On Fri, 22 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
I thought Manny was smart enough for his own good... So I'll ride this
one FWIW, so everyone please pardon me for making patol to Manny
"Won't Pick On Someone My Own Size" of "phix.net".
Are you saying you're small, Dean? Hehehe... Joke yan, ha?
Too late for fun. It's almost New Year's day and I've resolved to be nice
to you.
If the question is "can it be done?" the answer is most certainly YES.
The other question of "is it practical to do it?" can be answered by
an "it depends".
But it doesn't matter. A Hello World program DOES NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS
(unless the requirement is to display "Hello World"). So no matter how
possible it is to transform the program into anything on earth, it simply
DOES NOT MEET ANY REAL WORLD REQUIREMENTS. There's no loophole in the FOSS
bill that allows you to claim that programs that meet no requirements must
be chosen just because they can theorietically be modified at some future
time to meet requirements. No loophole. Not in section 6, not anywhere in
the bill.
doing a major disservice to the cause: because using and creating
software is and should never be about ethics/morals but should be and
is first and foremost a means to an end.
Uh, no. Now THAT is zealotry. NEVER be about freedom? Well, others think
it's about freedom, even if you don't. And you can't stop others from
doing so.
I'm sorry, I wasn't trying to scare anyone: I was stating a fact. Just
the other day, I was able to come up with a daemon which started off
as a measly Hello World program (under the GPL) and made use of
non-FOSS (Boost Software Licensed) components which allowed me to get
something useful up and running in a matter of days.
Like I pointed out, it was no longer simply a Hello World program by the
time you got it to do anything that remotely met your requirements. You
didn't have a Hello World program anymore. And when you propose a solution
in response toa government RFP, you will never get by with [proposing a
Hello World program that can theoretically be made into anything else.
The program simply WILL NOT MEET REQUIREMENTS. No loophole.
I have a clear conscience that I am just fighting for fairness and equal
opportunities for all players who should have equal opportunities to
deal with government regardless of their ideological stance.
Of course you do, or else you wouldn'ty be doing it. I don't think Bill
Gates loses much sleep over his actions either.
I'm not plucking scenarios out of thin air. I've been a part of many a
projects that started as measly hello world programs which turned into
considerably complex, functional, production systems.
And as I pointed out several times, they WERE NOT Hello World programs by
the time you got to make a serious proposal to meet requirements. I
wonder, would you propose a Hello World program to meet a government
requirement for a GIS system? Whatever your solution started out as, you
would look preposterous proposing just a Hello World program in repsonse
to a government RFP for a GIS system. In other words, it would have to
MEET REQUIREMENTS when you propose it. No loophole.
And defining "Major Overhaul" is not within the realms of quantitative
measures as far as software goes. Changing one line of code can be
considered Major overhaul in some projects, while a trivial change in
another.
And it simply doesn't matter. If a Hello World program doesn't meet
requirements (and it won't unless the requirement is for displaying
"Hello World" or something just as trivial), then it DOES NOT MEET
REQUIREMENTRS. No loophole.
I don't know why you like to call this FUD, because I'm not trying to
sell proprietary software here using the arguments based on FUD... I'm
simply stating something that in my belief is clearly very easy to do.
Easy perhaps, but it still WON'T MEET REQUIREMENTS unless you submit a
proposal that is already much, much more than a Hello World program that
actually DOES meet requirements. No loophole.
Hmmm... I wasn't the one which asserted that FOSS is superior to
Proprietary Software. And I certainly wasn't the one which said
Government would be better off using FOSS only anyway... And I wasn't
the one who was pushing for a FOSS bill that clearly favored FOSS in
government.
In other words, you CAN'T find any such statement from me. I thought so.
Just as there isn't a national policy favoring any religion -- nor
should there be -- there shouldn't be a national policy favoring any
ideology as far as software licenses are concerned. *This* is what I
stand for, and since this FOSS bill goes against this ideological
framework which I operate under, I oppose it under these grounds. If
you haven't seen it yet, then there I've spelled it out for you. It's
not FUD, it's DDD -- see previous posts if you even care to read.
It's FUD because you misrepresent what the bill says.
And I question your stand in the first place. The government doesn't favor
any religion, but it clearly favors certain moral precepts that can go
against certain religions. For example, murder is prohibited, so that
pretty much outlaws human sacrifice (which is part of some religions).
In the same way, the government chooses to favor freedom and to enter into
contractual agreements that are favorable to the government (to protect
public money). The FOSS licenses allow the government to do such far
better than proprietary licenses in many, if not most, cases. In other
words, the license is an important practical, public interest
consideration. The freedoms granted by FOSS licenses are important
and must figure in the valuation and evaluation of software procurements.
There is no reason for not doing so. You misrepresent this as an
ideological whim. It is not. It has real, far-reaching implications
implications for good government and public interest.
So go ahead, it's just making you look juvenile calling me FUDsy and I
will indulge in engaging you anytime about how you are afraid that the
next generation is actually more pragmatic and open minded than you
are.
Hehehehe... Christmas time. Merry Christmas Dean (ayan, no more FUDsy;
peace na lang). Consider this as a *PUBLIC APOLOGY* for calling you that.
By the way, I have an interesting exercise for you. Pretend we're two
congressmen (God forbid!) trying to find a compromise amendment. It seems
the only contentious section is the part that mandates choosing FOSS by
default. I have already come up with several "mods" to the original FOSS
bill formula which can be considered compromises. They all stink, of
course, and make no one really very happy, but that's why they are
*compromises*. I can detail them in a later post if you are interested in
them.
God bless!
---
Freedom consists not in doing what we like, but in having the right to
do what we ought. -- Pope John Paul II
--[Manny [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Member: Philippine League for Democratic Telecommunications
Alternative Information and Opinion at http://www.phnix.net
Pro-Life Philippines website -- http://www.prolife.org.ph
--[Open Minds Philippines]--------------------[openminds.linux.org.ph]--
_________________________________________________
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
