Hi Manny! (Sorry this took a while, life happens. :D )
On 12/27/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
Indeed. :)
--- 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.
I agree.
> 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 agree.
>> 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"?
A poll would be good. I think the good congressman from Bayan Muna and his aids will very well like to hear about this extra provision on disallowing promiseware from being considered over existing solutions (if there are any, proprietary or otherwise).
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.
Promiseware or PeksmanWare (hehehe) sound really good. :)
> 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.
I do not disagree -- therefore I agree -- that the GPL and the same line of reasoning it espouses can be a solution to an ethical problem: one brought about by secrecy, non-disclosure, conspiracy, and dominion/monopoly over intellectual "property".
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.
Indeed.
> 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.
Well said. :)
> 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.
IANAL, and when IDBAL (I Do Become A Lawyer) I will look it up. Right now, this is plug-misc material, and I succumb to the assertion that Murder is Pohibited. :)
> 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.
Yup, because they're already dead. :D
> 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.
While I do not disagree that government should consider factors which contribute to fiscal policy when a decision is made, I however would like to think that still there should be some objective measure which should define these factors. Technical merit is the first and foremost objective measure (in terms of fulfillment of requirements and adherence to specifications) which can be clear cut and un-biased. This therefore cannot be equated to some point of classification such as color, height, weight, religion, among other things including the type of license the software comes in. But that might just be me, and we may never agree as to whether software licenses are as important factors as technical merit. I have no problems with that. :) And, I do agree that insisting on technological merit only IS ideological and arbitrary for the sake of objectivity and fairness. Much as some people/governments in some parts of the world would gladly legislate discrimination against Jews, Hispanics, Filipinos, <insert favorite race/nationality/ethnic group here>, I wouldn't want the government of my country the Philippines to do such things. Anything close would be something I would really be against, and favoring one type of license over another by law is feels very much like discrimination to me. Again, that's just me. :)
> 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.
Then let's let the lawyers fight over that. :D
> 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.
I certainly hope they're listening/reading and enjoying. :) -- 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
