Rogelio Serrano wrote:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> They'd still
> be paid for the services and labor they incurred, which are real costs
> by the way - so why should government pay for artificial costs like
> onerous per-seat, per-user and per-CPU licenses?
>
What the hell is wrong with per-seat/per-user/per-CPU license
acquisition costs? You pay for the water service on a per-liter/gallon
rate, you pay for electricity on a per-kilowatt-hour per connection
rate, and you pay for rice on a per-kilogram rate. So what if
acquiring a license to use the software is rated differently? What
makes that onerous?!
Because you are getting something tangible. Electricity is generated
by burning fuel which is bought abroad. You are paying for the fuel
indirectly. Water is pumped and cleaned and then distributed. Software
is different. I understand that i get paid to build software and i get
paid to distribute the software but payment for its use! Thats a big
swindle! Thats only possible because you have a monopoly on the
equipment and brainpower to produce software. Its like me saying, "You
have a lot of money but i own the pass".
Payment for maintenance yes but for using it no way! Its mine its in
my hands i do whatever i want to do with it. Its mine im not renting
it! when i buy a car i cant change the engine why cant i do something
similar with software? If i buy a hammer i can do whatever i want with
it. I can even redistribute it. I can add things to it. I can even
drill holes in it. Whatever.
Paying to use the software is onerous. I pay for one copy i should be
able to create more copies. If i want to extend it then i extend it.
The root of the matter is, the tools for creating software is not
monopolized by the few anymore. Anyone with the capability can create
software. So there is nothing the software companies can do to stop
people from creating software that they need. Everyday new software is
created and one by one proprietary software will be replaced by these.
Whether you pay for the use of software or whether you buy software is
dictated by the EULA. Which is basically a contract. If you don't like
it don't use it. If you want to buy the software, look for someone who
is selling it not "renting it". You are correct the tools for creating
software is no longer controlled by a few. therefore there is no need
for a bill that imposes the use of FOSS simply because it is FOSS. The
government should be able to use software based on its merits, not
because it is dictated by law.
_________________________________________________
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
