Folks, apologies for breaking the thread but i thought its better to continue CMP discussions in the appropriate CMP thread.
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:06, Nagarjuna G. <[email protected]> wrote in a different thread: http://lists.fosscom.in/pipermail/network-fosscom.in/2009-September/001480.html > > please see my reply carefully, I said all the three points suggested > by KG must be included in the CMP. therefore I accepted and > integrated all the three proposals among others. Please read the ensuing replies to your proposal where i and prabir had asked questions. Those have not been clarified. Here it is : [repeating an earlier mail] On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 10:15, vid <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2009 at 09:54, prabir <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> 1. foss for learning and teaching (not only ICT but education in >>>> general) >>>> >>>> 2. exchanging and storing digital media and documents in >>>> free/open standards >>>> >>>> 3. accessibility (including localization, accessibility and >>>> internationalization) of applications, media and documents. >> >> Do we need this as an additional item? Not clear what this means, >> unless we mean promotion of localisation. > > Isnt there indlinux working on localization, besides cdac, etc... > >>>> >>>> 4. availability of public funded project results in public domain >>>> or copyleft Domain >>>> >>>> 5. resisting legislation of software patents, copyright amendment or >>>> trade >>>> related laws that may directly affect software freedom. >> As I have argued earlier, this should be a part of FOSS core work. >> Would rephrase it as it is not only resisting legislation (could mean >> restricting it to new legislation only, while the problem is with also >> the interpretation of law by courts and the patent office. However, >> that is a matter of detail. >> >>>> >>>> 6. creation of public archives of free software >>>> >>>> 7. free drivers for all marketed hardware, and work towards >>>> free/open hardware >> Does this mean that any hardware sold in India should have free >> drivers or we will help promote such hardware or...Also do not >> understand free/open hardware. Open hardware yes, free hardware? > > I dont want to speculate but on first reading this seems to be > co-related with #5. > >>> >>> Thanks. Am trying to understand the convergence between the IN list >>> above and the earlier proposal[0], except for #5 which gets a -1. So >>> how can these two proposals be assimilated? >> A simple assimilation of the two proposals would be first to agree on >> the points, > > Its not so easy. Actually, its the simple wording that is saying and > yet leaving many things unsaid. As i said earlier, #7 reads to depend > on #5 being agreed to in toto. > Hence my request for a clarification on how Kenneth's CMP and this > could be merged. Please i dont want to quibble on the word CMP itself. [/repeating an earlier mail] On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 02:06, Nagarjuna G. <[email protected]> wrote in a different thread: http://lists.fosscom.in/pipermail/network-fosscom.in/2009-September/001480.html > please say clearly > whether you don't want any other things other than what KG proposed, Kenneth's CMP proposal was simple and at first glance did not include #3,#5, and #7. Many people had already ack'd it. So why the new proposal with more items? > preferably with an argument saying why the three are sufficient and > the others are not required. TBH, if you want your points to be included in the manifesto and want folks to ack it then the responsibility of providing an argument why it is sufficiently required is yours. Folks dont need to say why not. Also i have read through the patent debates and arguments on this list earlier so am not interested rehashing the patent or GPL issue which is best handled by FSF, not fosscomm imho. -- vid http://vid.svaksha.com || _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
