Dean, let me preempt myself by stating asomething I also point out at the
end of this post: I think we have the ingredients for a successgful
compromise. I only hope our congressmen can do the same.
---
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006, 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.
Well, you must examine the requirements. The bottom line is that the FOSS
solutions must meet requirements too. If they don't, goodbye FOSS
solution.
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.
Promiseware does NOT meet any requirements. It just promises to. So it
fails immediately. Even though I advocate FOSS, I will be the first to
point out the BS in a promiseware proposal should I ever encounter one. I
think we can agree that promiseware is not desirable and a provision
against it is fine with me too.
I think the above explicitly addresses the alleged loophole.
Yes, I agree it would cover the loophole I allege exists. :D
Well, let's go for it!!!! I have no problem with a provision against
promiseware. Why not poll the list? Is anyone here against a provision
against promiseware? Can anyone come up with the legalese for
"promiseware"?
By the way, I guess we coined a nice new term. It used to be vaporware,
but promiseware sort of emphasizes the plugging of the "loophole" part.
Exercising the freedom is a vehicle to contribution and open
collaborative development. The freedom(s) granted by the GNU GPL is an
enabling factor for the further development of the solutions under
that license.
That's ONE of the things the GPL does. Very true. But as RMS has never
tired of pointing out, it can also be a solution to an ethical problem.
It was, first for him, and for others. It is an enabler, but not only
that. For some, it addresses real ethical problems.
So the GPL does a number of things. It is a tool for you to collaborate.
And you use it that way. But for others, it advocates freedom and
addresses an ethical/philosophical problems. RMS and others use it that
way. It is then a flexible and interesting tool.
Suitable as far as the promise goes. Buildings have been bought in the
same process, and apparently Software is still being considered
something similar by the government.
Well, just as there's no accounting for bad taste, I guess no law can
completely account for plain bad management in government. I agree with
you that if the government were to purchase any software mainly on the
basis of just promises, then it is being really very stupid. A
"no-promiseware" would really be a thoughtful addition to the FOSS bill.
Yes, definition 1 goes for "with intent to deceive and/or mislead".
Crucial element is intent, which in my posts have only been based on
my interpretation.
You forgot the word "usually". Malicious intent is not crucial nor
necessary. It is only common. Here it is again (EMPHASIS added):
1 : to give a false or misleading representation of USUALLY with an
intent to deceive or be unfair <misrepresented the facts>
But I think this point has been debated enough. We have a disagreement on
some of your posts then. But you have convinced me that your objection,
even if I think it is a misrepresentation, is a SINCERE one. So for the
record, there is NO conscious malicious intent on your part. I'll leave
it at that. So if I led others to think otherwise with my posts, I again
apologize for that.
Murder in response to grave bodily harm, grave threats, and performed
although with premeditation while under fatal attack is considered
self defense.
It's not murder then. It is a form of homicide, but not murder. Murder is
PROHIBITED.
Actually, an attempt to end one's own life is punishable in some
countries -- if your attempt fails, or is aborted -- and usually the
sentence is to a mental institution if not house arrest with medical
intervention.
Hmmm... Well, the FRUSTRATED ATTEMPT is punishable. But the actual
consumated crime? There's no one to punish.
Sorry, the freedom granted by a license is beside the point of the
technology in question which makes it a point merely of classification
To me, to insist only on technological merit is in itself ideological and
arbitrary. What should be considered are factors with real benefits that
are of interest to government, such as good fiscal policy. The freedoms in
FOSS licenses have practical and economic benefits. And these can and
have been measured and quanitified. I did the same for a client,
accounting to the last peso the economic benefits of using a FOSS
solution (but I think I undervalued my own proposal). Thus, the benefits
of a FOSS license are not arbitrary classifications. They are just as
meritorious (and measurable) as any technical consideration. That is not,
however, an excuse not to justify the alleged benfits. I had to show the
fiscal benefits of the FOSS solution (brought about by its license). I
had to do my math. FOSS developers have to do the same.
Although these values seem "priceless" and because you cannot put a
price on them, it will be very hard if not impossible to objectively
define the advantages in terms of quantifiable gains/savings or value
add especially when contested as an act of prejudice on the part of
government.
I think the economic value can be computed with some accuracy, although
the FOSS benefit may be undervalued. Well, I'm willing to live with some
undervalued assessments of FOSS license benefits too. It has been done.
In any case, it will have to be part of the FOSS proposal which can then
be analyzed, examined, and even torn apart by government evaluators. And
if a specific FOSS solution cannot be shown to have such real benefits (it
happens) due to its license, then it has to compete on whatever other
merits it has. If the FOSS solution is inferior or does not meet
requirements, then it gets the boot, as it should.
I like the four points up there, well written Manny. :)
FOSS might not even need to be the "tie breaker", because if there
were technically superior FOSS which can be procured with very little
cost, it would already trump most proprietary software solutions.
In which case I think we have the ingredients for a successful compromise!
Perhaps some of these points can be introduced to the authors of the bill.
God bless!
---
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
