Comments on: FOSS does not mean freedom

By: Blogie

Blogie — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:28:58 +0000

I wouldn’t call myself an expert in politics either, Mark. But from the way I see it, if it’s an EO then it would be just like how you described it: the gov’t like a corporation. But if it’s a law, well, that’s way different IMHO.

Edwin M of CDITE-XI remarked that, if the gov’t espoused “promoting” FOSS, no problem at all. But “mandating” it is another thing altogether.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:22:13 +0000

Please forgive my ignorance, Blogs, but what is the difference between an executive order and a law on FOSS. How would this change the nature of the “rule” or whatever they call it in politics. (Never had any interest in the area of politics before)

By: Blogie

Blogie — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:09:45 +0000

Mark, i agree that the government could very well issue a blanket order that they should use only open-source software. So why don’t they just do that? If it were an executive order, it would be more palatable. But a law?? Again I say, it shouldn’t have to take a law to have this accomplished.

Remember: when we talk of closed-source providers, we’re not just talking about the multinationals here. Filipino software developers who do software publishing and create applications for commercial use — they are included here. So if this Bill doesn’t undermine the likes of, say, Oracle or SAP, fine. They could probably care less. But what about our local software developers who do not practice Open Source directives? The Bill, if it becomes law, will be very prejudicial towards them.

P.S. She’s Manila-based now, Mark. But I’ll send her your greet.

By: Mark

Mark — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 04:00:47 +0000

I’m not so sure if its illegal though. If one views the government as a corporation (which in many aspects is), it wouldn’t be so different from, let’s say, PLDT or Davao Light issuing a company-wide policy stating that it will only accept services from FOSS providers from now on. There’s nothing illegal or prejudicial about that. It’s just that their requirements have changed such that only FOSS can fulfill them. One of their requirements could be flexibility in choosing a provider. By choosing a closed-source provider they are practically locking themselves in with that vendor whereas by going open source and using open standards they still have the ability to switch to another vendor if the services of the current one doesn’t suite them.

Also I’m not sure if this is undermining closed-source providers since the bill doesn’t prevent them from operating within the Philippines. The bill just says the government won’t avail of their services if they can manage it. On the other hand, as to how big of a blow it will be for these providers if they lose the government as their customer, I have no idea. But then again, they’re probably not that pleasant of a customer to deal with anyway!

P.S. send my advanced birthday greetings to your sister!

By: Blogie

Blogie — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 05:18:33 +0000

Thanks Southern Leyte Blogger! And I got your email too.

By: Southern Leyte Blogger

Southern Leyte Blogger — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:43:53 +0000

hi! I didn’t read your post so it is expected that this comment is not related to your post.

this is just to inform you that your entry to the Pinoy Bloggers Directory has been approved.

tnx

By: Blogie

Blogie — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:29:15 +0000

Well, what about setting a budget? Like i keep saying, it should not have to take a law. IMHO, government’s action to undermine other providers (in this case, non-Open Source) is illegal and prejudicial. Government should remain neutral and fair.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 12:01:39 +0000

Out of curiosity, other than creating a law, what other avenues does the government have to require its agencies to prefer FOSS unless impractical?

By: Blogie

Blogie — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:33:54 +0000

Hello, Mark. Section 6 is worded more strongly that that, IMHO. I feel about it just as the way you feel about Section 10. Whether gov’t uses FOSS or not should be a decision, a choice. But it should not be made a law.

By: Mark

Mark — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:15:16 +0000

While I’m a fan, user, and advocate of FOSS, I don’t agree with section 10.3 that states it is illegal for an HEI to offer a certification program training to students if it doesn’t offer a similar program for FOSS. This is the part that will truly prejudice the government against other entities and it should be removed or reformulated.

As for the other sections though, I’m not so bothered. Unless of course if they have a different definition for “preference”. The way section 6 is worded is that the gov’t. will prefer FOSS but will not strictly require it if it’s impractical.