On 12/8/06, Daniel Escasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sabi ni Dean noong Fri, Dec 8, 2006 at 8:23 AM:
>
> 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.
OOPS again.
If the government agency paid for acquiring a license to the software,
then they are bound to the licensing terms provided by the vendor. I
remind you that the copyright may stay with vendor, and the government
is just acquiring a license to the software they are using. This is
how the software licenses work.
NOW, unless the government had been creating the software on their own
and hired people to build it, the software is copyright to the
Philippine government -- only then will they have the right to do
darned well anything they want with it.
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.
Then bring this up to your ombudsman. Pick the fight where it counts.
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.
Actually, the ideas behind open source is for open collaboration. Only
the GPL had the idea of licensing the code to the general public.
And just because it's open doesn't mean people will actually look...
This is the biggest misnomer that is propagated by the FOSS zealots.
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.
Again, this is a what-if. Had government had the rights to the source
code in the first place, and an acquired right (via the license) to
have it modified as it sees fit -- even have a third party do it for
the government -- then there's really no need for the code to be made
public at all.
> 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?
The only democratic exercise that the Filipino people can participate
in as much as the government is concerned is the election process. Go
look it up.
--
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
