The Hindu has taken up the thread in case of Pattenchery Grama Panchayat, being forced to opt Windows OS, even after getting a resolution passed to adopt Free software.
The link is at http://www.hinduonnet.com/stories/2002101404040400.htm
Cheers to Roy Mathew who brought it out. CK Raju
On Mon, 2002-10-14 at 11:01, CK Raju wrote:
The Hindu has taken up the thread in case of Pattenchery Grama Panchayat, being forced to opt Windows OS, even after getting a resolution passed to adopt Free software.
This is a very good news.
Regarding the C-DIT/Friends issue, its basically not a Free Software vs Proprietary. Its about who is having copyright of the software. The issue wont get solved with the use of Free Software.
Even if the work is going to be release as Free Software CDIT/Govt will have to make sure proper agreements regarding the licensing are done.
It would be nice to know C-DIT's stand on licensing of new version of 'Friends'.
Any way its a very good news that C-DIT is also moving to Free Software. Now only IKM is pro-MS. They will soon get isolated if they didnt change stand.
Regards, Arun.
Arun M wrote:
Regarding the C-DIT/Friends issue, its basically not a Free Software vs Proprietary. Its about who is having copyright of the software. The issue wont get solved with the use of Free Software.
I disagree with Arun here.
Free s/w is about *swatantryam* to use, redistribute, change the sources and fine tune the original program to suit one's own needs.
I understand that C-DIT had a contract for development of s/w for the FRIENDS project with one company 'a', and once the C-DIT switched maintenance and future development to company 'b', company 'a' (naturally) got green eyed, and initiated the litigation. If the s/w developed by C-DIT was covered by a standard free license, like the GPL, or at least one of the OSI approved licenses, C-DIT would not have been in the soup it was in.
That apart, if I employ "X" to develop s/w for me, the s/w developed by X belongs to me; not X, *unless* there is a separate agreement to the effect that the s/w will belong to "X". So, I do not get what the C-DIT noise was about.
Even if the work is going to be release as Free Software CDIT/Govt will have to make sure proper agreements regarding the licensing are done.
"Free software" becomes "free software" when it covered by a license which ensures *freedom*. This license *is* an agreement; whether it be the GPL at one end, and BSD at other, and everything in between.
Any way its a very good news that C-DIT is also moving to Free Software.
They are moving towards 'sowjanyam' not 'swatantryam', note the talks about *volunteers*. ( I am subject to correction here ).
Regards, Mahesh T Pai.
Regarding the C-DIT/Friends issue, its basically not a Free Software vs Proprietary. Its about who is having copyright of the software. The issue wont get solved with the use of Free Software.
I disagree with Arun here.
Free s/w is about *swatantryam* to use, redistribute, change the sources and fine tune the original program to suit one's own needs.
I understand that C-DIT had a contract for development of s/w for the FRIENDS project with one company 'a', and once the C-DIT switched maintenance and future development to company 'b', company 'a' (naturally) got green eyed, and initiated the litigation. If the s/w developed by C-DIT was covered by a standard free license, like the GPL, or at least one of the OSI approved licenses, C-DIT would not have been in the soup it was in.
Yes, thats the point. What required is not *using* Free Software to develop a new solution for 'Friends'. But creating the software under Free Software license agreement. That too with proper agreement.
Proper care must be given in agreements with people working on the new project(saying they will release code in Free Software License'). If that is not done similar issues will come.
The particular 'Friends' issue can be solved even without Free Software license(not that i am suggesting that solution).
|| On 14 Oct 2002 19:51:38 +0530 || Arun M arun@freedevelopers.net wrote:
am> Yes, thats the point. What required is not *using* Free Software to am> develop a new solution for 'Friends'. But creating the software under am> Free Software license agreement. That too with proper agreement.
But as far as I interpret the report, it says they are going to *develop* free software solution in colaboration with other groups. The word and concept *free software* directly implies it is bound by a Free License.
-
Arun M -
CK Raju -
gnu＠vsnl.net -
Mahesh T Pai