On 12/27/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> In the same sense, the software's source code need not be public
> information (or licensed to the general public) for the government to
> procure a copy or acquire a license to use the software. But with the
> FOSS bill, it's what's being made to require.
As it should. The license makes a huge difference in the value and even
useability of the software procured with public money. That is why
software with licenses that grant the freedoms given by FOSS licenses must
always be preferable.
But then again, this goes against my personal conviction that FOSS and
Proprietary Software, or any kind of software for that matter, should
have the same chance of getting into government computers through a
clear-cut technical basis and not an arbitrary ideological preference.
If may be through using open specifications and standards but the
requirement that it be FOSS is needless.
And because of this mandatory FOSS requirement that I am against this 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
