On 12/8/06, JM Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 12/8/06, Daniel Escasa <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 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.
The fact that it's open doesn't mean people will look -- but it means
people *CAN* look. It's called transparency.
And having the government be able to look at the code is not
considered being transparent?
>> 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.
It's about the transparency. Let me repeat: Transparency, Transparency,
Transparency. NOT about the collaboration -- with transparency, you get
that for free. BUT, it's about Transparency, Transparency, Transparency.
Answer me this: If the government was able to look at the code and
decide for itself, should that not be enough transparency? Of course
it's a bonus that the code is made public.
> 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.
And is this not also a democratic process? Is this not also a way for
us to participate, by contesting bills that the people we have elected
have placed before us and asked "see here, what do you think? This'll
benefit us all." ? Can we not say "hey, I disagree" and come to a
consensus whether or not it is indeed "good"? Because if election's the
only democratic exercise that the Filipino people can participate in,
then all this talk is useless. The senators and the congressmen and
Madam President can simply issue laws without our consent. But they
_can't_.
JM. Read my statement again: as far as government is concerned, the
only democratic participation the people have is through democratic
elections.
The other liberties tied to democracy are what we're exercising here.
I am not discounting that.
--
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
