On Monday 14 September 2009, ck raju wrote: > 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.
Wrong. The copyright holder controls all rights. Even in the case of GPL. He licences to others some rights. This also permits the copyright holder to dual licence. And most importantly, only the copyright holder can defend (in this case) the GPL in court. In short, no ownership = no copyright = no GPL. No interpretations here. Just the requirement of copyright law. > > >> 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. I thought this one was to be placed in the FOSSCOM repo (wiki). If so, i will make corrections, subject to such corrections being acceptable to all. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
