On 12/27/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> 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.
Not really. The FOSS bill is designed to solve other problems: government
dragging its feet on FOSS while wasting millions, the non-recognition of
the value of the freedoms granted in FOSS licenses, and so on. The RFP
problem is another problem. But it makes no sense to destroy one valid
solution to a problem just because it doesn't address another problem.
I always thought the wasting millions part is called the Pork Barrel.
About non-recognition of FOSS licenses as valid software licenses,
that's something else which I'm not opposed to -- the provisions for
changing the IP laws and the anti-software patents provision are
things I agree to actually. But the section which requires that only
FOSS be used is something else and is the sole thing I'm against.
As for "destroying" a valid solution (promotion and enforcement of
open standards, changes to the IP laws, and anti-software patents
provision), it's like a basket of apples: put a rotten apple in, and
the whole bunch gets ruined. Yeah yeah, do it once do it well doesn't
work in the Philippine setting as far as government goes, so I'll seal
it now.
> 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?
Requiring use of certain brands is already anomalous. And there's the
provisions against vendor lock-in.
The provision against vendor lock-in is a good thing...
Actually it's only the mandatory use of FOSS in all cases except when
absolutely unavoidable that doesn't sit well with me.
While the bill has it, I oppose it.
> 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?
The CICT cannot really enforce its preferences. The FOSS bill, if passed,
can be enforced.
What can be enforced, the CICT's preferences? Or the FOSS Bill in its
current form?
> 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.
No. Choice IS removed. That isd why the police can PREVENT crime. That is
why the BIR can withhold taxes at source, and you CANNOT stop it from
being done. That is why you can be kept out of a restricted area and
there's nothing you can do about it. That is why the courts can issue a
search warrant and have your home searched against your wishes. In a
democracy, chouices ARE restricted, and citizens can be COMPELLED to
comply. Democracy has NEVER been about unbridled choice.
You cannot remove choice so long as everyone has his own will -- you
however can enforce laws on the basis that the contract is intact
between the people and the government. That means, while the people
agree to be under a certain government, then the person is bound by
the social contract between the government and the people.
Citizens are encouraged to abide by the law, and in so doing be bound
by the social contract between the people and the government. The
majority defines this contract, thus the concept of democracy where
the many rule. This is the same contract which allows the police to
maintain peace and order -- not remove choice from the individual.
Choice is a powerful thing that nobody can take away. Again, the
consequences of the choices you make are where the social contract and
the law cover and you can always choose to not abide by it but suffer
the consequences. So in reality, there is ALWAYS a choice.
In the heart of democracy is choice: the power to choose which
ideology you believe in, which side you're on, and who you trust will
represent you and your choices. This choice should be sheltered and
honored, and kept open. And the same process should be kept in tact,
where choice is kept sacred and not taken away from the people.
The only reason the things above you mention is possible is because as
citizens of the Philippine sovereignty we agree to abide by these laws
and be bound by the social contract between us and the government of
the Philippines. And the element of that agreement, is a choice to
agree.
"Choose to cooperate, or face the consequences." -- That is the
essence of the social contract which gives the government its mandate
to serve the people which has put it into power.
--
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
