Sarai/CSDS, a Delhi-based research network that realises the potential of Free/Open Source software, is offering a limited number of small grants (in three categories of under Rs 10,000; Rs 10-30,000; and Rs 30,000-60,000) for those willing to write socially-useful programmes and put these out in the public domain.
Ownership of these programs will remain with its writer(s), under the GNU/GLP or similar suitable licence. But the coders will undertake to widely distribute and make available their work to those who desire to use the same, in the interest of promoting Free Software/Open Source in India.
Email in your plans and suggestions via email to application@sarai.net with a copy to fred@bytesforall.org not later than October 31, 2002. Use "FLOSS application" as the subjectline. This should contain the following details:
* Outline of project * How this project would be relevant to society's needs * Stage of the project (if work is underway) * Time-frame required for completion * Whether work will be done singly, or if jointly, names of all individuals/groups to be involved * Estimated number of man-hours for completion of this project * Estimated cost with break-up * Any other information you feel relevant.
Last date for application is October 31, 2002.
Feel free to pass around this note, particularly to students who could use such help productively.
Well, "public domain" is the anti-thesis of GPL. It is certainly not "free" as the term is used in the GPL. The appropriate translation in most languages for "free" as used in the GPL is "swatantra". As we all know, "swatantrata" does not come "sowjanya".
I feel that the people making the grants have to decide (they have the right to dictate) and, preferably, insist, that the s/w should be released under the GPL. Otherwise, the grants are likely to be appropriated towards non-free uses later on.
Please clarify.
Frederick Noronha wrote:
Sarai/CSDS, a Delhi-based research network that realises the
potential of
Free/Open Source software, is offering a limited number of small
grants (in
three categories of under Rs 10,000; Rs 10-30,000; and Rs
30,000-60,000) for
those willing to write socially-useful programmes and put these out
in the
public domain.
Ownership of these programs will remain with its writer(s), under the GNU/GLP or similar suitable licence. But the coders will undertake
to widely
distribute and make available their work to those who desire to
use the
same, in the interest of promoting Free Software/Open Source in India.
If the intention is ensuring public benefit in the long term, it has to be the GPL. OSD compliance, and OSI certified licenses are, well, compromises. Guess that I can say that with some authority, for I have been watching the Free Vs. OSD debate for some time now. Whether it is the GPL or mere OSD compliance or both, make it clear in the terms of grant, otherwise, there would be problems in the future.
Regards, Mahesh T Pai.null
nullnull
That's right. You have a point there, Mahesh. I'll pass it on to Sarai, who have so far been very flexible and understanding on this issue. The goal is to get more GPLd programmes that can add to the Free Software domain for the good of everybody.
Which license would FSF members be satisfied with? Which version would you see as best? Your suggestions are more than welcome.... The intention would be to keep the software as Free as possible. FN
On Wed, 9 Oct 2002, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
Well, "public domain" is the anti-thesis of GPL. It is certainly not "free" as the term is used in the GPL. The appropriate translation in most languages for "free" as used in the GPL is "swatantra". As we all know, "swatantrata" does not come "sowjanya".
I feel that the people making the grants have to decide (they have the right to dictate) and, preferably, insist, that the s/w should be released under the GPL. Otherwise, the grants are likely to be appropriated towards non-free uses later on.
Please clarify.
Frederick Noronha wrote:
Sarai/CSDS, a Delhi-based research network that realises the
potential of
Free/Open Source software, is offering a limited number of small
grants (in
three categories of under Rs 10,000; Rs 10-30,000; and Rs
30,000-60,000) for
those willing to write socially-useful programmes and put these out
in the
public domain.
Ownership of these programs will remain with its writer(s), under the GNU/GLP or similar suitable licence. But the coders will undertake
to widely
distribute and make available their work to those who desire to
use the
same, in the interest of promoting Free Software/Open Source in India.
