On Wed, 27 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
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.
Because they are GENERIC. There is no need.
Software IS a particular technology just like a hammer is a specific
technology.
And the bill does not favor any specific type of software (although the
language may l;ead one to believe otherwise). It favors the freedoms
granted by FOSS licenses. The bill is *about* software, but that's the
underlying assumption of the entire thing: that software is something that
the government may wish to procure. But since it favors no particular
software really, but rather a form of licensing, it remains
technology-neutral. You're just splitting hairs and not making a case at
all.
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.
Uh, in other words, it REQUIRES people to obey the law and pay taxes.
Same thing. No unbridled choice. The punishement necessarily puts
limits on what is allowed. This splitting hairs is a really
desperate tactic. Again, no case. It's really doublespeak, but I'm
trying to be nice to you, so let's call it hair-splitting.
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.
Same thing. Splitting hairs.
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?
It misleads (using your term) people whether you intend it or not. Read
the first definition of "misrepresent". Your claim qualifies as
"misrepresenting".
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?
I don't have to. The Hello World program must simply meet the requirements
when presented. Get your Hello World program to perform like a GIS right
there and then and it passes requirements. If it can't do it, then it
doesn't. It's just promiseware. Very simple. No loophole. This FUD will
not hold up in any court, and any "lawyer worth his salt" can get it
thrown out easily.
Argument sunk.
Software development may be your expertise, but law is my family's
"business", Dean. Maybe you ought to do some checking.
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.
Yes you have. See sunk argument above.
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.
Show me that a Hello World program (and only a Hello World program) can
perform the requirements of a GIS *immediately*, without promises of
future modification/performance and I'll believe that it meets
requirements. Until then, it DOESN'T MEET REQUIREMENTS. It's vaporware
or promiseware. And your argument is just FUD.
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
