Hi Manny!
On 12/27/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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?
Compared to you maybe... :D
Too late for fun. It's almost New Year's day and I've resolved to be nice
to you.
Aw... :D
> 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.
Wait, the requirements were just that software to be used by
government be FOSS. It had nothing said about technical requirements,
which is why the Bill in my opinion doesn't make sense to require FOSS
only in the first place.
The RFP's will contain the requirements, right? And since there is no
attempt to touch the drafting of RFP's as far as the technical
requirements is concerned in the bill, and there is no attempt to make
the procurement process less brand-specific as it currently is, then
the requirement given by law if the bill passes in its current form
would be that the software be FOSS. Now if each RFP had one bid which
said "with X amount of money and Y amount of time, we can turn the
Hello World by Dean Michael Berris licensed under the GPL into the
Hello World GIS or Hello World ERP or Hello World Compiler".
Since the bid pretty much fulfills the government's requirement that
the software be FOSS, then there's no chance for Proprietary Software
to get in because there's a conforming bid which will fulfill
requirements.
> 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.
Creating Software is what I was referring to. It is never about
ethics/morals: it's about solving problems. Now if some people think
that writing software is about freedom, then I can't help but think
they're disillusioned or just wishful thinking.
> 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.
Never? hmmm... I don't know about that. That's why I said any
competent lawyer can make it stick, because with the help of this bill
goes to law, it gives every third party FOSS developer the ammunition
to propose a "FOSS from Scratch" solution every time there's an RFP.
And because there's a formal bid that fulfills the requirements,
Proprietary Software would never get the light of day of even being
considered.
Of course, you'd want that right?
> 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.
And because I do voice my opinion, it bothers you no?
> 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.
Hahaha. Check out the explanation above.
> 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.
Ah, but you just said that major overhaul matters! If modifying a
GPLed Hello World program will take X amount of time and Y million
pesos worth of resources to meet requirements, and the bid for such
was entered for an RFP, and since the government is going to prefer
that only FOSS is used, then Proprietary Software wouldn't see the
light of day because "there is a suitable FOSS solution" entered as a
bid.
> 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.
Hehehe. Loophole exposed way above.
> 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.
What statement?
> 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.
Here we go again with the misrepresentation... You really like that
word don't you? When will it get through that:
1) My arguments aren't FUD because they're not meant to scare, cause
uncertainty, and cause doubt about anything -- unless you're full of
FUD yourself and any dissenting voice you read/hear about the FOSS
bill is flagged as FUD in your brain.
2) Misrepresentation is only applicable if there is an undue claim of
representation.
3) That calling an argument FUD does not give you any merit unless you
give a solid counter argument.
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).
Murder is not prohibited: it's punishable by law. You can kill though,
in self defense you're absolved of responsibility and are indemnified
and held righteous as far as the law goes. There is even
state-sponsored murder which manifests itself in war, capital
punishment, and under the rules of engaging an armed and dangerous
criminal/fugitive.
The law against murder/manslaughter is meant to preserve human life
which is a virtue in itself devoid of any religious connotation. It's
just a coincidence that religions (at least most of the ones currently
practiced today) give a premium on human life the same way most
governments do (or seem to).
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.
If Government chooses to favor freedom and to enter into contractual
agreements that are favorable to the government, shouldn't it preserve
the freedom to choose without preference and prejudice based on
classification, and to do it on an objective case to case basis?
The FOSS licenses do give government a big advantage, there is no
question about that. The question is whether the government should
make the choice as mandated to be *required for all cases*. And my
answer to that basic question is NO -- that the government should
choose on a case to case basis based first on technical merit and then
in terms advantageous to the government. If the FOSS solution proposed
has technical merit and is procured in terms advantageous to the
government then there should be no reason for government to choose the
software being proposed -- but the same should go for proprietary
software.
What I'm saying is that instead of saying "only FOSS should be used by
the government unless absolutely unavoidable" the government should be
saying "the RFP's should not contain brand names, and that the
technical specifications should abide by open standards for file
formats and communication protocols". Instead of favoring FOSS blindly
-- however righteous or idealistic it may seem -- I'm saying let's
level the playing field so FOSS and other kinds of software have the
same chance of getting into government systems.
> 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.
Apology accepted. Have a great new year ahead Manny. :)
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.
You're right about the contentious section being about choosing FOSS by default.
I actually will settle for something less prescribing, and go with
something more appropriate by touching on the rules of procurement and
the RFP drafting protocol for software solutions to be procured by
government. The Bill can advocate FOSS by leveling the playing field
(with the amendments to the IP Laws among others) and specifying
requirements (open standards for file formats and protocols) which
will allow FOSS to compete side by side with proprietary systems and
get in on its own merits.
--
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
