On Sun, 2009-10-04 at 10:30 +0530, Anivar Aravind wrote: > 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 > Well, The issue was about representation and about open standards. And above all it was about a differently abled community. So I see the issue as a perfectly relevant topic to be discussed in public.
> 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 > And talking about standerds, we must recall the point raised by JTD in the > second email of this thread. Just having open standard does not help. With the money power we know, standards can go on the way of OOXML. If not the policy implementing those standards might at least recommend proprietory software when we involve parties with waisted interests. This is what we all feer and that's why Anivar's point of a clear mention about FOSS is important. You see, the standards may remain "open" but the problem is what scope or say do the community and the civil society have in it? For example in the process of implementing a so-called "open standard" will it become mandatory for any free software to change its fundamental approach and comply with some featureset of other proprietory softwares? In this case will the community have the say to instrument an alteration? Today People like Nagarjun are forced to compromise on a software brand and standards if they want an American Visa. If we give scope to proprietory parties in policy making in space such as open standards. We will soon see more such cases. > 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 Exactly, I second that. > 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. In this email and many prior to this, I have tryed my humble attempt to Explain this very problem. > 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. > More things like DRM will come if the current stand is not changed > exclusively in favour of FOSS solutions being recommended for implementation > of open standards. > This are the basic concerns for my mail , and that is anyway good to > discuss in fosscomm too . > Well, Pranesh might have obvious reasons to send it privately to you anivar. > 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 > I personally know Sunil and respect him. He is also a great supporter of > FOSS to my knowledge. We also need to have sunil's response, because it is necessary to know his views. But in any case I am curious about the point anivar has put his fingers on. His (existed never before ) is what raises my feer. Are we seeing a new wave of attacks on fundamental digital freedom by parties with waisted interests with use of tools such as open standards? > >> 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 > Any ways anivar, good you mentioned *smile* > > > >> 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 All that I did was took efords to make people understand the reasons behind our struggle to make free software the fundamental part of our computing life on one hand and convincing the larger bodies that free software will not just provide what their proprietory replacements were providing but gives practical scope for the community to make these foss technologies even better. I had taken a firm stand and did not go after showing some simpathy by "leveling grounds ". Proper proof of concepts for me were just toppings on the cake because I knew if I use them before, proprietory parties would come and give 10 examples for my 1. All that I did was represented FOSS strongly first at the ground 0 level projects and now Kerala and Tamilnadu governments are seeing the success and already adjusting their policies. Yes, the question here is about standards but now with the kind of work in Kerala for example, we can have standards based policies designed by representatives from the FOSS community who have got success backed by proper study. > 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 > Yes, that's the "larger gole". > 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 > Probably as I said, We need to get Sunil's response on this. He might have a different view and I know him as a supporter of FOSS. It will be interesting to know from him as to what is the reason for such a stand. Happy hacking. Krishnakant. _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
