On 12/27/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 23 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> On 12/22/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Not really... The government can buy generic drugs and not get the
> formula in the process: but the price and the terms are public
> information.
That's because they are GENERIC. No need to get the formula.
Ah, but I was pointing out the procurement process which you have
chosen to ignore. In the process, it's never required that the formula
be given to the government.
> How can a bill about Software in Government be technology neutral?
It does not favor a particular technology. It favors, however, the
freedoms granted by some FOSS licenses.
Software IS a particular technology just like a hammer is a specific
technology. If you don't understand this, then talking about the
freedom aspect wouldn't help your cause because it's intimately tied
to the technology the bill is talking about. Unless you recognize that
the bill is about procurement of a technology, then the freedom being
granted by the license attached to the technology can't be considered
under your pretense that the bill tackles "freedoms granted by some
FOSS licenses".
> See the definition #1: "the absence of necessity, coercion, or
> constraint in choice or action"
>
> So requiring the government to choose FOSS over Proprietary Software
> in all cases unless absolutely unavoidable is freedom?
Yes. In the same way that the government can REQUIRE citizens to obey the
law and pay taxes. Those are part of freedom. Unbridled choice is not the
freedom we are talking about here (as if that were really freedom anyway).
The government does not REQUIRE citizens to obey the lay and pay
taxes. The social contract between government and the people is what
binds the people to following the law and paying taxes. When people do
not abide by the law, people should get punished: and even the
punishment is defined by a social contract between the government and
the people.
Everyone -- and yes, even government -- has unbridled choice to do
precisely anything they want. However, this doesn't mean that the
choices you make will not have consequences.
By saying that only FOSS should be used unless absolutely unavoidable
is unnecessarily limiting the choices available, a form of coercion by
law, and is a fabricated necessity being legislated by the bill.
Instead of fixing the procurement process, we limit the choices and in
fact meddle with the freedom which our government should be able to
afford on a case to case basis.
> I have not made any misrepresentations here. I have been arguing to
> show that the FOSS bill is against my convictions on fairness and
> equality.
Well, I have pointed out that your arguments for doing that involve
misrepresenting twhat the bill mandates. So you are therefore engaginn in
misrepresentation (first definition, not second).
My arguments for doing what? I have interpreted the bill in the way it
is currently written. Now you're going to tell me that my
interpretation is meant to mislead others when I've only been airing
my opinion? So now you're the authority on what is the correct
interpretation of the bill?
> Garbage eh? So is that why you haven't made a solid argument against
> what I've been saying?
I sank your "loophole" argument a long time ago, Dean. That's pretty
solid.
No you didn't, and you haven't sank anything but your "street cred".
Riddle me this:
If a program was written from scratch, then how can you prove that
there is no way for a simple program licensed under the GNU GPL like
something that prints "Hello, World!" in a terminal to be turned into
something that fulfills a given technical requirement?
Since you can't prove that a GNU GPL'ed Hello World program can't be
turned into something that fulfills a technical requirement, then we
can assume that it would be certainly possible. Given this recognized
possibility, it boils down to a matter of time and resource.
Now if the government were to require that all the software it will
used will be under the GNU GPL, and since any GPL'ed Hello World
program can be turned into something that can fulfill the technical
requirements of the government, then there should be no reason why it
should qualify as a solution given enough time and resource to fulfill
the requirements. This simple argument will hold court, but of course
IANAL so you can take it FWIW.
And because of the above, Proprietary Software which should have been
able to fulfill the requirements at either the same cost or less is
now disqualified for entering a bid just because the requirement
states that all the government's computer systems will run only FOSS
unless absolutely unavoidable: but the above case shows that even a
GPL'ed Hello World program can make the use of Proprietary Software
avoidable in any case.
> Now, just because I make the most convincing argument (or most
> STRIDENT MISREPRESENTATION as you would call it) or am the most
> adamant opposition shouldn't give you the "righteousness" to make
> claims such that I am misrepresenting the bill.
Strident yes, but convincing? Merry Christmas!
The bottom line is that your alleged loophole doesn't exist. And you have
misrepresented what the bill says when you claim it allows such things as
Hello World programs to be considered as solutions.
The loophole exists with a case up top.
I have not made any misrepresentations, but I've only aired my
interpretation. Now if you think my interpretation is wrong, show me
how it's wrong and I will engage you in civilized debate. If you
disagree with my interpretation then call it as it is: don't claim
that I've misrepresented anything because I sure as hell haven't.
Or maybe you've been guilty of misrepresentation before that's why you
like using that word a lot?
And I can show you any day how a Hello World program can be turned
into something useful if you just stop spreading the FUD that
programming is hard.
--
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
