On Monday 05 October 2009, sunil wrote:
> There are several questions that have been raised in this thread - I > will try and address as many as I can. I will be happy to answer any > additional questions if people point them out to me. > 3. Deletion of Open Source: The DIT had asked us (Nirmita and I > from CIS) to provide feedback to the policy based on our review > of other national accessibility policies. We reviewed the > policies of Australia, Canada, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, > Korea, New Zealand, The Philippines, Portugal, Sweden, Thailand, > United Kingdom, United States and European Union. We have > prepared a 100 page analysis of these policies called > "Accessibility policy making: an international perspective." > This report will be shortly published online for public/peer > feedback. I am happy to share it in advance with FOSSCOMM > members who send me a personal mail. None of the policies we > examined had pro-FOSS language in them. This is not surprising > since accessibility policies deal with standards and not > software. Therefore I recommended the deletion of "Open Source" > in order to ensure that the Indian policy follows international > precedent. As an afterthought, I offered that we could > explicitly mention both FOSS and proprietary software. But > having read emails on this thread from Krishnakant, JT and > Anivar - I now feel that the solution I offered harms the > interest of the FOSS movement. I offer my sincere apologies to > the community - and as a member of the drafting committee will > do my best to ensure that all references to software are deleted > from the next draft before it is available for public feedback. > In order to fast track this policy and take advantage of the > proactive bureaucracy - I would request FOSSCOMM friends not to > push for pro-FOSS language in the policy. Let me assure you that > mandating WCAG will go a long way in ensuring rapid adoption of > FOSS tool for producing and consuming web-content. In the case of accessibility we are already dealing with a thoroughly disadvantaged minority with extremely limited resources and opportunities. I do not see how removing references to FLOSS can be beneficial, except by relying on charity (doles / handouts / subsidy). > 4. Definition of Open Standards: The FOSS community globally and > regionally (who I have worked with quite closely during my time > at IOSN.NET) have tried to resist the capture of the definition > of Open Standards by the proprietary lobby. To ensure that our > national policy making (Draft Policy on Open Standards and > Interoperability Framework for E-Governance) are not vain - I > would request my FOSSCOMM friends to continue to resist > definition capture. Please do not take the easy route out and > say "Open and Unencumbered Standards." If it is encumbered (by > RAND for example) then it is not an Open Standard. For an ICT > standard to be Open it should be fully implementable by > community produced FOSS. As Simon Phipps of Sun Microsystems > says FOSS is the canary in the coal mine for Open Standards. As > the UNDP/APDIP GIF study (which I had designed) has revealed > many countries across the globe are adopting Open Standards > policies especially using Government Interoperability > Frameworks. A majority of these GIFs include a FOSS friendly > definition of Open Standards. Some countries like UK of course > have got it wrong. But yesterday, I spoke to the IT advisor of > the conservative party and he assured me that there is a plan to > fix this. Let us please follow international precedent here and > avoid charting our own unique course and dismantling the years > of lobbying by the FOSS community worldwide. Lastly, please note > that WCAG is an Open Standard and is fully implementable by > FOSS. For example my favorite CMS - Plone is WCAG compliant. While the efforts thus far is thoroughly appreciated the results have been nil in protecting the term open as implied by FLOSS. Further given the ambiguous nature of patent laws, and the fact that most people in the legal community (as of now) are not aware of the politics of setting standards, the legal system is not merely handicapped but is also thoroughly gamed by the usual suspects. Consequently the specific term unencumbered is essential (in preparation for future legal battles). The term in no way handicaps closed software makers from using encumbered technologies in their solutions or a non floss business process from being followed. These business arguments are the usual red herrings tossed in time and again. > 5. Capture of Standards Setting Organisations: After facing heavy > resistance on definition capture the proprietary lobby has > started to capture SSO both at the national and international > level. The most famous example of course is OOXML. Here we need > a different strategy - not one focused on definitions - but one > focused on transparency and accountability. As FOSSCOMM or > individual/institutional members we need to > attend/participate/monitor the meetings and ensure that FOSS, > Open Standards, Free Culture etc. are protected. Dr. Nagarjuna > has done this very effectively in the past and we must follow > his lead. By being ambiguous in the terminology, we are allowing exploitation of inherent weaknesses within such organisations. The ISO is an example that should serve as a dire warning and make us doubly cautious about such issues. Infact we must of necessity buffer ourselves against standards generated by such internationally sabotaged processes. As of now OOXML is not ratified as a standard, pending some rubber stamp or the other. No prizes for guessing the next moves. Ps. The MP3 and MPEG4 standards are more examples of open and encumbered standards. And the financially hughe cases in the USA brought on by Rambus Inc. against almost every memory manufacture are a result of encumbered standards and maybe thrown at those who bring up the usually "benefits the consumer, economy and dog" arguments. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
