On Mon, Sep 14, 2009 at 2:16 AM, jtd <[email protected]> wrote: > 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.
It depends on how one interprets proprietary. I understand "proprietary" as a kind of ownership where owner *controls all rights* over the use of such proprietary product or service, which is not the case with copyright-ed code released under GPL. >> 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. *Public information* - ambiguity admitted - should have been public's information or information of public. Though it upholds for railway reservation as well, my focus is on the banks - which holds such information of the public, who have virtually no control over it, and which can be subjected to the hazards of spyware. > > 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. Shoot off one to someone with correct terminology and better examples, that would be more forceful and revealing !! And make a cc to this list. CK Raju > > -- > Rgds > JTD > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
