"Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hi Manny, > > On 12/9/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> The commies were talking about both real property and means of production >> being owned by the STATE (their euphemism for "the people). Centralized >> control and social aggregation of power into the state are the hallmarks >> of communism. The Free Software ideal, in stark contrast, does not take >> away the means of production or the ownership of software from anyone. In >> fact, it is the very idea of private property and private enterprise that >> actually protects free software. Without it, FOSS could not continue to >> exist. >> > > Real property and means of production being owned by the state and > therefore the people -- and therefore everybody owns everything, > therefore not owning anything at all. Centralized control and > aggregation of power in the state _IS WHAT THE FOSS BILL IS TRYING TO > DO BY MANDATING THAT ONLY FOSS BE CONSIDERED UNLESS THERE ISN'T FOSS > THAT CAN DO THE JOB_.
You have to differentiate between the two -- having the *state* own it does not mean *you* own it. It's a critical difference. And the bill does not centralize control. Heck, it adds a dimension of *transparency* (as I pointed out in an earlier post) by having the software used publicly auditable. Power is not taken from you as a citizen. By placing a preference (and not a prejudice) for FOSS, the government is essentially saying, hey, we want to be more transparent. Besides, it does not *outright* say that "NO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE", nor does it imply it: I can sell the government proprietary software that does the job and more, still fitting the bill, if it fits a particular niche that FOSS doesn't do. I can name you several examples; I'd rather not. ;) The point here is, although FOSS is preferred, there is no provision that says "ABSOLUTELY NO PROPRIETARY/NON-FOSS SOFTWARE". In the same way that most procurement processes have criteria (and you as a possible supplier have to fit that criteria), government is just setting criteria, in this case FOSS. You may not fit the criteria, but that doesn't necessarily kick you out. With the bill, there is an "exit clause" -- if you can, as a supplier of proprietary software, make a case why the other (FOSS) solutions won't fit the bill, then you make it in. In fact, if you think about it, the bill does have that as a loophole. I'll leave it at that for now. > If you think about why Copyleft makes use of the rules of Copyright is > such that the thought of "ownership" of code becomes a misnomer -- > where nobody would really *own* the code, and that everybody would > have the right to use it because everybody effectively "owns" it. The > point of copyleft is to use the rules of copyright against itself -- > which I admit is clever, but is no more "right" than the converse. Copyleft does *NOT* change the ownership of the code -- it just *relaxes* it. Copyright law still applies -- you still have ownership of the code, you can still do whatever you want with it. HOWEVER, and this is the import point, the whole nature of a copyright license (and the GPL is such) is that it grants YOU the user (or everyone else) certain *rights* that are otherwise not granted by the owner. If you (the owner of the code) decide that, hey, this guy isn't following the rules you laid down (via and vis-a-vis the GPL), you can always pull the plug and demand that that guy not use your software. THIS MEANS YOU MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE CODE. Repeat after me: YOU MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF THE CODE. This is exactly the reason why MySQL AB, Trolltech, and other companies and products under dual-license regimes *have* to get you as a contributor to sign over your ownership to them. (And this is why the GNU Project via the FSF does the same too) Primarily because, YOU STILL OWN WHAT YOU CONTRIBUTED. Same goes for any license. So, I to think it's a misnomer is in itself a misnomer. YOU STILL OWN THE CODE. Analogy and thought experiment: I give you a machine that I own, built by me or purchased by me. I also give you permission to do *anything* and *everything* to that machine -- take it apart, fix it, add things to it, whatever. HOWEVER, I only give you *permission* to it; I don't grant you *ownership*. Those are two different things. I essentially give you a *license* to do what you want to do-- but being the owner, I can always decide to take the machine with me and sell it to someone else. THE VIRTUE OF HAVING ACCESS AND CONTROL DOES NOT EQUATE TO OWNERSHIP. Same goes with copyright. > >> >> > I was pointing out that if you think FOSS will be cheaper in the long >> > run, then think again: you need to pay people to administer, at least >> > reward the people who will modify monetarily, and "foster the growth >> > of the local software industry" thus means putting money to the >> > effort. >> >> You have to do the same with proprietary software in addition to the >> outrageous license fees. Windows systems, for example, need far more >> maintenance and even more administrators than Linux systems. So you will >> have to pay more for upkeep too. > > You need more maintenance with Windows systems than Linux systems? And > you need even more administrators for Windows systems than Linux > systems? Really? Now isn't this FUD... > >> Come off it, Dean, that's plain FUD >> you're spreading. > > FUD = Fear Uncertainty and Doubt > > I have none of the above -- I love FOSS, and I would love for FOSS to > get into government. However, I wouldn't want it to get in through the > FOSS bill. There has got to be a better way than mandating the use of > FOSS in government systems -- and apparently I'm alone with this > cause, except maybe for a few others who have also made their stands > known. > > I only have Disgust, Disdain, and Disappointment in the FOSS bill. > >> Time and again it has been shown that using open source >> results in dramatically far lower maintenance costs and TCO. >> > > Sorry, but now you're the one spreading the FUD against proprietary software. > >> >> > I was suggesting that if it's alright for someone to be under a >> > dictatorial communist rule, that the person was a communist and >> > presumably would agree with what the "mandatory FOSS" and "FOSS in the >> > long run will be cheaper" proposition. >> >> You were making a baselss suggestion then. It's the other way around. The >> communists would hate FOSS and the very idea of mandating FOSS in >> government because it empowers users in government! >> > > Sorry, but because of the "nobody owns anything because everybody owns > everything" nature of FOSS, communists will love it -- because they > can use it for free and make sure that every other software made > didn't have to be for profit, leaving the benefits to the "state" and > the cost to the people. > >> Really, these scare tactics about the "communist" leranings of FOSS have >> been debunked so many times one would truly have to uninformed or a liar >> to use them. > > Debunked so many times? Really now... Can you actually think of a > reason why Red China loves the fact that they got an OS kernel for > free, and wouldn't release their changes past the great firewall of > China? Or how NoKor is already benefiting from behind their iron > curtain? > >> I would like to think you're the former. Please try to >> educate yourself about the philosophical basis of FOSS before makign >> statements about it. Please. This is a serious request, not a polemical >> one. >> > > Read the GNU GPL in whole, and think long and hard why Stallman et al. > would like the changes to be made available to the public upon > redistribution. Think long and hard why some of the most successful > software projects are not in the GNU GPL, but rather in more relaxed > licenses. And think long and hard why you really support the FOSS > bill: is it because you're just all for promoting FOSS and not about > building a fair playing government, or is it because you stand to gain > from having FOSS mandatory in government? Of course I don't care what > you think, but I respect the fact that you choose to give me > unsolicited advice about being "a better FOSS advocate and not a > proprietary FUD spreading fool". I'd like to point out that there are successful projects under both in more relaxed licenses and the GPL, the BSD licenses in fact *almost gives away ownership* completely. Ponder that. And, as a side comment, that's why the Linux kernel cannot be relicensed under GPLv3, precisely because *there is no single owner of the Linux kernel codebase*. Linus Torvalds can't suddenly wake up one day and make everything GPLv3. -- JM Ibanez Senior Software Engineer Orange & Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://software.orangeandbronze.com/ _________________________________________________ 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
