Hi Ciaran,
On 07 Dec 2006 12:40:29 +0000, Ciaran O'Riordan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> > The commercial reps misunderstand (or misrepresent) FOSS as a technology. It
> > is not. ...
> IIRC FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. If the software
> part isn't clear, I don't know what you mean...
This is not about software technology, this is about software procurement
policy.
Agreed.
The two are not the same. Consider the procurement of military equipment.
The goverment might have some technological criteria (such as compatibility
with existing equipment), but those are secondary. The primary criteria are
about independence and democracy. If a manufacturer was selling arms but
told governments "You can only fire this at countries that we designate", a
good government would reject that technical equipment, and the rejection
wouldn't be about technology.
I agree with this too.
For software, there can also be technical criteria in procurement policy,
but first the government should fulfil it's democratic duties.
Hmmm... Democratic duties? How does legislating a "mandatory choice"
sound to you? Does that sound democratic at all?
What are the democratic duties of a government regarding software? IMO,
governments should say:
Granted that this is "In Your Opinion", I'll ride along.
We will only accept software if we are free to:
1. Use it in any way we choose for any purpose we choose, so the software
cannot restrict our ability to govern according to current and future
law.
I agree...
2. Look at the source code to see everything that it is doing.
I agree...
3. Change it in any way that we choose (by modifying the source code) such
as to adapt to changes in law or to improve efficiency.
I agree...
4. Give copies of the software that we use, including source code, to the
public on whose behalf we govern, if we choose, so that they can verify
our compliance with the law of the country.
OOPS. This is where I think I draw the line.
I know a lot of licenses that fall under the top 3, and even
proprietary software licenses can be tailored for government use to
fall under the top 3 criteria. But this one is just a tad bit too far
for my taste.
Why should the software be redistributable to the public? Why not just
within government?
I believe it should be enough that software the government uses should
be under the government's scrutiny and evaluation in source and binary
form. Requiring it that it be available to the public too is just
needless IMO.
The software that fits these criteria is free software, but those criteria
are about democracy, not about technology.
Which is why I am against being biased or prejudiced for "Free Software".
And since it's about democracy, shouldn't we let the people involved
with choosing the software be able to choose in a democratic way
without having to legislate "one choice in the darkness bind us all" ?
--
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
