> > Let's accept the reality that this group is spearheading a national > initiative for the adoption of FOSS within the country (India: we may have > members from other countries here(?), but our focus is clear). >
I Agree. > When we spot such lacunae, rather than express our anger by posing > rhetorical questions, it is more productive to work on modifying the > pertinent clauses, and feeding this back to the government/tendering agency > with quotes from the stated policy in this regard. > I am not expressing my anger I am just putting a point. > As we have seen, such steps have taken shape in the sphere of education: it > is a good and sensible model for other areas. And btw PERT-CPM/Project > Management is not the sole prerogative of M$. > But MS office is *NOT* and that too is Vendor locked . (I know PERT-CPM/Project Management is not a part of M$ but I have intentionally not deleted that part and pasted the whole line ) > > OK, so the EC is a worthy target too. But EC is not UIDAI. > > An earlier exchange of posts on the subject of UID seemed to be quite clear > that we feel that this project is a monstrous invasion of civil rights in > the country. Do we now focus on fixing the anti-FOSS sections of this > project? Will the wolf be more welcome once it is clothed in lamb's wool? > What I want to say is that their is a lot of ambiguity in that draft.On one side they say that their will be no vendor locking but on the other hand they are looking for someone with expertise in M$ office.They are saying that they want an FOSS based implementation on the other hand point 6 states that "*"However, the source code, documentation and IPR will belong to the Authority. Accordingly, the Registered Developer will be required to enter into appropriate agreements transferring all rights and intellectual property to the Authority for their product and contribution."*" I think Govt. is mixing two big project 1) Cloud based eGovernance platform release1 2) The UID application release1 I don't know about the UID project in other country but as far as Cloud based eGovernance platform is concerned Govt. has a lot to get from *uk government to create country* wide cloud infrastructure<http://groups.google.com/group/cloudforum/browse_thread/thread/c75cde1d7c519363/12ba114f2a5dd463?lnk=gst&q=U.K.+Government+to+Create+Country#12ba114f2a5dd463> ( http://groups.google.com/group/cloudforum/search?group=cloudforum&q=U.K.+Government+to+Create+Country&qt_g=Search+this+group) Look I am not criticizing anything nor I stand anywhere to do that, what I am doing is just putting some points. -- With Regards, Gaurav Paliwal http://gaurav.tk http://twitter.com/gauravpaliwal
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
