Hi Rage,
On 9/21/06, Rage Callao <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/20/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Rage,
>
> I took my time before replying to this message of yours, because I
> wanted to jump on your side or where you're coming from and try to see
> it the way you're seeing it. I may have made the same arguments a few
> years ago when I was deep in the "FOSS is the light" and "FOSS is the
> right way" paradigm. Now business, money, and reality, make a very
> good case for making pragmatic assessments at least in my case --
> making me shed the "rose tainted glasses" that I know I once wore.
I don't wear glasses -- rose tainted or otherwise. I am as pragmatic
as you claim to be.
Say as you wish. If "Government is using it's sovereign right to
choose..." by "setting standards for all cases" isn't seeing the bill
with rose tainted spectacles, I don't think you understand what I
meant.
> So with that, I continue presenting my opinions regarding your responses.
Good. Stick with that please.
Oh no, I was trying to make it evident that I would have made the same
arguments you are making now a few years back. However, I don't think
that sits well with you, so have it your way.
> Yes, but the act of Congress is arbitrarily defined by the people who
> propose the bill. All the laws that congress enacts start with an
> arbitrary rationale and objective from a partisan representative. Of
> course, a member of a party will push his/her agenda because that's
> what they do. And they do this arbitrarily.
Perhaps, but don't deny the fact the although this bill as drafted
"arbitrarily" so are other bills that are filed in Congress. But
you're only showing one side of this process. Getting the bill drafted
is one thing. Getting it passed in Congress is another and requires
the *consensus* of a majority of the people there.
All the bills filed in congress are all arbitrarily drafted. Getting
consensus doesn't remove the fact that it was arbitrarily defined.
> I had been a junior board member of Laguna, and thank God I saw how it
> worked: some representative pushes an agenda and writes a bill to
> propose a course of action which is in line with his agenda. The party
> will have to decide if the agenda is in line with the party's internal
> politics or convictions and political positions.
Eventually the party does not get to decide on its own what becomes
law. Which is why the legislative approach is an ideal venue to thresh
out any differences and come to a consensus. That is how it works.
Unless of course the party is holding the majority in a democratic country, no?
> Yes, but saying government will make one choice for every situation is
> tantamount to removing choice!
Then of course the exemptions. Ask any lawyer and he will tell you
that where the law makes a rule there is always an exemption to that
rule.
Hmmm... Exemptions are an excuse for preferential arbitrary rules.
You can't kill, but if you do it out of self defense then that's
alright -- this might seem perfectly alright with some people, but not
for those that see killing as an unforgivable act.
The government will only use FOSS unless there's no FOSS available for
the purpose -- this might seem perfectly alright with some people, but
not alright for me.
Using the *case-to-case" basis approach is only effective if you have
a standard. This way you can evaluate whether or not something applies
or is an exemption. The *case-to-case* analysis alone is like saying
everything is an exception. For instance, why should we use a
classroom setting to teach students when clearly each person is
unique. By defining a rule, it is like saying the everyone may be
different but still have similarities.
I am alright with standards: I agree with using open standard formats
and protocols. However, preferring that the license be only FOSS is
what I'm against: what if I write a license that allows government
alone to modify the code and have third party developers/entities see
and modify it but not allow these third party developers/entities the
right to use the source code in their products/projects/operations?
That's not a FOSS license, and what worries me is that software
licensed under a similar scheme are exempted from government use
regardless of whether it fulfills the functional/non-functional
requirements.
On your second point. The license is critical because it identifies
what you can and cannot do with the software. It is not like gender,
race or religion so don't lump them together. Gender has no affect on
how you use the software. Religion has no effect on how you use the
software. Race has no effect on how you use the software.
Yes, it is critical but preferring or requiring only one kind of
license (in this case FOSS licenses) is limiting and
counter-productive.
What I was saying is that government may not make decisions on hiring
personnel based on gender, religion, or any arbitrarily defined
"standard". It's like saying "All Clerks to be hired will only we
women, unless there are no other women available for the position." Or
even "Only Roman Catholic citizens will be hired unless there are no
suitable Roman Catholic citizens for the aforementioned position." --
Draconian, Silly, and Needless.
> How I see it, making FOSS "the rule" is essentially problematic
> because without appropriate study for specific cases a decision is
> already made. Making non-FOSS alternatives to the main decision only
> because there is no FOSS equivalent is a big mistake especially if
> you're taking into consideration real-life case to case basis issues
> like cost, timeline, and objectives which are external to the
> technical requirements of the government on a case to case basis.
