> 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_.
Then, do you also disagree with the government policy that bidding committees should as a general rule (not on a case-to-case basis) choose the LOWEST BIDS among the bids that meet the specs? > 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. If OpenOffice set Arial 12 as its default, does it take away your freedom to choose Times 11? We are arguing that FOSS is a more reasonable default choice as far as our tax money is concerned than Microsoft programs, which are the defacto default in government today. This analogy is not quite exact, because on a case-to-case basis (exceptions to the default), individual offices must JUSTIFY using commercial software. Another way of looking at it: you are saying the govt should choose FOSS on a case-to-case basis (in effect leave M$ as the defacto default). I'm saying they should choose M$ on a case-to-case basis, and change the default to FOSS. Regards, Obet _________________________________________________ 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
