RA8283 FOSS Bill (Revised Draft)
I just read (from PinoyTechBlog) that an updated version of the proposed Free/Open Source Software Bill (RA 8293) is now available. The download link is from a site called rapidshare.de which is pretty cumbersome to use (and has a specter of sleaziness in it). So, I decided to host a copy here.
This version only contains a good number of revisions from the original version I commented about in a previous blog entry. Here are some of my new and revisited comments:
- Section 4.2 requirement for standards documents to be freely available is sometimes not applicable. Most standards bodies charge fees for copies of standards documents. Most notably the ITU-T and IEEE. Maybe, it would be best if we just restricted it to “copies of standards documents can be obtained free of charge”. The problematic word might the “distribute”.
- Section 4 does not restrict the use of Intellectually Property encumbered standards. There are certain standards that force the use of a particular technology that is protected by IP and force users to pay royalties to IP owners. Only standards with clear IP disclosure and policies must be used. An example of this is WCDMA which steps on a lot of Qualcomm IP.
- Section 8’s pushing Government R&D towards free/open source software is definitely a good idea. This ensures continuity in government software development programs. Of course, the National Security provision will always be around
- Section 11.2 and 11.3 is a violation of Academic Freedom. I don’t see any benefit in adding any restrictions to academic freedom. Also shouldn’t students be allowed to commercialize their developments? Why would corporations fund research and development in local universities and research institutions if they cannot potentially commercialize these?
- Section 22.7 and 22.8 is the very important anti-software patent provisions. These are key provisions to ensure that free and open source software can proliferate in the country. We don’t want any SCO-like court cases in the Philippines.
- Does Section 17.5 exclude private colleges and universities from these programs? Aren’t we citizens too? How about other non-government organizations?
- Section 18 is a really big amount of money. I hope clear accountability is done. I hope that this new chunk of tax money really does make a change.
I still find the mandatory use of FOSS instead of mandatory option to use problematic and a violation of the spirit of free/open source software. As it stands, the law is pretty good. But, it still is anti-”academic freedom” and anti-”free market”.
