Mahesh T. Pai wrote:

Atul Asthana @ home said on Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 10:34:44AM +0500,:

...

I guess, we need to draft a letter which brings out the comparitive advantages of using open source in the government. We also need to ensure that OSS becomes part of school and college syllabi.

I have written an essay about using free software in e-governance. It may be help to you.

HTML : http://geocities.com/lunatech3007/e-gov.html PDF: http://geocities.com/lunatech3007/egov-free.pdf

Rakesh Ambati wrote:

Take a moment to ask yourself,when is last time you have helped fix some bug's in your GNU software or written some documentation, helped someone understand the 'nut & bolts' of operating system and software.

Lets do some good rather than taking part in endless posts about how to bring about change ...

Real changes comes from our contributions, our actions speaks for us.

Dear Arky,

The main reason I had to write on `Open Source Tactics' is to maintain peace in this list. This is an `advocacy' list for FSF-India and a reminder to all members about the purpose of this list maintained at http://mm.gnu.org.in/mailman/listinfo/fsf-friends :

<quote> This is the principal support list of FSF-India. This is an open list which invites questions, proposals, suggestions, comments and constructive criticisms in aid of the FSF-India's activities, based on its mission, principles and basic decisions. </quote>

Is it too much to request posters to respect these purposes?

Even so, sometimes technical issues are discussed, for example, you would remember a posting regarding correct threading in mailing lists. Anyone who has the skill, time and patience may read the previous thread at http://mm.gnu.org.in/pipermail/fsf-friends/2003-December/001322.html and http://www.aero.iitm.ernet.in/pipermail/ilugc/2003-December/007466.html and write detailed documentation on how to post messages to mailing lists. _ALL_ are welcome, and this is not a demand, but a pointer to an opportunity available.

Since you ask for credentials in terms of contributions made, I am the author of .^. calpp: computer aided legal procedures and proceedings, a free software released under the GPL, and I would like to be remembered for writing calpp, my one and only contribution. The main reason I take interest in software, is that it offers an excellent opportunity to kill the ambiguity problems that plague the law. To my utter surprise, though free software code effectively deals with ambiguities, free software terminology is beset and taunted with ambiguity issues. I did spend the whole month of November 2003 to convince myself that there is nothing ambiguious with `free software'. I hope I can document these soon enough, so that, as you wrote, we can stay focused on worthwhile contributions.

Last month, I attended a special lecture delivered by Brian Behlendorf, the founder of the Apache Project, organised by ILUGC at IIT Madras. Brian referred to RMS with warmth, said he loves the GNU Project, that he works with Eben Moglen, chief counsel for FSF, on licensing issues and would like the world to move towards making all software really free. Though Brian was speaking about open source philosophy he was never far away from free software philosophy. Practically, there are negligible differences between the two movements, but nevertheless sufficient enough to effectively provide an artificial `competitive' environment within our community. Brian saw India as a major force, already well equipped to face the challenges of tomorrow. It is really the free code we write that ultimately matters.

The business community may have the option of using `open source' or `free software' terminology. But, in the legal field, this is neither possible nor advisable. Open source advocates should concede the use of `free software' terminology in law taking into consideration the history, literal meaning and scope of `free software' and work with us together in this area. There is no room for using contrived tactics or rhetoric in law. That is why, we have to be alert to advocate use of free software terminology in e-governance projects. The sooner this happens, the better for all of us.

Regards, Ramanraj.

Raghavendra Bhat wrote:

Ramanraj posts:

...

Since you ask for credentials in terms of contributions made

Please ignore such requests! Requests made to show credentials about one's contributions should be ignored and no respect should be given to the person/entity making such a request. The main reason is that many guys/gals are making huge, significant amount of contributions anonymously; under fictitious names/handles. I know such persons and they do it just for the sake of free software, to increase the knowledge-base of the existing pool.

We cannot admire people who contribute anonymously under fictitious names or handles - mainly because it is a clear sign of weakness or shyness to take responsibility for the code they write. In most major free software projects, names of contributors are listed, along with email ids, and a pointer to the code blocks written or maintained by them. The reason for this is obvious - we can report bugs quickly and have them fixed with minimum effort, and besides this practice automatically gives due credit to those who have written the code.

BTW, I would remember and respect Rakesh Ambati until my last, for all his meaningful words which cannot be ignored.

Raghavendra Bhat wrote:

Now that the Playfair issue has cropped up somewhere hereabouts, I request you to read the AUTHORS file which comes alongwith the source code of Playfair.

Some prefer to remain anonymous because they are ANONYMOUS COWARDS; some others remain faceless, just out of fear; some others remain invisible because they can give more if they are Free. ;-)

Have they really given more? Where is the code of the invisible Author(s)? It's gone before I could ever see it.

Having said that, it is only fair to say this too:

Section 23 of the Copyright Act provides copyright protection to anonymous or pseudonymous works for a term of 60 years from the date of publishing, and where the author becomes known, for a term of 60 years from the date of death of the author. Anyone who has a copy of a program that has already been published and licensed under the GPL could again distribute and publish it under the terms of the GPL. A developer who already has a copy of the software could release a better version under the GPL. The publishers and developers who redistribute the software may probably face needless harassment while exercising this right and freedom. The free software publishers and developers may probably seek injunctions or restraint orders against people who threaten their right and freedom. The invisible authors make themselves free by shifting the burden of responsibility upon others, and if there are brave GNU hearts who are ready to willingly bear this, none can have cause to complain.

But, we are not like computer code that will act only upon directives included in the header - we have several levels of consciousness, and we can use the basic principles behind free software at all times to take correct decisions. If the code can be free and open - is it too difficult for the author to openly disclose his own name and identity? "A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride"- RMS in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html If authors of free software take pride in their works openly, they would make free software shine better.

Regards, Ramanraj.