2009/9/14 jtd <[email protected]>: > 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.
Though CK adds better clarity to the subject but my two bits: Is this an attempt to muddy the waters. GPL prevents the software from being proprietary. Seems someone needs to RTM or kindly clarify how you interpretation hold 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. > > -- Cheers Ajay Pal Singh Atwal _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
