Hi Paolo,
On 12/27/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-12-27 at 20:35 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
> 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.
So explain to me this, the migration process would require RFP's
again, which could still mention brand names, and could still not put
the pertinent technical requirements as far as software is concerned?
Or would that mean a committee will be deciding which software will
replace what software? Or is it a mix of both? The migration process
is just one, how about on the RFP's for new software to be developed
for the Philippine government?
Lack of mention of the process is just part of it: blatant disregard
of the problem which is the software procurement process that is
currently un-regulated or hap-hazard, is just as bad as the
enforcement of the "FOSS only" provision. I'm going back to the
"solution looking for a problem" reasoning, where the actual problem
is not addressed and a new-fangled tangent solution is being given the
hype.
How would the FOSS Bill enforce its requirement of the software that
government will be using as long as the RFP's continue to mention
brand names and not even define the protocols in which these RFP's for
software is drafted/prepared? Or does that just come later, when
nobody's looking?
>
> 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.
IRRs along with the FOSS Bill? Section 13 defers the IRR to the CICT,
so how much different is that from having the CICT just taking the
initiative and not pushing through or waiting for this FOSS bill?
There are IRRs that prohibit promiseware on software? So how did the
eLGU project get done, aber? Sub-con to a third party for man-power?
>
> 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.
Premeditated intent: carrying a deadly weapon, getting into a
situation which had been set up so that the person you intend to kill
will attack, and then acting in self defense. The hardest thing to
prove is intent, and that's the only thing which separates murder from
involuntary manslaughter.
> 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.
Death penalty? If keeping a person for a certain period of time as a
prisoner and clearly airing your intent to kill the person and
actually killing the person isn't murder, I don't know what is.
> 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.
No, you didn't come up with that.
What is illegal is illegal, true. However, as far as being prohibited
is concerned, choice was never taken away and punishment is a result
of the consequence defined by the social contract between the
government and the people.
The law says: "If you do this, then here are the consequences." Some
go as far as "You should do this, otherwise here are the
consequences". It never was "Thou Shalt Not Kill."
It's not a matter of legality, it's a matter of prohibition. Much like
how people without passports and boarding passes are prohibited from
entering the airport terminal, or how someone without proper
documentation is prohibited entry from a secure area: there's no
element of choice here and the enforcement of such is carried out by
the authorities.
--
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
