On 12/8/06, Ian Dexter R. Marquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 12/8/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/8/06, Ian Dexter R. Marquez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Very laughable argument. Government *does* mandate policies for which
> > there are no other choices.
>
> Like?
>
> > That's what's governance is for. Or else,
> > anarchy would ensue. Imagine every layer of bureaucracy playing by its
> > own rules.
> >
>
> And you suppose that every layer of bureaucracy shouldn't have the
> right to set its own rules?
Please stop arguing for argument's sake. I could enumerate government
mandates, but that would put us off-tangent to the topic at hand.
I dare you: Make me.
>
> > The FOSS bill, which I maintain has been ill-named as such, provides
> > directions and policies that government should follow.
> >
>
> But it doesn't address the problem with the software procurement
> policies/guidelines/rules being undertaken by government agencies. The
> bill doesn't even touch that problem which it so touts to want to
> solve by making it mandatory to use FOSS.
That would be for the IRR. The bill is a statement of principles and
policies that will guide rules for government's software procurement.
Sorry, but policy states that you should make the implementation clear
even while the proposed law is in bill form. Even the implementation
should be made part of the deliberations, because your statement of
principles and policies are just fodder for privilege speeches in
congress. Concrete actions should be put in the bill, with the
appropriate provisions and rules which will be made into LAW.
> Toeing the FUD line? So you think making the use of FOSS mandatory in
> government is fair? How has making something mandatory been fair?
Government does it all the time. So do private institutions and
individuals. As JM and Paolo have said, you want to participate in
government software bids, change your software. If you can't abide by
the government's requirements, don't bid. Your choice.
I am asking you about fairness, and you have not answered the
question. You then cite arguments that others have taken time to
elaborate on, which is not even related to the question of the
mandatory provision.
Of course government can set its criteria as far as software licenses
go, but YOU DON'T NEED A LAW TO DO THAT.
The requirements specification process is what's broken, so FIX THAT
instead of pushing an agenda via law.
>
> > It is in the government's interest to create policies advantageous to
> > it, and not to kowtow to monopolistic dictates and such.
> >
>
> So fixing the software procurement rules is kowtowing to monopolistic
> dictates and such? Please...
Okay, I don't know how you put that together. Please run that by me again.
"It is in government's interest to create policies advantageous to it"
-- fixing the software procurement rules can be considered
disadvantageous to the government: so you're implying that "kowtowing
to monopolistic dictates and such" as an alternative to "creating
policies advantageous to [government]" is an offshoot of "fixing the
software procurement rules".
>
> My FUD line? Hmmm... Read section 6 about the mandatory use of FOSS
> only except when there is no FOSS suitable for the purpose.
>
> #include <iostream>
> int main(int argc, char * argv[]) { std::cout << "Hello, world!" <<
> std::endl; };
>
> licensed under the GPL can be turned into anything you can imagine.
> That locks out any other non-FOSS alternative because of the darned
> FOSS bill.
And that's bad because?
That's bad because other NON-FOSS solutions which may already solve
the problems which the above code will have to be modified still to
solve, do not get the chance to be considered by the government
because there's always this piece of code that can be an alternative
to anything.
I'm not a developer but would the non-FOSS
alternative to the above snippet, for example, be any better,
functionally and cost-wise?
For one, existing non-FOSS solutions will not need to be modified for
the purpose that it was built to serve. The cost of changing the above
snippet into a web based accounting system over SSL will (I imagine)
would be far more than say procuring QuickBooks or Peach Tree software
solutions. And because any competent lawyer can cite the FOSS Law,
QuickBooks and the like won't even be considered because suddenly all
"Hello, World!" programs in the GPL can be turned into whatever the
government wants -- and all these would have a distinct advantage
because they all will be more eligible than non-FOSS solutions that
already solve the problem.
I might be going around in circles but I cannot stress the big bad
loophole that the mandatory provision is introducing.
>
> NO. What's fair is not favoring ANY type of software, and deciding on
> a case to case basis.
On whose terms, by what guidelines? Granted, the executive branch can
declare it the government's policy to adopt FOSS, but how do we
enforce it, if not by law?
That is why we should fix the procurement rules, and not mandate that
only FOSS will be used as default in all government systems.
> Think about it -- just because software is priced on a per-use
> basis doesn't mean it's bad or inherently wrong.
>
Again, you're killing me.
So tell me again, what's wrong with paying to see a movie every time
you watch it? What's wrong with paying extravagant amounts for a piece
of sticker to enter a village gate? What's wrong with paying your
taxes (set arbitrarily by the government no less) regularly as a
function of your earnings?
Just because software is priced on a per-use basis doesn't mean it's
bad or inherently wrong. I would go as far to say as wrong is relative
to what you think is right -- then that becomes a philosophical
question of "inherent truth" which has been debated over and over, and
not even the renowned philosophers have agreed on that: which is why I
don't expect to get a good argument from you in this particular
conundrum.
Have a great weekend! :)
--
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
