On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 3:48 PM, Anivar Aravind <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 2, 2010 at 2:51 PM, sankarshan <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:54 PM, Narendra Sisodiya > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > the word public is good but the way it was defined on public software > > > website is not at all good. > > > Please go through the link provided by OP > > > > I notice that Knowledge Commons <http://www.knowledgecommons.in/> is > > affiliated as a "Collaborative Partner" with Public Software Centre > > <http://public-software-centre.org/>. Are there folks from Knowledge > > Commons who can provide inputs ? > > > > It i sad to see UNESCO Solution exchange partnering with this damaging > agenda > > AFAIK, we were involved in the workshop at Digantar at Jaipur http://opensource.com/government/10/4/oss-one-best-tools-modernizing-india-education-systemwhere ITfC , UNESCO solution exchange , DEF, LUGJ, were the co-organisers. I do not know what "collaborative parters means". I have forward this mail and KC's involvement to Chairperson Sir. No dought Guru/ITfC has a done a very good work in advocating FOSS at many levels. Infact thats a remarkable work. That is the reasons I didn't care about the dilution of terminology and used the term 'public software' for the common understanding. Open Echosystem is very big. somebody fighting for openstandards may not care about opensource (Ex Opera)or somebody who is a lawyer fighting for deletion of software patent may/maynot believe in Creative Commons etc. we all work at certain layer and we need to work common interest. Thanks Anivar to bring this discussion so that we can discuss this issue and after discussion we can start the process for next meetings or working agenda of FOSSCOMM. -- ┌─────────────────────────┐ │ Narendra Sisodiya │ http://narendrasisodiya.com └─────────────────────────┘
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
