On Sat, 2006-07-15 at 01:22 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > On 7/15/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-07-12 at 23:20 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > > > > > > There was discussion on the use of "Free Software" which is a very > > > misleading term usually connotated to software under the GNU GPL. I > > > for one am just being cautious about making the mistake of restricting > > > the software to be proposed "favored" by government. > > > > > There is nothing wrong if government favors a solution - as long as it > > will favor the better welfare of its constituents (how government really > > does that mandate is another matter that we could discuss over a few > > bottles of beer though). > > > > I like the thought of that discussion happening soon. ;) > > > Economically speaking, Free Software for general infrastructure is very > > favorable for a developing nation. It's quite cheaper to acquire and > > maintain, and government would have lots of choices to source its > > requirements. Expanding it as more people get skilled in the > > technologies would be also favorable as government would have the rights > > over the code, and can choose without getting their hands tied to a > > single vendor. > > > > Yes, these are big plusses. However, the predicament that we are > currently in -- the government currently using non-open source > solutions that _already work_ and open source solutions (locally > grown) that work but not as well as I personally would like -- we need > to be pragmatic about it.
Choices are abound even with a favoring for FOSS. Currently, there are some projects that do use FOSS components, although they are licensed under a proprietary license. There are such projects in place in different government agencies (I've personally built such in the past, and currently building one now for another). Using FOSS components indeed lowers the cost of entry, and it is much more favorable for government (supposedly... discussions about 'pre-bid' and 'post-bid' arrangements are another matter reserved for another session). > If a local firm can actually get a fair playing field with regards to > getting a contract sourced to them by developing open source solutions > for goverment software requirements and then develop _quality_ > software, that would be a good thing. However, right now, not all open > source development firms in our country owned fully by Filipino > nationals are qualified to bid for government software requirement > projects. If that can be somehow addressed, perhaps that will be a > good thing. But right now, I don't know a lot of firms that can > deliver in case the government _will_ require or favor open source > software for all software requirements in government. At any rate, requiring is not the same as favoring. The former doesn't allow much choice - the latter does, although it would tend to stay with a side if it serves its interests. It's not always a fair play with government - they aren't bound to the interests of any company's shareholders. They are bound to serve the interests of its citizens. Even with favoring FOSS, it's not doesn't necessarily mean the discrimination of proprietary software if it does the job satisfactorily. It's now a matter of what serves the interests of the citizens better. Economically and progressively speaking, FOSS fits that. > > Progressively speaking, having people trained to become producers of > > software infrastructure rather than mere users and consumers of > > proprietary software infrastructure is indeed favorable for a developing > > nation - no country ever developed by just importing and consuming - a > > nation must produce as well. > > > > Yes, but this is like sitting in an Ivory Tower. Sure, it would great > to think of the ideal case, but in the real world "training" is > paramount to "doing" -- meaning, there is no better training than > actually doing it. > That is why the CICT isn't really keen to the "requiring" proposal, as the manpower side isn't yet pretty much solved. The PEOPLE problem first must be addressed. That doesn't mean though that it isn't really possible for government to prefer/favor FOSS projects or projects that use FOSS components if it serves the purpose. Pure proprietary companies can still participate even in such an environment. > But please, don't get me wrong -- I would want to see the Philippines > be treated as one of the premiere software development source > countries alongside India and the US. However, I don't think it's the > government's job to make that happen: it ultimately has to be done by > us, the entrepreneurs and the youth that will drive the economy and > growth of the nation, and eventually in the future run it. Until then, Quite true. However, given the change of the times, government must also show its support for these changes. As of now, the facility for such support for FOSS is not formalized as a preference but as a trend. > I personally will do my share -- but I don't let myself get > disillusioned by the politics that is involved with getting anything > done in _our_ government today and avoid making mistakes (IMO) such as > requiring or unconditionally favoring open source software in the > government. Politics is all about the acquisition of power. As much as we would like to avoid it, there are times wherein this power must be acquired. If it's more favorable to the public interest that favoring the greater good of the public to be achieved - then that should be done. There are still more pressing issues than FOSS licenses to software - I do believe that the most pressing issue is the PEOPLE factor. That must first be alleviated... > > > > > > At any rate, I don't see still why government should only use free > > > software still when proprietary "source available" _locally developed_ > > > software does the job as well if not better than open source software. > > > But then I think that's just me. > > > > Having source code is useless for government if the government does not > > have the right to reuse it freely to further the public interest. With > > the source code under a Free Software license, the source code isn't > > merely present - it now becomes an enabler. That, along with the right > > people who could use the code - which government can choose freely, > > would serve the public interest better. > > > > Then a bill favoring Free Software license is not the solution: the > solution would be a bill/law that will require that all software > developed for government under a valid contract have as part of the > stipulations the source code be turned over and made available for > reuse and modification by the government, or a third party found to be > suitable to extend the software in the future. This bill should not > have anything to do with open source licenses, but rather the > definition of the stipulations of contracts undertaken by the > Philippine government. This is already done by FOSS licenses _automatically_. So why create another legal predicament? Are you proposing a contract for copyright transfer from the original producer to government? That will open more avenues of abuse than we already have. -- Paolo Alexis Falcone [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________ 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
