On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Venkatesh Hariharan < [email protected]> wrote:
> I have trimmed this post for the sake of brevity. My reply below. > > > On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]>wrote: > >> >> However, while opposing every dubious patent application is timely and >> pragmatic, it seems to me a more practical approach is to build support for >> an Amendment to the Act that will remove this lacuna once and for all. >> > > When the next Amendment is proposed, we should vigorously push for the > removal of the "per se" clause. However, the next Amendment may be a few > years away. > > Venky, I was exceedingly pleased to read yesterday a lot of newsprint, including an interview with you, in one of the print media (I think it was Mid-Day Mumbai edition, but frankly I am just recovering from malaria, and can't go find the actual paper). This is a refreshing change, highlighting as it does what FOSS is all about, and not forgetting that using FOSS in government-generated computer systems leads to avoidance of license-related repetitious expenditures. I do not understand what you mean by 'a few years away'. The government has been all to quick to introduce amendments to many Acts apparently found deficient in some respect or the other, not necessarily for the better. Why then do you believe it must be a slow process? Can we not use the collective strength of this forum and others, equally perturbed by the intrusion of such a law into our personal freedom, to hasten this process? -- Vickram http://communicall.wordpress.com
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
