On 12/9/06, JM Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Dean Michael Berris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> 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.
If the public can't see the code, then it's not transparent.
Okay, so to you, transparency means that the public can take a look in
case they want to. For me, transparency is defined between parties
that engage in a transaction where either party is able to define
terms and look at the code. We can have a transparent transaction
involving software with both of us signing an NDA.
To give
you an analogy: say you have this all new process for recruiting and
filtering/choosing government employees. BUT, and here's the kicker,
only the government can get the details of the filter and selection
criteria, and the PUBLIC AT LARGE can't. Of course, it's a bonus that
they can.
But the analogy pertains to a process which involves the government
and the general public at large. What I'm talking about is the
requirement to determine whether software should be made viable for
government use, which involves *at least* the government being able to
look at the code.
Of course, our definitions or thresholds for transparency may differ,
and I'm perfectly fine with that. I actually like it that way. :D
--
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
