On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 01:03, satish jha wrote:

sunil:

thanks much. went to the recommended site. i don't think you need ti

oversimplify it. it is oversimplified in itself though it could do with a bit of editing.

having seen it, read it i am persuaded that its propounders live in a

world of their own and have a right to do so.

Thanks.

i believe that without intellectual property rights there may have been some ideas. innovation, technolgy development and progres would have taken another path altogether and it can be shown that at least in terms of economics as we know it, it would be a sub-optimal model compared to what we have known.

You forget that a large part of development took place without what you call "intellectual property rights". Those who claim rights for "intellectual property" forget that they have made ample use of similar "intellectual property" that others could have laid claim to. Would they be willing to share their "property rights" with everyone who has contributed towards its generation, right from the people who invented the wheel? Remember, even Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists ever, said that "If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulders of giants".

In India we have a model of knowledge that has been of tremendous value to humanity, which grew, and continues to grow, without the benefit of "intellectual property rights" - I refer to Ayurveda. But I tend to agree with you when you say that there may have been a different path of progress if "intellectual property rights" - that path would have led to a more equitable society, something that is much more valuable to people like us in this list than what goes by the word "progress" today.

i do not wish to debate it on this forum for a variety of reasons and would think while the debate has a place on this forum, it may not be the right place for allocating majority of its time to free software etc.

I think if you had no desire to debate this on this forum, then you should not have raised the question here.

you are an infectious speaker and will always sway people your way.

that will not persuade me to go along with the substance of it though.

What you are essentially saying is that you admit that what Sunil said is true, but you are not willing to admit it. That is really good.

thanks much ________________________________ satish jha cmd, james martin & co www.jmcin.com president, digital partners india n-103, panchsheel park, new delhi - 110 017 v: 649 9384/5; 649 4384/5 f: 649 4380

----- Original Message ----- From: sunil To: bytesforall_readers@yahoogroups.com Cc: linux-india-general@lists.sourceforge.net ;

fsf-friends@gnu.org.in

Sent: Monday, December 16, 2002 5:21 PM Subject: Re: [bytesforall_readers] Microsoft to share Windows code

withIndia

Dear Satish,

Free Software is not Open Source Software. Access to code is not the

main

issue. Free License implies Ownership and Control. It is not the

recipe of

coke but the ownership of coke.

Copyrighting is the root cause of the digital divide... here is an oversimplification so that you can understand..

---

Before the concept of Private Property: No Economic Divide After the concept of Private Property: Land Owners Landless Economic Divide

---

Before the concept of Intellectual Property:- No Digital Divide After the concept of Intellectual Property: Those with Knowledge Those without Knowledge Digital Divide

---

You will notice this trend in all forms of privatization:- water,

phrases,

gestures, ideas, products etc.

General Public License transfers ownership of digital assets to the

poor.

To use a Marxist phrase - the means of production in the knowledge

economy

will be transfered to the poor. This is a 'critical' component of

any

digital divide intervention.Without this type of systemic

intervention all

other ICT is merely technology band-aid.

Please see my IIM-B presentation for more details: http://www.mahiti.org/events/Event.2002-12-16.3025/view

Thanks,

Sunil