Hi Manny!
On 9/22/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Thu, 14 Sep 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> The spirit of the intended bill is that of closing off the door to any
> other software licensed under something that's not considered a FOSS
> license. THIS is what is questionable, and the zealotry that comes
> along with this motivation is reminiscent of fascist nazi doctrines of
> "arian suppremacy" and "anti-semitism".
For someone who says he doesn't like zealotry, we're getitng a lot ogf it
from you.
My zealotry for what?
I contend the rationale for using only FOSS in government by making it
mandatory instead of getting FOSS used in government because of its
merits _alone_ without blanket policy. If FOSS can't make it into
government that way, then the only reason FOSS will be used is because
it was made mandatory -- which hardly helps the cause IMO.
This is still more of your MISrepresenation of the bill. We have read it
and we know it DOESN'T say what you says it does. To continue with this
dishonesty hardly does anything for your credibility.
Misrepresentation? It's how I understand it, and how I interpret the
rationale of the bill -- I question the method by which this
"advocacy" of FOSS is being done and the making of FOSS' use mandatory
in government. I do not claim to represent the bill in any other way
than how it had been written with the clear intent of making
government use *just FOSS* "with some exceptions".
Now when you say "we know it DOESN'T say what I say it does", who is
'we' and what did I say that isn't lifted from the bill? What am I
questioning which isn't based on the provisions of the bill?
Maybe you mean you want to think that this bill is the solution to
government's software problems, and that any opposition like my
opposition to the approach taken by the bill is just unworthy of "air
time". Well guess what, you might be right but _I don't care_.
With regards to my credibility, I don't claim to be an expert in law
but I'm just a lowly citizen voicing my opinions. My opposition and
*opinions* shouldn't make me less credible than you or anybody else
especially when in a public forum where anybody can pretty much say
whatever they want.
As for "dishonesty", I will be more dishonest if I sit and watch this
bill just get passed or deliberated/read even and have the people who
drafted the bill say "PLUG agrees with this bill" without having my
dissenting voice being heard -- Me being part of the PLUG Board or
otherwise.
I reiterate: I have nothing against FOSS, I write FOSS, I use FOSS,
and I like FOSS -- but I have something against the approach this bill
is taking to get FOSS into the government. I believe there should be a
better more pragmatic way.
On the other parts of the bill, I agree with open standards and
amending the IP laws. I just have a problem with making FOSS mandatory
in government _regardless of the technical shortcomings of the FOSS to
be used/considered for use_.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
C++ Software Architect
Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co.
web: http://software.orangeandbronze.com/
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
mobile: +63 928 7291459
phone: +63 2 8943415
other: +1 408 4049532
blogs: http://mikhailberis.blogspot.com http://3w-agility.blogspot.com
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com
_________________________________________________
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