If the intention is ensuring public benefit in the long term, it has to be the GPL. OSD compliance, and OSI certified licenses are, well, compromises. Guess that I can say that with some authority, for I have been watching the Free Vs. OSD debate for some time now. Whether it is the GPL or mere OSD compliance or both, make it clear in the terms of grant, otherwise, there would be problems in the future.
Regards, Mahesh T Pai.null
nullnull
Frederick Noronha wrote:
Which version would you see as best?
Using older _versions_ of a license can create problems. New versions are created to plug loop holes, or to avoid problems which were not foreseen with earlier versions. Moreover, it is common for most 'swatantra' licenses to permit users / licencees to adopt later versions*.
... The intention would be to keep the software as Free as possible.
Then, my vote is for GPL.
Most of OSI certified licenses do measure up to the GPL in terms of 'swatantrata' element in so far as modifications and redistribution is concerned. But, they do not preserve the 'greater public good' part of the GPL. At least some OSI approved licenses do not preserve the right of access to modifications made by third parties. This can result in loss of freedom. The BSD and MIT licenses are two best examples. Such licenses actually result in loss of 'swatantrata' aspect of the GPL - the best example is kerberos (I am not sure of the spelling)
For the purpose of the grant, you can consider a statement something like this:- 1. The contributions should be licensed under the GNU/GPL. 2. Copyright in the contributions will vest in the author. 3. SARAI will consider use of other OSI approved licenses, if the grantee/s is/are able to point out special and compelling reasons for using a different license.
Regards, Mahesh T Pai.
* digression:- is it not better that we Indians use 'swatantra'to mean 'free as in freedom'? We need to adopt a term to be uniformly used in Indian languages for 'free as in beer'. Malayalam has 'soujanyam'. Any suggestions from other languages? This rather important, for ultimately, we will need to translate the GPL into Indian languages, for better understanding amongst the public, if for nothing else. It is not better that *if possible*, we use uniform terminology in all Indian Languages?
Jeebesh, I think Mahesh has put in a very interesting argument. Since our goal is not to control the product, but to ensure that it is used as widely as possible for wider societal good, perhaps there should be no problem in accepting the same? Wonder if our friends at FSF-India have any further suggestions for us? We would like the intentions of this experiment to be transparent. FN
On Thu, 10 Oct 2002, Mahesh T Pai wrote:
Frederick Noronha wrote:
Which version would you see as best?
Using older _versions_ of a license can create problems. New versions are created to plug loop holes, or to avoid problems which were not foreseen with earlier versions. Moreover, it is common for most 'swatantra' licenses to permit users / licencees to adopt later versions*.
... The intention would be to keep the software as Free as possible.
Then, my vote is for GPL.
Most of OSI certified licenses do measure up to the GPL in terms of 'swatantrata' element in so far as modifications and redistribution is concerned. But, they do not preserve the 'greater public good' part of the GPL. At least some OSI approved licenses do not preserve the right of access to modifications made by third parties. This can result in loss of freedom. The BSD and MIT licenses are two best examples. Such licenses actually result in loss of 'swatantrata' aspect of the GPL - the best example is kerberos (I am not sure of the spelling)
For the purpose of the grant, you can consider a statement something like this:-
- The contributions should be licensed under the GNU/GPL.
- Copyright in the contributions will vest in the author.
- SARAI will consider use of other OSI approved licenses, if the
grantee/s is/are able to point out special and compelling reasons for using a different license.
Regards, Mahesh T Pai.
- digression:- is it not better that we Indians use 'swatantra'to mean
'free as in freedom'? We need to adopt a term to be uniformly used in Indian languages for 'free as in beer'. Malayalam has 'soujanyam'. Any suggestions from other languages? This rather important, for ultimately, we will need to translate the GPL into Indian languages, for better understanding amongst the public, if for nothing else. It is not better that *if possible*, we use uniform terminology in all Indian Languages?
-
Frederick Noronha -
Mahesh T Pai