Hi Paolo!
On 9/21/06, Paolo Alexis Falcone <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2006-09-20 at 22:19 +0800, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
>
> Sorry, there is a difference between "bias against something" and
> "exception to the rule"?
There is.
Wording?
The former refers to ruling out a particular class regardless of
circumstance. The latter rules out a particular class EXCEPT in some
circumstances.
Googling [define: bias] ::
# influence in an unfair way; "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours"
# a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
Now, bias doesn't necessitate ruling out a particular class, but
rather an unfair favoring of one over others.
In the case of Inferior FOSS vs. Competent non-FOSS : the government
will use FOSS if this bill becomes law!!! And that's what you say is
clearly more advantageous to government?
[snipped Rage's and my comments]
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.
Then make a bill about open standards. Don't equate the advantage of
open standards to FOSS, because it's not just FOSS that can work with
open standards.
> 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 was saying that the arguments used to defend FOSS in government is
the same one being used to defend the use of Microsoft products. If
you're using Windows on all the computers, and are using the .NET
framework in all your applications, and that you're using XML to
communicate between and among components using *open standard
protocols*, and serializing the information in XML, then you pretty
much have a cohesive working system without the help of FOSS.
You are OTOH arguing on a different line citing the vendor
independence rationale for the bill.
>
> 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.
Yes, and I do not dispute this part of the bill!!! I ask that it be a
separate bill because _it can stand on its own_.
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.
But I can (or for that matter, you or anybody else can and may) write
a license that allows government to do more with the code including
bidding contracts to extend the code, make that same code available to
another government agency -- and add stipulations to protect the
interest of the private enterprise by not releasing the code to the
public, and not allow transfer of the rights granted to government to
any other entity. This license is NOT a FOSS license because of the
restrictions, but it is also advantageous to the government! And
because of the license being non-FOSS, it won't be considered equally
because government will have a bias for FOSS solutions first and
foremost before any other non-FOSS licensed software.
>
> 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.
I agree, but do this on a case to case basis and not through blanket
policy. Preferring FOSS over non-FOSS on the get go will not be
advantageous to government, because the choice to be made will be
skewed already in favor of FOSS -- even if it is inferior to non-FOSS
solutions.
>
> 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.
Which is precisly my point: if these were the objectives, then how
does making FOSS mandatory achieve these goals again? Government can
choose to use only RHEL or SuSE on all the systems -- and they're
again locked into a single vendor. Using FOSS only in government will
not directly translate to fostering the local IT industry.
Hence the bill was drafted to make policies around that objective.
Somehow, I don't see it that way precisely because of the questions
I've raised above.
>
> 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.
What makes you think that I'm for status quo? I like the other parts
of the bill, no question about it. I have qualms about the mandatory
use of FOSS in government though, which is what I have been harping at
for the past few days already.
I honestly think there's a better way than just requiring the
government use *only FOSS*. And the change I want is systemic as I
have already stated earlier.
--
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
