On Monday 24 May 2010 16:00:50 Venkatesh Hariharan wrote: > I went through the policy carefully and here are my comments. > > The core issue for the community is--does the policy allow for > redistribution of standards to the fullest possible extent? For us, > the freedom to redistribute the software is severely hampered if > the accompanying standards cannot be redistributed. > > Keeping this and other issues in mind, the questions and comments > that come to my mind are given below: > > 3.2 They shall be applicable to all prospective e-Governance > systems including businesses (G2G, G2B, G2E and G2C) from the date > it comes into effect. > > Venky: What does prospective mean in this case? Does it mean > e-Governance systems that are created after the policy comes into > effect? > > 4. Policy Statement > GoI shall adopt Single and Royalty-Free (RF) Open Standard > progressively for a “specific purpose with in a domain” (herein > after referred to as “Area”), to meet the laid down objectives of > the Policy. The Open Standard shall have the following > characteristics: > > Venky: What does, "progressively" mean here? > > In Section 4.1.2, we should request addition of the following text > in CAPS. > > 4.1.2 > T he patent claims necessary to implement the Identified > Standard shall be available on a Royalty-Free basis for the life > time of the Standard. If such Standards are not found feasible then > in the wider public interest, Fair, Reasonable and Non > Discriminatory terms and conditions (FRAND) or Reasonable and Non > Discriminatory terms and conditions (RAND) with no payment AND NO > RESTRICTIONS ON THE REDISTRIBUTION OF THE STANDARD could be > considered.
AND NO RESTRICTIONS ON THE REDISTRIBUTION OF THE STANDARD. SUCH STANDARDS SHALL AUTOMATICALLY COME WITH A PERMANENT IRREVOCABLE LICENCE TO IMPLEMENT AND DISTRIBUTE THE IMPLEMENTATION AS PER THE TERMS OF EACH INDIVIDUAL IMPLEMENTER. > > The different organizations and individuals that are part of > FOSSCOMM should consider sending in their representations before > the deadline of 3rd June, 2010. > > Regards, > > Venky > ===== > > On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:33 PM, Pranesh Prakash <[email protected]>wrote: > > Dear all, > > A new draft of the National Open Standards Policy (labelled v1.1) > > is now up for review on the egovstandards.gov.in website. > > > > http://j.mp/crlk1x [pdf] > > > > There is also a (new, as far as I'm aware, though labelled v1.1) > > draft manual for implementation of the policy: > > > > http://j.mp/96vFL8 [pdf] > > > > Under "Mandatory Characteristics", it states: > > 4.1.2 > > The patent claims necessary to implement the Identified Standard > > shall be available on a Royalty-Free basis for the life time of > > the Standard. If such Standards are not found feasible then in > > the wider public interest, Fair, Reasonable and Non > > Discriminatory terms and conditions (FRAND) or Reasonable and Non > > Discriminatory terms and conditions (RAND) *with no payment* > > [emphasis added] could be considered. > > > > 4.2 deals with non-availability of appropriate open standards. > > 4.2 talks of 'interim standards', with a definition provided in > > Annexure I. Under 4.3 (non-availability of standard meeting > > functional requirements), the first preference is for an > > appropriate option (as an interim standard) which has > > "Specifications as per proven open source reference > > implementation". > > > > Under "Exceptions for Selecting One or More Additional Open > > Standard in an Area": > > 5. > > GoI shall endeavour to adopt Single and Royalty-Free (RF) Open > > Standard for an Area. However, in view of the sufficient > > technical justification and in the wider public interest, > > additional standard(s) in the same domain may be considered by > > GoI based on the recommendations of the Designated Body. Such > > standard shall be compatible and bi-directionally interoperable > > with the already existing selected Standard. > > > > There is now a definition of "interim standard": > > Annexure I (i): > > Interim Standard: A standard temporarily adopted by relaxing > > mandatory characteristics, until an appropriate standard is > > identified, which meets all the mandatory requirements. > > > > In the Implementation guidelines: > > 4.7 > > All future Request for Proposals (RFPs) of e-Governance projects > > shall include the guidelines for ensuring compliance to Open > > Standards as per this Policy. > > > > > > All in all, it seems (after a quick glance) to be mostly > > unobjectionable. Do others think otherwise? > > > > -- > > 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 -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
