FOSS is not any one piece of technology, it certainly refers
> to technology -- specifically software -- licensed under a FOSS
> License.
Yes of course, software is technology. But when we talk of FOSS vs commercial
software, our interest is really in the licensing and not the technology
itself. BSDI and FreeBSD (or RedHat and Fedora) are basically the same
technologies, but we differentiate between them because of their licenses.
Actually, I don't agree with this assessment.
When I talk about FOSS vs Proprietary Software, my interest is to
differentiate the development models that make these software "work".
Aside from the licenses, the actual development model that actually
supports the FOSS and Proprietary Software differ most of the time
which may or may not be of value to the government.
So. choosing FOSS over commercial software is not a choice of technology, but
of licensing models. The bill does not force agencies to choose Linux over
BSD, Minix, FreeDOS, or other "technologies".
But why choose FOSS over commercial software (more appropriately,
Non-FOSS) for all cases by law? Why not just have government choose
which one is cheaper on a case to case basis, and have the third
parties actually bid for providing these software and services to the
government?
If FOSS is really as good as we believe it to be, why do we need a
FOSS bill to get it into the government? And why do we even think of
making it mandatory, if we believe that it's good enough to make it
into the government systems because of the technical merits?
This is why I would like to kill this FOSS bill, and just challenge
the advocates here to bid for government systems and propose FOSS
solutions instead of hoping that the bill gives FOSS advocates a
handout to not do the work that needs to be done.
--
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
