On 9/14/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Right... And the opening speech is about saving money...
It does not deny the fact that it in itself is a compelling argument. We are not talking "barya" here so it needs to be put in the proper perspective.
This isn't choice, this is discrimination against otherwise capable software development firms who just don't happen to produce FOSS.
The government, through the authority of the people who have been elected to define and implement its policies, has the choice whether to use/purchase software that meet its standards. These standards are a matter of policy which is what is being proposed here. Software providers also have the freedom to choose whatever terms they want to apply to their products. But ultimately it should be the government demanding the terms which will allow it to fulfill its mandate and not simply give in to the terms it is offered.
That's your choice, and I don't see anything wrong with it. But using it to close down all other possible choices would be contrary to any democratic notion of choice.
The government chooses the terms that it deems acceptable under its mandate. This legislation is all about making that choice.
This is a myth. Who's coolaid are you drinking anyway?
Just because you say so does not make it so. Who's Kool-aid are you drinking?
FOSS has nothing to do with "the sanctity of the public's right to access public information". ANY government document is _public information_. We need a library, or an online search mechanism for all this public information.
FOSS by its very meaning is about the right to access information.
What are you talking about when you say "the people's freedom of choice and the right of the people to access to public information is endangered" anyway? Are you equating the public to the government? Do you think it would matter if the NOT-FOSS software you're using to host a website over HTTP which is an "open standard" over TCP/IP which is another "open standard" using HTML which is another "open standard" will endanger the public's right to access the information?
The government is the caretaker of public data/information. Its not just about putting information online for everyone to see. Its also about storing it in some way that can easily be retrieved. Without any standard, that public information that government holds in behalf of the citizens of this state is constantly at risk of becoming inaccessible or impermanent.
Oh, so you're drinking RMS' coolaid... Which explains the zealotry and fascist approach to legislation...
Tsk, tsk.
PROGRESSIVE BILLS?! This bill is a throwback to the Marcos era where his word was law, and that there is absolutely no choice when it comes to running government. I don't see this bill as PROGRESSIVE, rather Draconian and an extreme defiance of the fundamental rights to choose.
Don't equate personal choice with the government as an institution's right to choose. Your logic is draconian and a throwback to the Marcos era.
It's like seeing Chairman Mao saying that all of China's government computers should run only FOSS: it's wrong, and that's the same reason why communism and the associated agenda with it is anti-humanity removing choice and individuality from society.
FOSS == communism? Wow, what a stretch. And here FOSS is becoming accused as being an agent of globalization. Tsk, tsk.
No, this is not lengthy enough. You don't get a last say especially in a public forum.
Neither do you.
This is not progressive legislation: this is legislation which stiffles choice, and which promotes discrimination and close-minded, heads down, ignore other choicese draconian approach at pushing your agenda. Instead of ensuring that software used by government is up to technical standards and technical requirements are fulfilled, the bill chooses to make a requirement based on an arbitrary decision of zealotrous proponents. I reiterate: IT SHOULDN'T MATTER IF THE SOFTWARE IS FOSS OR OTHERWISE.
Again with the failed logic. Quoting http://www.opensource.org/docs/peru_and_ms.php "For software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning."
Having heard from the major proponents of the bill already, I'm convinced I wouldn't want this bill to be even discussed in the Congress.
Ah, and there's the rub. -- Rage Callao Free Software :: empower :: educate _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List plug@lists.linux.org.ph (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
