Sabi ni Dean noong Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 8:23 AM:
> 4. Give copies of the software that we use, including source code, to
the
> public on whose behalf we govern,
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.
Eh?
1. The government agency paid for the software. They can do with it
darned well anything they want.
2. As Ciaran pointed out, reproduced below:
if we choose, so that they can
verify our compliance with the law of the country.
In fact, reading this excerpt again from Ciaran's post, I'm wondering
why government has a choice. Government paid with the software with
*our* money, we deserve to see where it went. I can think only of the
"national security" bogey that might prevent a government agency from
Freeing the code. Even then, they should have to justify that before a
Congressional oversight committee, in executive session if necessary.
3. I might add to Ciaran's point 3 that, from a technical standpoint,
we would like to see code developed for a government agency so the
public can audit it. That's one of the ideas behind open source, yes?
And, being able to audit it empowers us to improve on the code.
4. If disaster strikes the provider and they are unable to continue
maintaning the software, any qualified entity can come in and take
over -- subject of course to the usual bidding procedures -- and "hit
the ground running", having already studied the system. In fact, that
can be one of the criteria for qualifying bidders: that they
*demonstrate* an understanding of the system and their ability to take
over.
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" ?
It's government that's dictating upon itself. They may be "dictating"
upon their suppliers as well, but that's what government can do,
albeit supposedly on our behalf. Heck, they've been naming *branded*
software applications in bids -- you call that democratic?
--
Daniel O. Escasa
independent IT consultant and writer
contributor, Free Software Magazine (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com)
personal blog at http://descasa.i.ph
_________________________________________________
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
