On 12/12/06, Dean Michael Berris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: ..
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.
You know Dean, you're right. The FOSS bill IS discriminatory against closed source software. As well it should. Your "infringement on agency's freedom.." argument is valid, but it also is kind of stupid. Agencies do have to follow a lot of rules regarding when and how they can buy or pay for ANYTHING. Those are infringements on their rights too. Obet is correct. Affirmative action is needed to correct the overwhelmingly lopsided market presence of Microsoft. In my opinion, EVEN IF IT MEANS CHOOSING A TECHNICALLY INFERIOR SOLUTION. Your argument is valid in an ideal, pie-in-the-sky world. But we don't live in that world of wide-ranging freedoms where everybody does the right thing. Besides, the FOSS bill HAS to be over the top, because it will CERTAINLY be watered down. You should see this as blindingly obvious: ask for the moon, so that when you have to backtrack, you will still get most of what you want. If you ask for what is "reasonable," the greedy people on the other side will push back and you will get far less than what you think is "reasonable." _________________________________________________ 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
