On Wed, 27 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
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.
Hold on. The bill does not supplant RFPs (flawed as they are). Were you
somehow led to believe that the FOSS bill -- and only the FOSS bill --
determines absolutely all the requirememts for software procurement?
Let me state for the record that if such is the intended interpretation of
the FOSS bill, then I will oppose it even more vehemently than you!!!
Here's my take (and I believe Casino's) on the FOSS bill. It mandates an
additional set of standards, but do not totally replace the RFPs which
specify the technical requirements. It mandates certain licensing
requirments in addition to the technical requirements of the RFPs. The
requirements of *BOTH* have to be fulfilled.
So while a Hello World program may fulfill the licensing requirements of
the FOSS bill, it would fail to meet the requirements of the RFPs (flawed
as they are).
Let me also state for the record that I'm not a big fan of promiseware. If
a FOSS solution can't meet the requirements of a government RFP, then it
FAILS. It cannot be further considered. The government must then consider
what else is left on the table. If no FOSS solution exists, too bad for
FOSS. That puts the pressure on FOSS developers, true, but that's a good
problem, isn't it?
How about this: would you be happy if a no-promiseware provision were
added to the FOSS bill? Something like this: "In cases where the
government is to acquire existing software solutions, under no
circumstances may any 'promiseware' (no term yet; let the lawyers figure
this out), FOSS or otherwise, be selected over any existing solution (FOSS
or proprietary) that already meets requirements."
I think the above explicitly addresses the alleged loophole.
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.
It doesn't seem that way when people (including developers) actually get
to exercise the freedom given by the FOSS licenses. RMS and many others
wrote software to address ethical problems too.
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.
The bill doesn't allow promiseware. So it's not a problem. But to make it
even more explicit, one can propose the "no promiseware" provision
mentioned earlier.
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.
Promiseware is NOT a suitable FOSS solution. The bill has no provisions
allowing it. The GPLed Helo World program would fail to meet requirements
outright.
In other words, you CAN'T find any such statement from me. I thought so.
What statement?
You've forgotten about it? Well, let's forget it then. No problem. Not
important. I don't see any "point" in scoring "points".
2) Misrepresentation is only applicable if there is an undue claim of
representation.
Not so. See the first definition of "misrepresentation", not the second.
Murder is not prohibited: it's punishable by law.
Dean, it IS prohibited. That is why it is punishable by law. Parking in a
"no parking" zone is PROHIBITED too. It is also punishable by law.
Here's something interesting: suicide is also prohibited in some
countries. But it is also NOT punishable by law in some (who would the
government punish?).
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?
No. The freedom (and accompanying benefits) granted by a license IS an
objective standard. It is NOT an arbitrary classification. It is a
practical public benefit and good governnance consideration.
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.
But if you use that formula, then the value of the FOSS license is NOT
recognized at all in any case. It would, at best, only consider
direct costs (or lack of it where the software is cost-free). But the
value that comes from the freedom to share, to modify, to redistribute,
etc. are not considered.
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.
I understand that. You were not remiss in explaining this point
(actually, you were very clear). What I am saying is that this would
totally disregard the value of the FOSS license because and makes it a
non-consideration in all cases. I contend that it is just as good a
standard as technical merit, and should therefore figure in the selection
process.
Now, as to HOW MUCH weight you give it, that can be worked out. As can
exactly WHEN it comes into play as well. There is actually room for
movement here. See possibilities below.
Just some ideas to ponder:
1. Favor FOSS by default, but only consider the freedom of the licenses
as a "last resort" consideration. This happens when when two or more
contending solutions (FOSS or otherwise) are practically equally
meritorious. That means any proposed proprietary solutions are
considered and studied from the very beginning of the process, just
like FOSS solutions. They compete on technical merit FIRST, then on
cost, other stuff (insert here), and then LAST, on the merit of the
license. Now, if the FOSS solution is eliminated before that, too bad.
FOSS developers just have to try harder.
2. No-promiseware clause. No FOSS solution may be acquired if it does
not ALREADTY meet requirments (for when the government is trying to
acquire an existing solution).
3. In cases where the government is asking for proposals to DEVELOP a
solution (software meeting certain requirements does not yet exist),
total costs must be considered first and cannot be renegotiated. The
#1 kicks in.
4. FOSS bill is ***NOT*** the ONLY standard to judge the merit of a
proposed solution (it never was intended to be so, as per the text
of the bill itself). The technical requirements outlined in the
RFP must be considered as well. NO FOSS solution may be acquired
that does not meet requirements of the RFP and the FOSS bill.
Those are ideas worth chewing on, I think. And they are still not very
developed. I wonder what they will look like by next year.
---
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
