Hi JM!
On 12/8/06, JM Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> A simple question would be this: would you work for free for the
> Philippine Government? I for one would not, and any pragmatic person
> will think twice or more before saying YES. Of course unless you're a
> communist and would like the communists to take over, then that'd be
> the day...
The cost on FOSS *is* distributed among all users, whether or not you're
the Philippine or US government. The cost savings are NOT hypothetical.
For instance, take the Linux kernel. It took it only a relatively short
span of time for the Linux kernel to gain SMP and NUMA support. (And
let's add the hypothetical dimension) If the Philippine government were
to have standardized on Linux for their servers, they would have gotten
that feature *FOR FREE*. 64-bit support? For free.
This shows that it's free NOW. Acquisition cost can be considered
"free" or "cheap" in other instances where you actually pay someone to
install it on your hardware.
And the security fixes? For free, again.
Free IF you're using a Linux distribution which makes their patches
available to everyone.
A third party vendor (or packager) can still make a Linux Distribution
which makes kernel modules which are not under the GPL -- therefore
"tainting the kernel" -- and not give back to the community. They can
make it available at cost, and only to subscribers. They will also be
protected by copyright laws in countries with such things.
You would know well about this, with the proprietary driver for the
motorola winmodem you've written a kernel patch for.
Comparatively: In the same time frame, getting Windows NT4 or 2K to take
advantage of those hardware features would have to somehow pay Microsoft
to have those in.
"Would you work for free for the Philippine Government?" Would you work
for free for the US government? Because having your code open source
would mean that exactly -- the US government (and the Philippine
government, and the British government, and the Norwegian government...)
would have access to those features you've implemented *FOR FREE*,
effectively. Is this a good thing? YES.
I'm not contesting the goodness of FOSS... I don't even understand why
you're bringing it up... We're on the same page here...
But as for "work for free" that would mean the Philippine Government
talked to you, asked for your services for absolutely zero fee -- or
you entered a bid to provide services to the government for free. Your
"donating your time and effort" when developing FOSS and contributing
to FOSS projects is not "working for free for the <insert country who
uses FOSS you contribute to> government".
Contrast this with our government choosing to use a proprietary stack:
Who do they turn to to get new features in? They are at the mercy of
the vendor. Can they pay the vendor to include features? Yes,
definitely. If they had gone to use an open source stack, they would
also have this dilemma, admittedly, but with an additional dimension:
they could hire someone in-house to also work with the code. AND,
here's where the long-term benefits accrue: if they can release those
changes in the wild, THE PHILIPPINE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT HAVE TO
NECESSARILY MAINTAIN IT. Fixes that are applicable to that changeset
will be propagated. An API changes? The Philippine Government DOES NOT
have to update their code necessarily -- especially if their changes get
in the main tree.
Yes, I agree. But then the *choice* to use a proprietary or open
source stack being made _by law_ is what I'm against. I'd love to see
FOSS get into the government, but I don't want it to get in because of
a law, and not on its own merit.
Besides, computing for ROI WILL ALWAYS DEPEND ON WIRING IN HYPOTHETICAL
SITUATIONS. You aren't sure that it'll happen, but you are sure that
there is a certain probability to it.
So what has ROI have to do with this again?
>> > This is a hypothetical conjuncture best used as FUD against
>> > proprietary or for the matter Non-FOSS solutions. Non-FOSS does not
>> > have to necessarily mean proprietary, and I can cite a lot of licenses
>> > that are not considered FOSS licenses but give the users access to the
>> > code AND redistribution rights.
WHICH, I believe is the important rights that, on a core basis, is what
FOSS is -- and I doubt that FOSS advocates would consider that
non-FOSS. What they would say is that those licenses are not
FOSS-conforming but FOSS compatible. The primary antithesis of FOSS is
basically proprietary licenses, IMNSHO.
So in which case, saying FOSS only would be a bit "incomplete".
