On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 22:19 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote: > > Not biased against proprietary software because it does not rule out > > the use or purchase of proprietary software but merely sets it out as > > the exception to the rule on what government uses or purchases. There > > is a difference. > > > > Sorry, there is a difference between "bias against something" and > "exception to the rule"?
There is. The former refers to ruling out a particular class regardless of circumstance. The latter rules out a particular class EXCEPT in some circumstances. > > > Okay, on one hand you're arguing administrative problems such as > > > "cohesion", "integration", "standardization", "rules and procedures". > > > Then you go about "data integrity and accesibility" then jump to > > > "unsustainable cost of government". > > > > All valid arguments for the use of FOSS. > > > > But you've conveniently snipped out the section of your comment I was > referring to: > > " Much has also been said about whether or not it is even necessary to > have such a policy in place. I argue that it is necessary for the > reason I set forth above and in the following. > > Without a policy on the use of software in government we are in danger > of creating critical systems that do not integrate well as a whole. We > are at risk that state bodies may use software that is not at par or > compatible with what others are using. Without a policy in place, > government institutions who have already decided to migrate to FOSS > -based solutions are doing so on there on without any guidance > whatsoever. Without policy, we cannot rationally set rules and > procedures that need to be enforced when implementing FOSS. Without > policy, public data is at risk of being inaccessible and impermanent. > Without policy, basic services and the government institutions that > provide these are going to be crippled by the "unsustainable cost of > government". > " This is why there is a provision in the bill that doesn't only mandate FOSS but open standards as well. Without setting the requirement of open standards, you could create virtually 'proprietary' applications even in FOSS as it doesn't conform to agreed-upon mechanisms of interoperability. While the code being FOSS reduces the risk of lock in, this adds more burden to systems that expect a standard mechanism for interoperability. > You're not supporting the point that FOSS should be used by citing the > administrative and fiscal issues _you wish_ will be solved by just > using only FOSS in government. You're merely saying that the bill is a > panacea to set about the rosy ivory tower picture you and other people > want to paint when only FOSS is used in government. > > Microsoft Sales people can also make the same case for using just > Microsoft based products in government, so there's nothing really new > to what you're saying. You're just using the same argument that the > proprietary software people will use to push an agenda. Patently wrong. One of the intent of the bill is eliminate the single point of failure called VENDOR DEPENDENCE. Who could legally implement Microsoft's protocols and proprietary formats? Are there anyone else that can offer the same level of interoperability with their protocols and formats? > > > I maintain: the policy should set technical requirements on all > > > software to be procured by government -- that only standard protocols > > > and open file formats be used. However, it should not specify that > > > *only FOSS* will be used. Certainly people can write (and have > > > written) proprietary software that's good enough for government's > > > technical requirements but is not under the FOSS license (Safari > > > browser, Apple's Mac OSX, Microsoft Visio, etc.) -- I personally don't > > > want government to be restricted to just FOSS like Firefox, Linux, > > > GNOME and KDE, Dia, etc. > > > > The policy should not simply be about meeting the technical > > requirements but also by the terms which are clearly more advantageous > > for the government. > > > > Clearly more advantageous for the government? I hardly think "using > only FOSS in government" is clearly more advantageous than "using > software solutions which fulfill functional and non-functional > requirements, which allow for extensions and future modifications, and > which use open standard technologies for interoperating with other > solutions _regardless of the software license_". Take note that the bill promotes the use of OPEN STANDARDS too. The bill just takes up the ante to a higher level that is MORE ADVANTAGEOUS to the government. With FOSS, governments aren't tied to the license/privilege of MERE USAGE, but can readily do more with the code - including bidding contracts to extend the code, make that same code available to another government agency, negating yet another purchase of the same stuff all over again. > > > It's not a secret that there are software firms that don't write FOSS > > > -- but they should not be excluded from the government's choices > > > because of a bias for FOSS. Our government doesn't need this bias, and > > > can set better policies that are less dogmatic about software. > > > > The rule is there as well as the exception. If there is a bias, it > > should be in favor of the government and not the other way around. > > > > The point is that there should be no bias for or against any software > based on the type license it comes with. If the software license can be more advantageous to governments, then my guess is, in the interest of furthering the interests of government, the government should proceed in what's advantageous to them. > > > And mind you, it should be the other way around: your objectives > > > should define your policy. Guidance is required to define policy, > > > keeping the objectives in mind. > > > > I completely disagree. A policy statement on the use of FOSS in > > government will provide clear roadmaps. > > > > Sorry, but a policy statement should be guided first and foremost by > the objectives. Setting policy not aligned with any objectives is a > poor way of planning and running government. Duh. The objectives are clearly stated if you even bothered to read the rationale. One of them is to avoid vendor lockin, another is to foster the local IT industry, etc. Hence the bill was drafted to make policies around that objective. > > > So the objective is to have the government use FOSS and open > > > standards. Then make policy that requires the use of open standards as > > > technical requirements in software procurement projects, and come up > > > with a comprehensive plan for evaluating FOSS and its viability in > > > government. > > > > That is the big picture. > > > > Sorry, but the big picture is not supported by the FOSS bill we've > been talking about. On the other hand, going with the status quo DOES NOT EVEN bother improving the big picture. -- 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
