On 12/27/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
See, but in the case of software, you shouldn't make the same
distinction: whether the source code is available to the government or
otherwise, because if the solution works then that should be all
that's necessary. Right?
> 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.
Sorry, but when you changed the words from "specific technology" to
"specific software" then the game changes.
The bill does favor a specific type of software: one that is licensed
under a FOSS license. You're making a distinction on the software
based on an arbitrary classification, being the license in which it
comes in. You're effectively legislating prejudice for FOSS.
Case in point: If government chose to procure a DBMS (Database
Management System), should the choice be dictated by the type of
license if a sub-par FOSS licensed DBMS came up against a
technologically superior proprietary licensed DBMS?
With the FOSS bill, the choice would be the sub-par FOSS licensed
DBMS, and I would hardly agree with that choice because there was
something else more technologically superior than the FOSS-licensed
DBMS. To me, it boils down to the technical specifications: a FOSS
license should just be a bonus.
> 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.
Uh, no. It doesn't.
The government prescribes a mode of conduct for citizens. It does not
require anything, but if you choose to not abide by the law, then you
pay the consequences. You always have unbridled choice.
Same thing. No unbridled choice.
Choose a color between Black and Red.
See, in the above case there is limited choice because you can only
choose between black and red.
Choose a color, any color.
Now in the above case, you have unbridled choice of color because you
can choose any color.
Choose between abiding by the law, and not abiding by the law.
You seem to have limit choice, but think about it: outside of the two
cases provided, what else do you have?
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.
Hair-splitting? My argument is clear as day, I don't know why you keep
wanting to characterizing my arguments as "hair-splitting",
"doublespeak", or "FUD" instead of just proving me wrong?
> 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".
Ah, so now you're misrepresenting the smart people who have their own
opinions who understand that an opinion is someone's formulation and
personal thought/insight about an issue?
I can say the same for you, by misrepresenting the authority who says
what's right or wrong in this world.
> 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.
Hahahaha.
See now you're muddling the requirements. Of course the Bill requires
that only FOSS be used in government. Do I need to state again that
the RFP's will contain the technical requirements, and that any
proposal which is made to look like "with X amount of time and Y
amount of money GPLed Hello World program can be turned into Hello
World GIS" will qualify as a viable solution, just because of the FOSS
bill?
It wouldn't work now because there isn't a FOSS bill. But if it got in
through in its current form, we're going to see a lot of these "I'll
do it from scratch" bids promising a GPLed piece of software that
fulfilled technical requirements.
If you think this wouldn't happen, check out the failure that is the
eLGU project. If that doesn't show you how the vaporware bids can do
more harm then good to the government IT systems it should show you
how "FOSS" in government can be as bad.
Software development may be your expertise, but law is my family's
"business", Dean. Maybe you ought to do some checking.
And I sing and dance too. Should that matter?
Your being a son of some great lawyer doesn't make you a great lawyer.
Nor my being a nephew of a Mayor make me a good Mayoral candidate or
politician for that matter.
> 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.
I have what, misrepresented anybody? Geez, when will you get it that
misinterpretation is not misrepresentation? And that opinion is
arbitrary and ideological?
> 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.
Check the eLGU project. If you don't think Vaporware bids get bought
by government, check out all the infrastructure projects that propose
to build bridges, roads, and railroads. Even buildings get bought
based on vaporware.
As far as the government goes, if your vaporware is cheaper than
someone else's vaporware, you win.
Don't tell me you don't already know that?
--
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
