yes nishit you are right.
the problem is that if at all the press generally talks about
"OPENSOURCE " (they don't talk about free software ), they only
highlite the cost issue and although there might be some organisations
doing a proxy product marketing, it is wrong for press to generalise.
and using words like license cost negociation etc is not conveying the
real reason of this freedom fight and why odf needs to be supported
and not ooxml.
regads.
Kk
On 25/03/2008, krishnakant Mane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 25/03/2008, Nishit Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 9:11 PM, krishnakant Mane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I went through the editorial.
> > > one more point which struck me was that it creates an impression that
> > > this is a "proxy for product war "
> > > which means all those who supported odf also had some selfish marketing
> > > gains.
> > > here we should note that people like Dr. Nagarjun have helped this
> > > cause due to no "marketing of product " aim.
> > > secondly the tone of the editorial also talks about the licensing cost
> > > issue and has not really emphasised on the "freedom aspect " which
> > > implies freedom to encript and decript the data by any one who wishes
> > > to do so.
> > > it uses words like "negociations for license costs ", correct me if I
> > > am remembering wrong but although my quoting might not be word to word
> > > correct, the tone of the article is towards saying that odf is for
> > > those who care about the cost of licensing and it talks nothing much
> > > about freedom.
> > >
> >
> > Yes, I forgot to mention that. One more reason to believe they are reading
> > out of Microsoft's PR briefs. Can we work upon drafting a letter to the
> > editor as the GNU/Linux Users Group, Mumbai?
> > --
> > http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
> >
>
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
