Okay Manny, now you've made it personal.
On 12/12/06, manny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat, 9 Dec 2006, Dean Michael Berris wrote:
> I'm against the darned FOSS bill. But I continue to write FOSS, use
> FOSS, and advocate FOSS. I just don't want FOSS to cheat its way into
> government via this FOSS bill.
That's a nice press release, but whether you realize it or not, you
clearly favor commercial interests over public interests, as shown by your
"unique" version of "transparency".
Press release? What's a press release, that I write FOSS, use FOSS,
and advocate FOSS? I know you've seen me in the Linux World 2005
after-party and that it's no secret that I write FOSS (if you're not
convinced, check my blog and sourceforge profile (id: mikhail_beris)
).
Transparency can only be defined between two parties. It doesn't
require that something be available to the public for it to be
transparent -- your financial information and transactions with your
bank should be transparent between you and the bank, but not available
to the general public. It requires that the details be bare and
available to involved parties for it to be transparent.
FOSS can be considered more transparent than non-FOSS, even if the
non-FOSS solution's code is available to the government. Being FOSS
does not define transparency -- just like clean water is more
transparent than murky water, there are degrees of transparency.
Just look at the above statement. Nowhere in the FOSS bill is it implied
that FOSS can "cheat" its way into the government. The bill CLEARLY states
that proprietary software can be used when FOSS can't do the job.
Technical merit IS a qualifier for FOSS to enter government.
Here you go again. Read section 6 again, and look at the GPLed "Hello,
World!" example I've been touting forever and ever.
Saying "Only FOSS shall be used on government systems unless no
suitable FOSS is not available" is like saying "Using only a hammer
for every task, unless a suitable hammer is not available". If you
don't understand how FOSS will cheat its way into government this way,
then you should re-examine your brain.
The FOSS bill is NOT a technology issue, but you can't seem to grasp that.
THE FOSS BILL IS A TECHNOLOGY ISSUE!!! IF YOU CAN'T UNDERSTAND THAT
FOSS STANDS FOR "FREE / OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE" THEN YOU SHOULD SHUT UP
BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT MAKING SENSE.
It's a FREEDOM and TRANSPARENCY issue.
The Bill of Rights is a FREEDOM and LIBERTY issue. The anti-graft and
corruption laws deal with TRANSPARENCY issues.
Nowhere in the FOSS Bill does it actually define transparency or
freedom. Nor does it even *attempt* to define freedom (except maybe
the pretty much useless introduction/privilege speech which does not
bear anything unless provisions are made to support these... unless of
course you don't know how bills work and are written).
The bill seeks to promote a way of
thinking about software licensing vis-a-vis freedom.
And it has failed to find a way. The proposition was to mandate that
FOSS be the first choice BY LAW -- if that wasn't an infringement of
the individual agency's freedom to set their own legal policies on
software procurement, then it's a blatant disregard for the autonomy
of the three branches of government and the agencies that serve
underneath each of these three branches. You can't have it both ways.
If you cannot see this in the bill's current form, then you either
have major brain damage, or have been drinking too much RMS' koolaid
-- or reading a different bill.
It pormotes that
freedom and gives preference to ANY technology that adheres to it.
It does not "pormote", it drives FOSS down government's throat. If
section 6 does not tell you all about it, then keep believing the
earth is flat.
That's
NOT cheatting any more than a government preference for democratic laws is
cheating.
The 72-hour "Con-Ass" thing was a "preference for democratic laws"
because it was pushed by the ruling majority. THAT WAS A BLATANT
ATTEMPT TO PUSH AN AGENDA BY USING THE LAW: WHAT DIFFERENCE IS THIS
FOSS BILL?!
> I take offense in the implication that "I've been bought" by Microsoft
> and other companies. I certainly don't appreciate your singling me out
> Manny.
I don't appreciate your MISREPRESENTATION of the FOSS bill and the GPL/FSF
either.
I am not misrepresenting anything: I am airing my concern, and my
interpretation of the darned FOSS bill. I NEVER TRIED TO REPRESENT THE
FOSS BILL NOR THE GPL/FSF -- I never claimed that I wrote the bill,
nor that I am part of the GPL (isn't that a license?) or the FSF. Now
what right do you have to accuse me of representing anything or anyone
but myself for that matter?
I make no attempt of representing the bill: we already have the
(silent) authors of the bill on the list. Only THEY can make a
representation of this abomination called the FOSS bill. I am not
representing anything, rather airing my interpretation and
understanding: and thus my recommendations WHICH YOU HAVE COMPLETELY
DISREGARDED NOR PROPERLY REBUTTED.
The former has been pointed out to you MANY times by yours truly.
Which I ignore because I don't care what you think about me, rather I
care for actual arguments which are 1) based on the bill 2) based on
personal interpretations of the bill 3) "original ideas, not quotes
from some blog that you didn't write" 4) not echoes from whoever has
already written on the list. You make none of the above, and thus I
don't understand why you keep using the word "MISREPRESENT" while I
only air my interpretation. I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE A PROPONENT OF THE
BILL, NOR HAVE I TRIED REPRESENTING IT IN ANY MANNER.
I ignore your trying to make me look so because I continue to exercise
my democratic rights to air my thoughts and stand on a public mailing
list which apparently you have taken to a new level by posting
libelous statements of my alleged misrepresentation of the FOSS bill.
If you keep on doing it, I will most certainly keep pointing it out and
publicy wonder why you continue to do something that is obviously
deceptive.
What made you think I'm trying to deceive anybody when all I've been
doing is airing *MY* interpretation of the bill's motives? And how I
think it's needless? And how I think it's not going to solve the
problem "we just wish it magically would"? And my proposed changes to
the FOSS bill which I've already posted before?
There are other people here who have made their thoughts known, but
apparently you chose me -- not anybody else, ME -- to react to, when
others have also made the same argument that I have. You want me to
quote them? No Manny, you have something against me and my
self-procalimed pragmatic view of the FOSS bill situation. If it's not
obvious yet, I'll make it obvious for everyone else now: you hate my
guts for opposing this FOSS bill because YOU STAND TO GAIN FROM IT.
This pointing me out in public is only reflecting that Manny, you
wouldn't take on anybody your own size and will not resort to any
valid argument: rather attack the person you're arguing with by saying
"you're dishonest" or "you're misrepresenting someone else".
If it helps you sleep better, the FOSS bill will make good business
for Orange and Bronze Software Labs, Ltd. Co. in which I am a partner
in, and the current firm I'm working with. It will definitely be good
business for FOSS third party vendors like us, and the many other
firms my friends and some members of PLUG are involved with right now.
Yes, we all stand to benefit from FOSS in government.
Yet I oppose it because it's against my personal sense of fair play: I
want FOSS to get into government, but not this way. If you don't
understand that, then that's your problem night mine.
If you don't want that, be honest about what the bill states
and what the GPL/FSF is about.
But I've been nothing but honest about my opinion and stand. How about
you, have you been honest with your objectives in calling me out and
making it personal?
Until then, you will get what you
practically ask for. It's simple as that.
No, I didn't ask to be personally attacked on a public mailing list by
you nonetheless the (I presume) head of OpenMinds when I aired my
opinion and interpretation of the FOSS bill. If there's anybody
misrepresenting the FOSS bill or the FSF, that's YOU.
No Manny, YOU asked for this.
God bless!
God Bless you too.
--
Dean Michael C. Berris
http://cplusplus-soup.blogspot.com/
mikhailberis AT gmail DOT com
+63 928 7291459
_________________________________________________
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
