On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 20:35 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > Hi Manny! > > On 12/27/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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!!! > > > > Apparently, the migration plans were based on the assumption that > every government computer not using a FOSS solution would have to find > a FOSS replacement to the existing solution. If this isn't a disregard > of RFP's that had been previously fulfilled or currently open (or a > complete disregard for the use/viability of RFP's by directly not > mentioning it), then I don't know what is. > > The lack of mention of the procurement process or the proposed changes > to the procurement process as far as replacement, new (to be > acquired), and to be developed software solutions are concerned is > alarming as far as how I understand the bill is concerned. If it's > meant to supplant the RFP's, it seems like the choice on which > software to use will be made by law with blind regard for the > technical requirements of the government agencies in question. >
It is automatically assumed that unless you EXPLICITLY REPEAL OR AMEND provisions of existing laws, those laws are still in effect. Any lawmaker worth his salt would know that. There is no need to state the need to conform to RFP's as this bill does not repeal it. > > 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). > > > > But promiseware can be put forth as proposals to these RFP's which > will meet the requirements both of the RFP's and the proposed FOSS > Bill. No. An RFP is an RFP. There are already provisions in the existing laws on procurement, as well as IRRs that PROHIBIT promiseware. > > > > > 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. > > > > Murder in response to grave bodily harm, grave threats, and performed > although with premeditation while under fatal attack is considered > self defense. You may murder someone if only to protect yourself: you > can premeditate by bringing a deadly weapon with you and do all sorts > of psyching yourself out on how to do it, and bring yourself into a > situation when the person you want to murder will be attacking you. > Then murder will be justified and though punishable by law is NOT > prohibited. The term is not murder - it's homicide. Murder is of a very different class which involves premeditated intent. You CANNOT murder even if another person intends to murder you. Homicide as a result of self-defense though is still flaky - you'd need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that self-defense was indeed committed. > Even the state can murder a convicted criminal -- yes, killing with > premeditation and intent. So no, it's not prohibited, but it is > punishable by law in cases where guilt beyond reasonable doubt is > established. What SCRA or existing law in effect did you get that? Tell that to the Commission on Human Rights, and they'd laugh at that. > Parking in a no parking zone is punishable by law (if you get caught), > but you have the choice to park at your own risk. The act of parking > is not prohibited but if you park in certain parts where it's made > illegal to park you risk being at odds with the law. Oh dear... maybe you bought my phrase "DITO SA PILIPINAS, ANG BATAS AY SUGGESTION LANG!" to the last drop. What is illegal, is illegal. It doesn't matter if you get caught or not, what is illegal remains illegal. Sheesh. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Upstrat Incorporated _________________________________________________ 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
