There have been good responses to the article on this list
is there any way of getting these to ET (Venky can you suggest) as
rejoinders?
FOSSCOMM will have to develop some kind of a 'media plan' so that at the
right times, pro FOSS views are carried by the media (NASSCOM for eg has
this very well developed).
Venky, since you have worked with media before, can you share some thoughts.
regards
Guru.
justin joseph wrote:
My comments on the article:
"What is necessary is a policy that ensures that the system evolves in a way
that allows our own people to participate and enjoy the fruits of
their own innovation."
If "people" really means people, the masses in this country, then the GOI will
have to enforce copy left license to all outputs of IT production
(software/hardware).
Because other wise the "I.P" rights remain only with a section( .01%
?? ) of "people" who
owns the means of production. These "people" are allready ganged up
as "NASSCOMM".
NASSCOMM being chiefly the employers association in IT. How can
NASSCOMM consult
with some of its members who appreciate commons which in turn leads to
collective, inclusive
ownership over "fruits of their own innovation".
"Why are we trying to short-circuit the process in one of the largest
markets for such technologies?"
This is always seen on the part of the above explained class of
"people" whenever the governments
anywhere in the world intervene to protect the interests of real
people, the monopolies gang up and go crazy
reminding the governments that their country is just a huge markets
and its a free market at that and its
a self correcting self stabilizing one too, with saints from Harvards
to look after it (nice bullshit as always).
"This will not only help the IT sector's revenue growth, it will also
create a labour force that is skilled in
tackling local IT problems. "
There always have to be a labour force (read cheap labour force). How
else is exploitation possible!
"This is inconsistent with our approach to the drugs and pharma IPR
policy that was so vehemently opposed by the Left."
The left is always a problem you see...
"They had no knowledge about what India and the world would be like in
future. Trying to decide on how things should evolve is fundamentally
flawed. "
When the entire world is at least talking of Keynes we have someone
preaching Laissez-faire.
" The evolution of a good standard should be left to the market place
not to experts, regardless of how brilliant they are. "
Haven't these neo-liberal junkies had enough. screwing up real
economies with their free market crap?
This article is not about open standards in policy, its about crying
foul of govt intervention in Laissez faire capitalist vision
of the author.
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 1:49 PM, jtd<[email protected]> wrote:
The author needs an education in the need and importance of standards and the
pitfalls and reasons for the existence of multiple standards.
Firstly standards do not stifle innovation or the ability to earn. In fact it
allows much wider participation and hence much more innovation and creation
of wealth. Nothing in a standard prevents multiple implementations and
thereby innovation, effeciency and consequent creation of wealth.
The above is true only if the standard is available freely and without
patent / copyright encumberances, for use and implementation. Thus if the
standards are not open and unencumbered, the standard will actually stifle
innovation and wealth creation. Quite the opposite result of what the author
states. The author is confusing wealth hoarding for a microscopic miniority
with wealth creation for the majority
Secondly multiple standards came into existence PRIOR to or in parallel with
the standards process, primarily to carve out niche markets. In most cases
geographically isolated regions had set a particular standard and subsequent
globalisation forced the use of multiple standards. In every case of multiple
standards, the end user bears the hughe costs of supporting interoperability
(which the author convienently bandys about without understanding the
implications) by having to purchase additional goods and or services.
Some examples: PAL /SECAM /NTSC tv broadcast systems. Every television set had
to incur additional costs to incorporate circuitry which they rarely used.
Every broadcaster had to incur costs converting feeds from one format to the
other.
The Indian railways will be spending a whopping Rs.16500 Cr (and most likely a
substantially higher amount) for converting 18000Km of narrow and meter gauge
lines to broad gauge in the next few years. This is excluding the costs of
7000 odd Km already converted since 1992. They need to do so to minmise their
costs and provide seamless services. Most readers will be very familiar with
the hassle of transiting from Broad gauge to meter gauge in the course of
their travels.
The existence of multiple standards should be viewed as a failure of the
standardisation process and a burden on the public, instead of being
justified on grounds of innovation,creation of wealth and other lame reasons.
There are several other technical reasons (software bitrot, vast volume of
data, life times of data, authenticity, security etc), that are even more
pressing in case of egovernance, which will absolutely mandate single, open
and unecumbered standards. But that would require a series of articles.
These suggestions for multiple standards have suddenly sprung up after NASSCOM
and MAIT (without consulting their members) have proposed such changes.
Several members of NASSCOM have spoken strongly against NASSCOM's statement.
A newspaper of your standing would do well to whet such factually wrong
articles before publishing.
--
Rgds
JTD
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
--
Gurumurthy Kasinathan
IT for Change
Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
Tel:98454 37730
www.ITforChange.net
http://Public-Software.in
http://India.IS-Watch.net
http://IS-Watch.net
http://content-commons.in
*IT for Change is an NGO in Special Consultative Status with United
Nations’ Economic and Social Council*
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