However, saying "non-proprietary" would be too loaded.
I suggest that there be specifications that contain the requirements
for licenses to be acceptable to government, instead of saying "FOSS".
That would clear things up, and make it more verbose with its
intentions.
>
> So what criteria are these? Does this just mirror the GNU FSF criteria
> for "Free Software" or the OSI credo on source availability? Or
> perhaps some Pontious Pilate from some mountains' criteria only?
Read the bill, then.
Which version are you talking about? The one which says that the
license should be approved by the OSI or some international body? Or
the one which tries to define its own qualifications of FOSS?
> Let's come up with concrete recommendations, if they will be heard
> anyway.
Look, when you come up with a concrete recommendation, then that's not
the place for a House Bill -- that's like saying the government should
use only Acme Widgets and only Acme Widgets. What the bill *is* saying
is "here, we're the Philippine Government, and as an entity we choose to
use a particular *CLASS* of software (in the same way we're not using
Acme Widgets but Acme-compatible Widgets) instead of *ANOTHER CLASS*."
In the same way that the PC-compatible market drove prices down (because
now PCs were not just equated with having to buy IBM), having the
government say "hey, let's choose FOSS" is just that: a choice the
government has made.
But do you need a law to make that choice FOR EVERY AGENCY OF THE
GOVERNMENT? Why do you even need to make just one choice, and not on a
case to case basis?
> As far as I'm concerned, I'd like the FOSS bill to be scrapped, and
> deal with the problems head on without a prejudicial bill like the
> darned FOSS bill. Let's fix the procurement rules, the IP laws, and
> standardize the requirements on the Philippine Governments' system (I
> like the suggestion of POSIX compliance for OSes) and require that
> systems adhere to open standards defined by ISO.
EVEN in procurement rules, the IP laws, etc. *THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A
SIDE FAVORED*. It's not prejudice -- the law itself gives the basis for
the choice. Procurement? The side that bids lowest and fits the
criteria. Is it "prejudice", to judge beforehand? No. The government
is simply placing criteria -- so your software doesn't fit the
criteria? GO CHANGE YOUR SOFTWARE.
And the criteria set arbitrarily "just because" without even the least
bit trying to be objective about it? No thank you sir, I don't like my
government run that way.
As for a side favored, that would be contestable. When you say a side
is favored, that means bias -- because of a property, a discriminant,
that differentiates one from another. However, you are not favoring a
side _before_ you set the bid up (or at least you shouldn't) by giving
everyone the same information about the requirements, etc. -- only
when the bids are in, and the evaluations are made will a vendor be
chosen (again, at least that's how it's supposed to happen).
Setting a criteria which automatically eliminates a whole class of
things arbitrarily -- like only companies with blue logo's or has more
consonants than vowels in their names or those that offer ONLY FOSS
SOLUTIONS -- should be made illegal, just as how RFP's now require
that software works with just a certain set of specific BRANDED
Software. That way, it's fair to FOSS Solution Providers and non-FOSS
Solution Providers.
> Let's discriminate solutions using objective criteria like functional
> requirements, not via ideological boundaries -- remember, this is law
> we're talking about, not some arbitrary pronouncement or press
> release.
If we lived in an ideal world, this would work. As such, we don't, and
simply put, it will never work. Exactly -- this is the law, and not
some arbitrary pronouncement or press release. AND EXACTLY WHY IT'S
BEING DISCUSSED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. If it were some
executive order, then that's were I'd go against it. If the bill said
"solo FOSS -- only FOSS, no other" (it does have that escape clause
after all), then yeah, go against it, it's a bad bill. BUT, it isn't.
And precisely because it's being discussed in the house of
representatives to become the law of the land is the reason why I'm
contesting it. If that means I have to go to the ombudsman or talk to
some corrupt pro-administration senator/representative(s) if this gets
past the committee level, then I might just do so to torpedo the bill.
--
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
