On Sunday 13 September 2009, ck raju wrote: > On Sun, Sep 13, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Vickram Crishna <[email protected]> > wrote: > > The irctc example is embedded in the larger logic of having public > information stored in proprietary formats and proprietary systems - > the issue of non-compatibility is not that important.
Clarification: All FLOSS code is proprietary - someone owns the copyright and hence it is proprietary. Ownership of copyright is a prerequisite for enforcing the GPL. So one would have to stick to "closed and / or non standard" as appropriate, instead of non-proprietary. The letter wrongly states that floss code is not proprietary. > > This means that *technical solution to a problem* is grossly > inadequate here - *how it goes about solving*, especially when public > information is involved is more significant. In that sense I should > have avoided making a reference to non-compatibility to Firefox etc.. > in GNU environment, because there is a tendency for attention to get > deviated. Very true. > > The example is still valid because of an instance of private > institutions holding public information over which state or public has > little or no say - and this likely to be the norm in the long run in > neoliberal environment. I dont think that railway reservation data is public information. My travel plans are definetly not public data. The argument wont hold. I fully agree with the core premise of the letter, that public bodies should compulsorily use open and unencumbered tools and data formats, however the examples are a little mixed and terminology is not correct. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
