On Monday 24 May 2010 17:16:52 Venkatesh Hariharan wrote: > On Mon, May 24, 2010 at 5:01 PM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > Give the current scenario with the various Standards Setting > Organizations (SSOs), the above formulation "SUCH STANDARDS...." > seems extremely tough to push through. Unless the policies of the > SSOs are changed, this is unlikely to happen.
In which case you cant do much with the standard. I dont see why a dev would waste their time reading a standard they cannot implement for distribution. Infact i cant see why such encumbered stuff, which cannot be implemented, should be given the halo of an e-governance standard. It is akin to handing over a market of 1.2 billion to a tiny caboodle. smells "bananna republic" to me. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