There is no meat in your pudding. The alternative-to-FOSS approach
saves the government unnecessary waste of resources in terms of both
time and money. See jan gestre's post on that.
Meat in my pudding? What are you talking about?
It's not about alternative-to-FOSS. There are inifitely many ways of
licensing your software and allow the end-user to use/modify the
covered software without being considered a FOSS license, and what I'm
proposing is that government not discriminate based on whether some
international agency said the license is a FOSS license or otherwise,
and instead determine the viability of the software based on technical
requirements first then the rights granted by the license second.
> On the short term, you're dealing with migration issues, compatibility
> issues, performance issues, adoption issues, and deployment issues.
> You then need to build the required support infrastructure both
> in-house and through third party VAS providers, which will take an
> enormous amount of effort and will strain the government's operational
> capacity.
These issues have to be dealt with and they do need a lot of effort. A
case needs to be made on the cost vs. benefit of making that move. But
none of it is insurmountable. Even if I do say so myself in my ivory
tower.
I ask that the "case to be made" on a case to case basis, and the
study made on a per-solution basis.
> On the long term, you're dealing with maintenance, support, upgade,
> modification, among other issues which are things that you cannot
> ignore. All these points above are at the mercy of an army of
> developers which are not even in the Philippine sovereign territory
> especially if it's FOSS that you just pull down from the Internet. If
Same thing whether you use proprietary software. I can help thinking
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt here.
Which is precisely the point. These same issues are already being
dealt with while using proprietary software, so what is then the real
advantage fiscal-wise and administrative-wise of the FOSS bill and
requiring that just FOSS licensed software be used ?
> in case FOSS is made in the Philippines and used by the Philippine
> government, maintaining software is not an easy task especially if
> you've actually tried doing it (and especially if you're not the one
> who wrote it). It costs lots of money because developer time is not
> cheap, and the only way we're going to improve the IT industry here in
> the Philippines is by paying the developers (_us_ developers) the
> right due -- otherwise, we'll just go to where people will pay us more
> to do FOSS programming, because that's the pragmatic choice to make.
Which helps the local IT industry.
What helps the local IT industry, that the Philippines lose the
developers to companies outside the country that pay for FOSS
programming? Or that the Philippines actually start paying developers
their due (which I believe is another fiscal hit, if you do a survey
on the actual rates of developer manpower in the private sector)?
> There are two types of requirements: functional and non-functional
> requirements. Functional requirements involve the technical operations
> of a solution, while non-functional requirements deal with somewhat
> external factors that are not directly tied but intimately related to
> the solution (issues of user interface and ouput designs, scalability,
> reliability, stability, icon design, and the likes). The software
> license, is neither a functional nor non-functional requirement: it's
> merely an expression of the rights granted to the end-user as can be
> upheld by existing international IP laws.
Thanks for the lesson. The software license is crucial because it
defines what you can and cannot do with the software. It is so crucial
that your functional/non-functional requirements do not matter if in
the end you cannot use the software.
Well, then make certain "standards" regarding the contents of the
softare licenses and not the type of license the software comes in. It
shouldn't matter that it's a FOSS license which the OSI determines, or
a license that simply allows the government to use the software and
modify it so long as the government doesn't transfer the
redistribution rights to the third party developers who will modify it
in the future.
> The license to the software is slapped on to the software _by choice_
> much like how religion is chosen by people (and people have the right
> to practice a religion of their choice). The State (in our case, the
> government) should not discriminate on the basis of gender, race,
> religion, height, weight, facial features, foot size, and in the case
> of software the type of license in policies set by congress,
> especially the ones which affect all agencies.
Again with the lumping. All the other things you mentioned has nothing
to do with software. The State is not being discriminatory but is
merely exercising its sovereign right to choose. Software developers
are still free to sell their wares to anyone under any license they
choose.
Of course, everything else doesn't have anything to do with software
(race, gender, religion, height) but much like how government should
not discriminate the hiring of personnel and dealing with third party
VAS providers based on these grounds, it shouldn't discriminate based
on the type of software license that the solution being proposed for
its use comes with.
> But unfortunately, some people seem to think that giving FOSS
> preferential treatment is a good thing: while I feel alone in opposing
> it.
Which makes me wonder...
Wonder about what? I believe some FOSS have made it big and are very
successful -- but that's not mainly because they're under a FOSS
license, rather because they have quality developers working on the
project. There are a lot of proprietary software companies that
develop great software without having to put their software under a
FOSS license.
Think about it: just because it's FOSS means that people will start
contributing to the project. And just because it's FOSS means that
it's suddenly magical and will solve the government's problems.
