On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Narendra Sisodiya <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Anivar Aravind <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> And the notion of public good you are pushing does not include the >> commons. Remember Software for commons will be always Free Software >> >> I suggest ITfc to withdraw from popularising this unwanted term . and >> join with FOSSCOMM in spreading the Proper Term with clarity >> >> Anivar > > Actually everybody is free to use any term. ITfC may use this term for N > number of reasons but the point of contradiction is with "the definition of > the public software". If on their website, they declare it as "public > software is Free Software", that will solve the problem. Or subset of > Free/open software definition. Otherwise this debate will not stop.
Narendra, you still didnt get the point What clearly specified in RMS's mail is the absence of conceptual clarity regarding this term. He pointed More than 5 interpretations are used in ITfc texts for the word Public software . And birth of such a term is associated with misunderstanding FOSS , and absence of conceptual clarity . Pushing the term in policy circles, will inherit same issues and bring more ambiguity in the same policy space in which many of us are working on as we are experiencing now. The typical solution i request to ITfC is to abandon the term Public software . Declaring "public software is Free Software" in their website is the first step in this process > Also It is impossible to get/create community with 100% sync of thoughts. > people may find different reason to work with fosscomm. for example, we have > some strong supporter of "free software" on fosscomm but they always use the > term "open source" mainly because of business purpose. We might have > Creative Common Advocate/supporter who might want to use Microsoft Office to > create creative commons books. All we need to find minimum manifesto of > working and the TASK. As long as somebody is agree with minimum manifesto, > they are part of fosscomm. In mumbai meeting me had some sort of resolutions > and we declared also what is fosscomm and why we want fosscomm to exist. > In my view fosscomm should not perform a strict role in syncing thoughts. > The basic motive of fosscomm should be create common task force and greater > community which believe in 4 pillar's of open technology. What we drafted in Mumbai meeting is a charter. Not a Common Mimimum stuff. Charter always mean , Those who agreeing with it is in and those who are not accepting it is out. We cant create a network based on loose ideals to make it more inclusive Strong Principals are the ground zero for building a network like FOSSCOMM http://fosscomm.in/Charter Anivar -- "[It is not] possible to distinguish between 'numerical' and 'nonnumerical' algorithms, as if numbers were somehow different from other kinds of precise information." - Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
