In all these cases, it is custom built software with one client. But suppose state A had released the code and made it available. Would'nt B and C save a large sum by re-using what A had released and modifying it to suit local conditions. Or suppose state C had released the code and made it available? Wouldnt that be FOSS inspite of the fact that it is written using proprietary tools and runs on a proprietary platform?
While agreeing that the benifits of Free Software cannot be fully exploited unless unrestricted sharing of code takes place, it is not a cakewalk as my friend imagines. It's a result of real dedicated work at the grassroots. People relaxing on top of utopian clouds may find it difficult to imbibe the intricateimplementaion strategies. The migration can take place only by gradually building up confidence. We can't expect the govts to blindly endorse Free Software by being seduced by its philosophy alone. We have to show them that it is indeed a working model. The book about which we are discussing here clearly states that it is a compilation of 'FOSS based' projects in the PSEs of Kerala. Please understand that we are talking about 'FOSS based' projects and nothing else. So we now have some solid working models to substantiate our campaigning. Now don't think that we are absolutely complacent about all that we have done. We are very much interested in taking this to the next level and this issue is addressed in the draft of the current IT policy. <quote> 8.4 The Government is of the view that knowledge generated through public funding should be freely available to the public. Facilities will be developed to ensure the same. </quote> Once this draft is finalised, all the issues that my friend is being worried about can be put to rest.
So when we talk of spreading FOSS, are we talking of spreading the
usage of the foss tools and platform or are we >talking of spreading the culture of sharing of code? It should be a mix of both
In my opinion, the tools and platform are irrelevant - the criterion is: is the code shared or not. If so, it is foss, if not it is proprietary. Which means i would prefer a government that commissions code in VB and shares it to a government
that does it in python and doesnt share it. Abolutely misguided opinion.
The companies that bid for these contracts oppose the sharing for the simple reason that they follow the proprietary profit model of write once, sell many times and feel sharing will eat into their profits.
Please understand that paying once for a custom made software(of which they will have absolute control) is far better than giving huge amounts as license fees to propreitary companies.
say in a trivial sense that it's Free Software. There's only one user and that user is free. No user has been subjugated; no one is being mistreated in this way. Of course there are always other ethical issues that might enter the situation. There are many ethical issues in life, but in this one particular ethical issue, at least in that case, nothing wrong is being done.
this is not really relevant as we are talking not of individuals but of public bodies
Please note that a 'user' need not be an indivudual.
Here all Govt./Aided high schools use "Free Software",
could you elaborate on this? What free software do they use? Is the syllabus available for perusal?
Please have a look link for some details. http://www.rediff.com/money/2006/sep/02microsoft.htm James -- HASTA LA VICTORIA SIEMPRE! -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