> > > The policy then should read differently. It should not require the
> > > license to be FOSS, but instead that source code is made available to
> > > the government upon turnover -- regardless of whether the license is
> > > under a FOSS license.
> >
> > I agree that the source code must be made available to the government
> > upon turnover.
> >
>
> Then we agree to some extent.
Naturally. When this bill is deliberated in Congress, people will need
to agree to some extent too.
Naturally?
They *may* agree to some extent, or not agree *at all*.
> So Free as in Freedom software will help establish an IT industry here
> in the Philippines? I'm sorry, I don't see how it does.
You've already proven it. There is a lot work on the way to the local
IT industry if this bill pushes through.
Proven what? I've said that unless government pays the developers
_enough_, then the developers will most probably and will most usually
go to where the grass is green and gates are shining.
> > > This is PERU again. So let's say that's the case...
> >
> > If the argument applies, it applies wherever you are in the world.
> >
>
> Sorry, but no. The argument applies only to places where the
> government operates under a democratic process: you can't make the
> same case in North Korea, Syria, and Iran where the conditions and
> principles of government are very different from what we have. Even
> Peru's government is different from ours, and the arguments that apply
> to our setting may not be the same for them -- and AFAICT, the
> arguments for their policy don't apply to our government.
The argument is that government has objectives to meet in order to
fulfill its mandate. In a way, as the argument goes, FOSS and open
standards helps it meet those objectives. Tell me, how does that not
apply?
Hmmm... Government has objectives to meet in order to fulfill its
mandate... So what is your government's mandate and what are its
objectives? How does using only FOSS in government help it meet these
objectives?
If your government's objectives and mandate are different from another
government, then how can FOSS help both objectives at the same time?
If A != B and C -> A, then it doesn't follow that C -> B as well.
> > > So you mean to say, even if the product was made technically compliant
> > > to whatever technical requirements the government set, then it
> > > wouldn't qualify for bidding even because of a license issue? How fair
> > > does that sound to you? Oh wait, I'm asking the wrong person: you want
> > > government to use FOSS only.
> >
> > It won't qualify not because of the license issue but because it is
> > not as advantageous to the government if it were freely (as in
> > freedom) licensed.
> >
>
> Oh wait... Look at the quoted sections again above. It seems that
> you're mis-construing the provisions set in the bill with the concept
> of "advantageous to the government".
> It clearly shows that any software that's not FOSS will not qualify
> for bidding for government ICT projects because according to section
> 6.2, only FOSS will be used for government ICT projects.
With exemptions.
Hmmm... If that's the case, I can argue that:
<start code>
#include <iostream>
using namespace std;
int main (int argc, char * argv[]) {
cout << "This program can be modified to suit any of the Philippine
Government's needs."
<< endl;
return 0;
};
</end code>
And when licensed under the GNU GPL can be made to do exactly what it
claims, then there will be no other non-FOSS licensed software that
can be used by the Philippine government!
> >
> > Think. We're talking the same things here. The same arguments do apply.
> >
>
> I'm sorry, I beg to differ. It's apples and oranges: Peru is not the
> Philippines, and the Philippines is not Peru.
I wasn't comparing the Philippines and Peru. I was merely pointing out
the argument they made in favor of FOSS and nothing more.
Then the arguments that hold true for Peru does not make it true for
the Philippines by virtue of just arguing.
>
> Sorry, there is a difference between "bias against something" and
> "exception to the rule"?
Paolo was very eloquent in answering this one.
I will argue with him instead then.
>
> 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".
> "
I conveniently snipped it out because it was too long. I don't
particularly like long emails.
Do I sense sarcasm in your statement?
> 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.
You don't need to tell me what I'm saying. I know what I'm saying.
You're the one saying all those things above.
You're saying we need policy, and I agree but we differ on the kind of
policy: you support the FOSS bill for what it is, while I don't. And
in its current incarnation, the FOSS bill says that FOSS should be the
only kind software to be used in government and I say it's needless to
legislate that.
You're supporting your point by citing administrative and fiscal
issues that you wish will be solved by using just FOSS in government.
Am I misinterpreting your assertion that using FOSS only in government
will solve these issues that you've raised?
> 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.
That's what you say. They can't make the same case because that isn't
how they do business which brings us back to the bill.
That's what I say? That's evident in the argument.
M$ Sales people will say the same things by asserting that if you only
used Microsoft products in all the government systems, and use
Microsoft technology based solutions, and the solutions that Microsoft
certified partners provide, that you'll have little trouble with
integration and making sure that the system is working.
