On 12/8/06, Roberto Verzola <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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?
Short answer: YES.
Vendors/solutions should be chosen *first* by meeting
specifications/requirements, then among the qualified candidates
choose the most cost-effective solution.
Putting it into perspective: If the FOSS solution and non-FOSS
solutions meet specifications/requirements, then if the FOSS solution
is more cost-effective than the non-FOSS solution, the FOSS solution
should be chosen. But there may be cases where non-FOSS solutions
become more cost-effective than FOSS solutions, and I want them to
have the same chance that FOSS has in the scenario on a case to case
basis.
> 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.
This I think is where we have a fundamental disagreement: I would like
OpenOffice to choose a default because it's alright for the authors of
OpenOffice to choose a default for me -- but I have a problem with
government choosing a default BY LAW for every government agency on
blanket policy.
I for one would not like to favor FOSS in government BY LAW. That is
what my gripe is about. However, if the CICT suddenly decided that
"hey, let's default to FOSS..." then I have no problems with that:
just make sure that it's not a default BY LAW.
As for justifying the use of commercial software, why not have them
justify their use of FOSS too? I mean, there must be a reason why FOSS
is chosen right? I am just saying that in every avenue, there should
be fairness and no prejudice for or against any form of solution: that
the choice be made on objective terms, and not as a matter of
ideological lineage/subscription.
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.
I am saying, there should be no default, and the choice be made on a
case to case basis.
--
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
