Dear Pranesh, Since your mail went public by mistake , i think this reply must also go public . The topic of this is anyway relevant to fosscomm list as well
I would like to see this case as a typical case of issues that may arise if are not promoting FOSS in Policy or Open standards as a tool for promoting FOSS in Policy. FOSS in Policy is a goal we all are trying to achieve and now we reached at a stage in which most of the policy bodies at least mentioning the term "open source" in their drafts FOSS in Policy is based on a clear premise that Governments have a duty to Promote and and adopt Free and Open source software and Policies must reflect it Some of us are using Open standards as a strategic step to achieve FOSS in Policy and for quality assurance of Free and Open source software used . (for eg Document standards) . As some of the open standards advocates says it is a good way for create room for Free Software (if it is not there) But Open standards also creating equal space for Proprietary softwares too. They have more money resources and lobbying power to force govts to adopt Proprietary solutions. It kills our fundamental goal of Free Software and minimise the goal of policy to the creation of free market "level playing grounds" , which is only beneficial to Proprietary vendors and not to the people. Also there are Open standards like XrML are coming which is implementing DRM as an Open Standard. I cant support Open standards without clear FOSS promoting vision. This are the basic concerns for my mail , and that is anyway good to discuss in fosscomm too . In line reply follows On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear Anivar, > I'm taking this off-list, because I already responded once on the list, > and I don't want it to look like I'm badgering a point in. But to > respond to your points. > > On Friday 02 October 2009 02:54 PM, Anivar Aravind wrote: >> from CIS website >> http://cis-india.org/advocacy/accessibility/blog/national-policy-on-universal-electronic-accessibility >> <snip> >> 3.6 Shri Sunil Abraham of CIS said that maybe instead of saying >> ‘private companies’, we could say ‘essential service providers and >> utilities services’. He further suggested that in order to make the >> policy more acceptable to a broader set of stakeholders, the phrase >> ‘open source’ could be deleted since the accessibility policy endorsed >> specific open standards like WCAG which would level the playing ground >> for bother proprietary and Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) vendors. >> Alternatively, he suggested that both proprietary and Free/Open Source >> Software (FOSS) could be mentioned. >> </snip> >> >> I will say Sunil's Position here is fundamentally flawed & >> problematic. It is creating room in favour of Proprietary solutions >> (on the run), using the Open standard game . This will not help in >> achieving accessibility for all . > > And while Sunil and I have healthy debates which allow us to inform each > other's position, on this one I'm quite in agreement with Sunil. I > honestly can't see what you find objectionable in that. His first > intervention about 'private companies' is a positive development (though > I wouldn't use the "essential"). The second bit about removal of "open > source" also I agree with, because of two reasons: 1) for strategic > advocacy purposes (you don't want the policy to be held up solely > because of this); 2) the focus here is not on the software, but on the > standards. Those selfsame standards can be used in both FOSS and > proprietary software. I disagree with the alternative he proposes, > which is mentioning both. But, that is not that big a disagreement. Accessibility Policy Must ensure standards. But larger question is not only about standard compatibility. It need a clear endorsement of foss tools. giving up on Open source mention in draft for "level the playing ground for both proprietary and Free/Open Source Software (FOSS) vendors" and proposing a solution for giving space to Proprietary software in Policy (which is not existed before) is really a fundamentally flawed argument >> And from Microsoft Response it is clear that the way it is going . >> Civil Society Groups & FOSS Industry bodies must demand our >> representation in Policy formation to make it FOSS Friendly > > I couldn't agree more. One nit to pick, though: Are there any FOSS > industry bodies at all? FOSSCOMM, while an alternative to > NASSCOM/ASSOCHAM, etc., is not an industry body. It has hackers and > NGOs mostly, and a few companies. I never mentioned FOSSCOMM in that paragraph. I only meant the representation from FOSS based industries (like Redhat , etc) and from Civil Society . I am mentioning about fosscomm representation only on next paragraph > >> And It will be good if FOSSCOMM can try for a Representation in this >> policy body. People like Krishnakanth Mane can do it well . We already >> have the examples of Tamil Nadu and Kerala adopting Free Software >> based accessibility tools > > I agree. Krishnakant has done sterling work in this area. However, I > have an issue with the examples you cite of TN and Kerala. Those are > not about an accessibility policy and thus standards, but about > software. These are two separate issues, I feel. It is not only Krishnakanth. It is the decision by 2 States with the help of civil society groups. KK was instrumental in achieving the objective by guiding them Kerala IT mission and space initiated INSIGHT Project in Kerala which is training deferentially abled people throughout the state using foss tools. ELCOT saved a lot of public money through foss adoption for accessibility instead of paying to Freedom Scientific for jaws and those who are using are happy about solutions If you are saying experiences of 2 state agencies in enabling electronic accessibility is not important for policy . I dont have anything more to say ~ Regards Anivar > > -- > Pranesh Prakash > Programme Manager > Centre for Internet and Society > W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283 > > > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > > -- "[It is not] possible to distinguish between 'numerical' and 'nonnumerical' algorithms, as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