You're making the same points, only you're using FOSS as a replacement
for Microsoft's products.
> The same points you're using are the same points that make a case for
> proprietary software, so there's nothing new in that.
In what way?
See above.
>
> 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_".
Extensions and future modifications are only allowed if the software
license says its so. Therefore it cannot be *disregarded*.
It should be regardless of whether the software license is a FOSS
license or just includes clauses for extensions and future
modifications.
>
> The point is that there should be no bias for or against any software
> based on the type license it comes with.
That's your point. Its clear. You don't need to keep saying it.
Apparently, I need to keep saying it because some people keep
insisting that there's no bias for FOSS in the case of this bill.
>
> And because it's a public forum and public discussion, we should try
> to keep it on topic.
When was I not on topic?
Let me quote:
Policy defines the objectives we want to meet. It provides guidance on
how we can achieve these objectives. Without policy, there is chaos.
This is a sweeping naive generalization of the point of making policy.
That is not on topic.
>
> 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.
The objectives are in the proposed legislation. Read it again.
Apparently, saying "non-reliance to any one vendor" is made to look
like it will be solved by "using only FOSS in government ICT
projects".
The objective is different from what the policy conveys: the policy
conveys usage of software licensed under one particular type of
license (FOSS), while not solving the non-reliance to any one vendor
issue directly. Government may still avail of RHEL or SuSE support
licenses, and still rely on one vendor!
> Roadmaps will come only when the objectives are clear and policies consistent.
Thank you for the lesson again. Here's one for you. The proposed
legislation may help make inconsistent policies (case-to-case basis)
more consistent. The objectives are clearly stated in the bill.
Help make inconsistent policies more consistent? How, by making FOSS
the first choice? How does that achieve the objectives directly?
>
> I speak for a lot of people when I say that we in the Philippine Linux
> Users Group are Free/Open Source Software users and advocates (some
> even contributors). That doesn't mean that we all sing just one song,
> or for the matter believe in the same ways of promoting FOSS.
Singing a song and singing out of tune are clearly different.
So you think we're all singing one song?
> What you have proven, is only that you can seem to argue and seem to
> sound convincing. You have not proven that the policy is not
> discriminatory because of the quoted section 6 already makes it
> discriminatory.
Personality attacks are cool but way off topic. The policy is not
discriminatory is my honest opinion. I simply have not proven it to
your satisfaction.
So it's your honest opinion, while it's my opionion otherwise. And
you're right, you haven't proven it (period).
> The government has the sovereign right to protect itself from policies
> that limit choice -- like this FOSS bill -- and unnecessarily favor
> anything based on partisan agenda. Maybe the president can Veto this
> bill when it comes to the point of enactment, which gives me an
> idea...
Now wouldn't that be draconian.
What's draconian, working within the current confines defined by the
government you keep insisting has the right to choose by making just
one choice for all cases? The separation of powers is there as granted
by the same constitution that make the act of congress as legal as the
veto powers of the President of the Philippines.
>
> Sorry, but these two terms are objectively defined:
Objectively defined by google but not objectively used by you.
Hmmm...
> zealot -- partisan: a fervent and even militant proponent of something
We are all zealots then in our own way.
Which is beside the point.
What I meant was that this bill is a zealotrous way of pushing an
agenda. An Extremist approach.
I believe in "do it once, do it well..." and if using the excuse of
the bill will be watered down in the readings anyway sits well with
some people, it doesn't sit well with me.
> fascist -- an adherent of fascism or other right-wing authoritarian views
Since when have Bayan Muna become right-wing and authoritarian.
I wasn't arguing that Bayan Muna is right-wing and authoritarian: I am
arguing that *the bill* is:
"Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by
strict obedience to the authority of the state, which often maintains
and enforces social control through the use of oppressive measures.
The term may also be used to describe the personality or management
style of an individual or organization which seeks to dominate those
within its sphere of influence and has little regard for building
consensus." -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism
I've used it objectively -- you just look at it through those "FOSS is
the only way"-rose-tainted glasses you're wearing.
> [gotten from googling "define: zealot" and "define: fascist" respectively]
>
> Which is consistent with how I describe the bill supported by the
> points that I've been raising.
Just because you describe it as such doesn't mean it is.
Huh? If that's true, then just because you say you're Rage Callao
doesn't mean you are -- which is pointless and preposterous.
Using the "just because you said so isn't so" approach at arguing will
get you nowhere fast. Prove me wrong then.
--
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
