-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 11 March 2007 12:36, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > hi, > > an interesting discussion took place on IRC today regarding this: > http://www.space-kerala.org/downloads/foss.pdf > > The question was, with regard to #2 on the list - software > developed by keltron, is it foss or not? My contention is that the > tools used are irrelevant. The software was paid for by the > government, and developed by the government, all using our tax > rupees. But there is no indication whether the source for the > application is open or not, available to the users or not, > modifiable, downloadable or redistributable or not. Therefore this > is not f/oss as it goes against the fundamental notion that > software should be freely available, downloadable, modifiable and > redistributeable with or without modifications. I was further of
Maybe we should withhold comment on the software in question until we do know whether it's FLOSS or not? Instead of giving a dog a bad name and hanging it, why not ask Keltron/Govt of Kerala what license the software is available under and THEN indict them if it isn't a FLOSS license? Do remember that even if the software is, e.g., GPL, there's no reason why you should have access to it. If I write a GPL software, only the people I distribute it to have any any right to the software. There is nothing in the GPL that states that I must make the source available for download, modification and/or redistribution to anyone except the people I distribute the software to. > the opinion that the authors of the PDF in question have tried to > give an impression that free software is flourishing in the state. I thought the statement in the beginning of the PDF, ``based on FOSS'' is pretty clear. All the projects that I saw in the document were based on FOSS. The licenses for the individual projects weren't specified in the document, so unless you have some other source of information, I'd postpone the discussion until it has been proven one way or the other that those projects are FLOSS or otherwise. > I am also suprised that Richard Stallman has lent his name to this > - I am quite sure that he would have opposed the same thing tooth > and nail if it had happened in the US or Europe. However the free Er, would he? After having met him numerous times, I can't even predict what Stallman would do in well-defined situations, leave alone ambiguous ones like the one you're referring to. You obviously have a much better grasp of his personality and priorities than I do. > software guru with whom I was debating seemed to thing that this > did not fall under the definition of proprietary software. Opinions > anyone? I wonder who this free software guru was? You and I did discuss this on IRC earlier today, but (a) I'm no free software guru and (b) I never discussed whether this was proprietary software or not. Unless you are referring to some other person, in which case I apologise for imputing an issue with your grasp of reality. Regards, - -- Raju - -- Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F It is the mind that moves -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFF9CpkyWjQ78xo0X8RArYYAJ9p6mv3MjjTMjg2NZHHilNj04pNLQCcC4RJ KoAjehILlqlca5OS40kxxww= =hhaV -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
