Re: [plug] FOSS Forum

[Jeffrey Ian Dy]

Hi Dean, Quote from my previous post (emphasis modified): *Regarding the comment that it is unfair that government adopts      only FOSS and exclude proprietary solutions.* Now, this is a      trademark M$ argument. They cite the bill of rights of many      countries (which are almost the same even if some countries don't      have a written Constitution), in our case section 1 of Article III      of the Constitution (The bill of rights) pertaining to, drumbeat      please, *equal protection clause*. What can I say? Law 101, equal      protection applies only to equal classes with no substantial      difference. Hence, you can invoke equal protection if the state      promulgates a law that will provide special heavier penalties for      boys over girls. *Now, if two classes are substantially different      of each other, the equal protection clause does not apply. For      example, there is no stopping government from promulgating a law      that gives heavier penalties to government officials over ordinary      citizens or, in the interest of its citizen to heavily regulate      one industry over the other.* In our particular bill, sad to say      but the equal protection clause does not apply. Governments has      the right to reject projects plainly from sources which in      accordance to its policies are non-beneficial to the people.      Government can give preference to FOSS on the basis of principles      (not necessarily cost) for which Congress, following the mandate      of the Constitution decides on. I'm not really sure what you meant with discrimination. Ofcourse everybody "discriminates" (in the plain use of the word) --  something like "I like blue better than red". But when I state I like blue better than red, that is arbitrary.  In law, the equal protection clause does not apply to this case.And as long as the principles stated in the bill adheres to constitutional provisions, the bill is not arbitrary. I have read one of your comments. Correct me if i am wrong but I believe you placed a proposal that we outline procurement guidelines but not to make FOSS mandatory. Something like the Brazil model.  Don't worry, I believe the bill's final version will be like that  Lolz :D Seriously, if we do not mandate the use of FOSS, government employees will resist migration and IT professionals in gov't will just say, "Hey,training takes a lot of our budget so let's not try FOSS", or something like "I don't know how to implement SuSE or CentOS for my networking specs so let's just buy CISCO since I know Cisco IOS" without even realizing the TCO over a span of time. hence we believe mandatory is the right path. Now when does what I believe and what you believe matter? Obviously we are not about to change the text of the bill just because you argued against it. It's in lobbying in Congress. Not that who wins is actually right (anti-impeachment legislators won but they are not necessarily correct) but at least we get a negotiated bill. I actually read your comments and, even though I do not usually respond to you directly (If I want to, i'll just email or PM you), I take note of them so that when negotiation comes, we'll know what to expect, what points are agreeable and what are not. Plan B which is semi-Brazilian model is likely and still acceptable to us. The final outcome of the bill depends on the strength of the negotiator so I can't post details here. You can talk to us if you want to. PM me and perhaps we can meet each other. I refrain (take note, refrain not 'do not ever') from quoting, because usually when I answer, I meant for everyone to read it. Sometimes (just like me), people will just glance over discussion materials and when they see it's addressed to a specific person and they know the arguments are substantially the same, they do not read it. In some cases, I do quote but the whole original message is below my  reply (some of my posts actually do have the entire original message below them, you can check them out). Now since you bought it, let me clarify this (at least now I have a leeway in my schedule). I personally took offense in calling the proponents of this bill *Nazis* and *Fascists*. At one time even called us *communists*. Are you a board member of Plug? It would do you good to be more politically correct next time. Bayan Muna's leaders fought against Marcos. Some of our seniors have loved ones which for the past 25 years and until now are missing . There are more than 700+ activists now dead since GMA assumed power simply because they have the "communist" tag with them. After you calling me communist, who knows, I might not be able to present my case in this group because I might be dead the next morning. The term discrimination is more apt to to the name tagging you made. Now you can call me communist, but fascist?  I do not have to reiterate the point. That is more discriminatory than this bill. However, let's get it over with (the name tagging) and proceed with the bill. you actually made some points I can use later so thank you. Dean Michael Berris wrote: Hi Jeff, On 9/22/06, Jeffrey Ian Dy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Zak, When I said "some arguments embodied that of Microsoft's" it was a factual statement. It was not meant to define the intention of the bill.  The purpose of why a law should be written is in its (1) explanatory note and (2) in its statement of principles. So please don't misinterpret my post nor misrepresent my intentions. There is sometimes a danger of quoting a line or two (or in this case a paragraph) then lengthily discuss the merits of what was said. This is the reason why I refrain from quoting people, though I try, in my best capacity to explain. Way back in college, I remember constructors and deconstructors (not in C++ or OOP, but in Philosphy). People tend to deconstruct statements made and reconstruct them to fit one bias. To avoid that, the context from which the language was used must be  realized when reconstructing. I agree with your assessment that Microsoft's arguments are being embodied in my reactions. I know, I've read the FUD documents and press releases. However, please see the context of my opposition of certain provisions of the bill regarding mandatory and preferential use of *only FOSS*. As for construction and deconstruction, of course that's how you reason: you deconstruct whatever was said to concepts in your head, and try your best to interpret what's being said and propose a different/dissenting view or argument. As for your non-quoting, it actually does more harm than good because I for one could not understand what you're referring to when presenting your arguments without proper inline quoted comments. See http://plug.free.net.ph/lists/netiquette for more on the quoting issue. Everybody knows that M$ campaigned globally against FOSS. Bill Gates even called its lobbyists "communists" and the CEO of M$ (I forgot, not Bill) in 2005 called FOSS a cancer and asked governments to stop FOSS legislation. Hence, I was actually pointing out that some arguments raised here, while I sincerely believed to be well-intentioned, are the same arguments being used by M$ against FOSS in the global arena, and echoing it, is like helping the anti-FOSS propaganda campaign globally. Remember that the issue here is not FOSS advocacy but rather the FOSS bill. I believe in FOSS, and am thankful for FOSS -- I even advocate its use. But in government, I am not at ease with the thought of FOSS being made the first choice for ICT projects in blanket policy. I'd rather guidelines on the rights allowed to government be specified, while not discriminating against the type of license software comes with. I would also rather see FOSS be adopted because of the technical merits of the solution, rather than the license the software comes in. I have shown a case of how a software license beneficial to government slapped on to software which fulfills the technical functional and non-functional requirements of government can be non-FOSS and be seen "unfit" merely because of a bias; instead as the bill proposes, "only FOSS shall by used by government in ICT projects." regardless of whether the FOSS is actually compliant to the technical requirements of government. Now, just to clarify because this may be used against us and say that we are legislating discrimination (which we are not, please read my previous post), we have nothing against M$. It was a factual statement . It was even far from discriminatory. I did not call M$ fascists nor Nazis nor anything of that sort. It was factual and I have evidence to prove it. And the *intent* of the statement is to reiterate the consequences of statements we will be saying in *public* because we might find ourselves in the future involuntarily on the other side of the fence. But you are legislating discrimination: "only FOSS will be used in government ICT projects". You are then already discriminating solutions based on arbitrarily set properties and criteria _regardless if you have exceptions_. Instead of putting down the acceptable stipulations with regards to software licenses that government _ought_ to require from products developed by third party VAS providers or software development firms (like access to source code, rights to extend and modify, and rights to use for indefinite period of time), you choose to classify the licenses the software come in and require government to favor one class over the other. IMO that's discrimination enough.

_________________________________________________
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