On 12/12/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 12/9/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
This is pure FUD.
HAHAHAHAHA!
I'm actually not afraid that it's true because it is true: you can
modify any Hello, World program to pretty much do anything you want.
You're the one displaying FUD here: you're afraid that it's true! :P
Like I said before, no one in his right mind can
ever construe the bill to mean that any little "Hello World" program
should be considered as meeting real-world government requirements in a
bidding. That's absurd. The law doesn't say that. This is a willful and
obvious DISTORTION and MISREPRESENTATION of what the bill mandates.
You just wish Manny... I think you're just stomped you just didn't
think of that before I did.
Had I not pointed it out, you wouldn't second-read the bill.
It's not absurd that any GPLed Hello World program can be turned into
anything your imagination and capabilites can allow. Unless you
haven't done it before...
But at any rate, the wording of the bill in its current form allows
it: the requirements are that the software be licensed under a FOSS
license. Unless there isn't any suitable FOSS already out there, only
then can we consider proprietary software. But wait, it can be shown
and proven that ANY GPLed Hello World program can be turned into
practically whatever you like: which is a big loophole whether you
like it or not.
Any competent lawyer worth his salt can make this argument work. If
the FOSS bill passes, we can say goodbye to Proprietary Software ever
to be used again in government systems: it might be a good thing, may
be a victory for FOSS, but a hollow one at that because it had to lie,
cheat, and steal through the FOSS bill. Oh sure, you'd like that
because it's more fair than say letting FOSS get in on its own merit
on the same playing field as non-FOSS right? Please...
The bottom line is that a FOSS solution must meet requirements. If it
still requires major tweaking then it doesn't meet requirements.
Wait, when the FOSS bill gets in, a piece of software being FOSS
already meets the requirements! READ THE BILL!!!
Then one
can consider proprietary solutions. Now if those don't meet requirements
either (and that is just as likely), then at least the government (or some
third party) can tweak the FOSS code.
Dream on. Any competent lawyer worth his salt can make the "GPLed
Hello World Program for every requirement" stick.
Of course, if you haven't seen it in that light, you wouldn't care to
consider that possiblity now, would you? Now had the procurement rules
been set to "fair" and FOSS and non-FOSS can compete on a case to case
basis, then you'd find that it's not really that bad after all
wouldn't you? Then we'll not need the FOSS bill to make the required
amendments, the requirement for Open Standards.
As for education, who gives a damn when you have better non-graduate
developers out there changing the world whether they learned MS
Windows or GNU/Linux during their college days?
You can't do that with proprietary
software unless you pay the software manufacturer. Customization isn't
cheap, no matter what the code, but at least with FOSS you have
more options (including do-it-yourself) other than just asking the
copyright holder for help.
Okay, spare us the FUD. You're the one displaying FUD here: you're
afraid that Proprietary Software really does some things better.
Unless you can get over this, then I think you need to reevaluate what
your stand really is on the FOSS 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
