http://www.howtogeek.

com/129967/htg-explains-what-is-open-source-software-and-why-youshould-care/
The Definition of Open Source
If a program is open-source, its source code is freely available to its users. Its users and anyone else have the
ability to take this source code, modify it, and distribute their own versions of the program. The users also have the
ability to distribute as many copies of the original program as they want. Anyone can use the program for any
purpose; there are no licensing fees or other restrictions on the software. The OSI has a more detailed definition of
open source on its website.

Types of Licenses
There are many different licenses used by open-source projects, depending on which the developers prefer for their
program.
The GPL, or GNU General Public License, is widely used by many open-source projects, such as Linux. In addition to
all the above definitions of open-source, the terms of the GPL specify that, if anyone modifies an open-source
program and distributes a derivative work, they must also distribute the source code for their derivative work. In other
words, no one can take open-source code and create a closed-source program from it they must release their
changes back to the community. Microsoft referred to the GPL as being viral for this reason, as it forces programs
that incorporate GPL code to release their own source code. Of course, a programs developers can opt not to use
GPL code if this is a problem.

Some other licenses, such as the BSD license, place less restrictions on developers. If a program is licensed under
the BSD license, anyone can incorporate the programs source code into another program. They dont have to
release their changes back to the community. Some people see this is being even more free than the GPL license,
as it gives developers the freedom to incorporate the code into their own closed-source programs, while some people
see it as being less free because it takes rights away from the end users of the derived program.

Benefits for Users

This isnt all dry, unimportant stuff that only matters to developers. The most obvious benefit of open-source software
is that it can be had for free. The example of Ubuntu Linux above makes that clear unlike Windows, you can install
or distribute as many copies of Ubuntu as you want, with no restrictions. This can be particularly useful servers if
youre setting up a server, you can just install Linux on it. if youre setting up a virtualized cluster of servers, you can

easily duplicate a single Ubuntu server. You dont have to worry about licensing and how many instances of Linux
youre allowed to run.
An open-source program is also more flexible. For example, Windows 8s new interface disappointed many long-time
desktop Windows users. Because Windows is closed-source, no Windows user can take the Windows 7 interface,
modify it, and make it work properly on Windows 8. (Some Windows users are trying, but this is a painstaking
process of reverse engineering and modifying binary files.)

PROBABLE CAUSE; DETERMINATION.

When confronted with a motion to withdraw an Information on the ground of
lack of probable cause based on a resolution of the DOJ Secretary, the
bounden duty of the trial court is to make an independent assessment of the
merits of such motion. Having acquired jurisdiction over the case, the trial
court is not bound by such resolution, but is required to evaluate it before
proceeding further with the trial and should embody such assessment in the
order disposing the motion. Ligaya Santos and Robert Bunda vs. Domingo I.
Orda Jr., G.R. No. 189402, May 6, 2010.
ex abundante ad cautelam
The Latin term ad cautelam can be translated into English as for security, as a precaution, or to be on the
safe side. The phrase exabundanti ad cautela means with extreme caution.
[1] To question a courts jurisdiction and at the same time be able to file pleadings, lawyers can caption their pleadings as
ad cautelam. In court hearings, lawyers must inform the judge that they are questioning the courts jurisdiction;
[2] As a precautionary measure to preserve a partys remedies.

Motion for judicial determination of probable cause: Please read the Supreme Court decision in Dio v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 178947, June 26, 2013. The pertinent provisions of the decision are posted below:

Actions that a judge may

take once the information is
filed with the court and after
evaluating the evidence on
record:
(a) issue a warrant of arrest,
if there is probable cause;
(b) immediately dismiss the
case, if the evidence on
record clearly fails to
establish probable cause; or
(c) order the prosecutor to
submit additional evidence, if
the existence of probable
cause is doubtful.

(a) Determination of probable cause may be either executive or judicial.

Executive determination of probable cause is made by the public prosecutor, during a preliminary investigation. The
prosecutor has broad discretion to determine whether probable cause exists for filing a criminal information in court.
Whether or not the prosecutor has correctly ascertained that probable cause exists is a matter that the trial court itself does
not and may not be compelled to pass upon.
Judicial determination of probable cause is made by the judge to find out whether a warrant of arrest should be issued
against the accused. The judge must satisfy himself or herself that, on the basis of the evidence submitted, the accused
must be placed under custody in order not to frustrate the ends of justice.
If the judge, therefore, finds no probable cause, he or she cannot be forced to issue the arrest warrant.
the judge is already duty-bound to determine the existence or non-existence of probable cause for the arrest of the accused
immediately upon the filing of the information. The filing of a motion for judicial determination of probable cause becomes
unnecessary, if not deliberately attempts to cut short the process by asking the judge to weigh in on the evidence without a
full- blown trial.

(1)It is the judge alone who determines the probable cause for the
issuance of warrant of arrest. It is not for the provincial fiscal or
prosecutor to ascertain (People vs. Inting, 187 SCRA 788).
(2)(1) The determination by the prosecutor of probable cause is for the
purpose of either filing an information in court or dismissing the
charges against the respondent, which is an executive function. The
determination by the judge of probable cause begins only after the
prosecutor has filed the information in court and the latters
determination of probable cause is for the purpose of issuing an arrest
warrant against the accused, which is judicial function (People vs. CA,
301 SCRA 475).
(3)(2)Probable cause to hold a person for trial refers to the finding of the
investigating prosecutor after the conduct of a preliminary
investigation, that there is sufficient ground to hold a well-founded
belief that a crime has been committed and that the respondent is
probably guilty thereof and should be held for trial. Based on such
finding, the investigating prosecutor files the corresponding complaint
or information in the competent court against the accused. The

determination of probable cause to issue a warrant of arrest is a

judicial function. A judge cannot be compelled to issue a warrant of
arrest if he or she believes honestly that there is no probable cause for
doing so (People vs. CA, 102 SCAD 375, Jan. 21, 1999).
Rule 116, Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Sec. 11. Suspension of arraignment. Upon motion by the proper party, the arraignment shall be suspended in the
following cases:
(c) A petition for review of the resolution of the prosecutor is pending at either the Department of Justice, or the Office of the
President; provided, that the period of suspension shall not exceed sixty (60) days counted from the filing of the petition with
the reviewing office.

A preliminary injunction may be granted when it is established:

(a) that the applicant is entitled to the relief demanded, and the whole or part of such relief consists in
restraining the commission or continuance of the act or acts complained of, or in requiring the
performance of an act or acts, either for a limited period or perpetually;
(b) that the commission, continuance or non-performance of the act or acts complained of during the
litigation would probably work injustice to the applicant; or
(c) that a party, court, agency or person is doing, threatening, or is attempting to do, or is procuring or
suffering to be done, some act or acts probably in violation of the rights of the applicant respecting the
subject of the action or proceeding, and tending to render the judgment ineffectual.