I am afraid this whole thread is getting way off topic ;)

,----[Rakesh Ambati wrote: ] | And to add to my misery, the community is quiet about it.Is the who | list filled with the sound box's,isn't there a soul with enough guts | to box someones ears and live with it. | | What a Shame !!! If am overly rude,I' MEANT TO BE. | | [Damn, the drugs are wearing off.Got to get my fix.] Cya `----

There is no Superman, Shakthiman or other super beings in there ;) Also, getting emotional or throwing tantrums won't help :)

What legal right do you have to demand that others, the state in particular, use and teach only free software? It is a policy matter and representations are the best way to supply useful information to bring about changes in policy decisions. If they agree fine, if they don't, it is only a question of time, and they should come around sooner or latter, for many good well known reasons.

,----[Sandip Bhattacharya wrote: ] | Unfortunately, while there is considerable merit in reason why we need | to use Free software, mere representations might not suffice. ... My | point is - We need to encourage industry participation in the | evangelising process... `----

A few institutions, academic centers in particular, need to be fiercely independent. Ideally, they should be able to study, evaluate, use and teach independantly. "Industry participation" has to be minimal, say procuring and installing very difficult hardware or software, where it is absolutely required. Industry is driven solely by profit, whereas academics is about getting to the truth of matters. Both don't gel well, and mixing up the two is needless and pointless.

Whether we like it or not, we need to understand and appreciate the concept of Academic Freedom. Our ancient Gurukulam system is the ultimate in Academic Freedom, but it has been largely replaced with centralised controls during the British period, and finding ways to foster Academic Freedom is the ideal normative. The concept of Academic Freedom is well defined in the US, and we may take a closer look there.

In 1859, Charles Darwin wrote about the Origin of Species and the Descent of Man. By 1920, the question whether the theories propounded by Darwin, which went contrary to the prevailing biblical theories on the origin of man, should be taught in schools vexed many people of those times in the US, and the State v. John Scopes case, popularly called the Monkey Trial was staged in the US, to get a declaration that a Tennesse anti-evolution law was unconstitutional. History tells us that in as many as 15 states, anti-evolution legislation was pending in 1925, and two states Arkansas and Mississippi actually passed laws restricting teaching of Darwin's theory.

The Monkey Trial failed in its mission and subsequently decades later in Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97 (1968), anti-evolution laws were declared unconstitutional by the US SC and a report is available at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/epperson-v-arkansas.html

The Monkey Trial was sensational throughout the US, and probably led to the statement on Academic Freedom now also available at http://www.aaup.org/statements/Redbook/1940stat.htm which is endorsed by the general academic community in the US.

<quote> The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition. </quote>

It is trite to observe that any institution teaching CS won't get very far in its search for truth with non-free software, and free software is the only option that enables free search for truth and its free exposition at every level. If teachers have not yet understood enough about free software, training the teachers and other academics is the first thing to do. Surely, CS graduates are qualified to do this work.

Attempts to include Microsoft software in schools in the US have been rejected as unethical and monopolistic.

http://news.com.com/2100-1001-276058.html?legacy=cnet http://news.com.com/2100-1001-808241.html http://www.defenselink.mil/dodgc/defense_ethics/2004_Advisories/ADV_0402.htm

Things are no different here, and no gov. would be interested in taking steps that would be struck down as arbitrary, unethical, and as promoting monopolies.

The Supreme Court of India recently in Jan 2004, directed inclusion of environmental studies into curricula at every level, enforcing a 1991 ruling obtained by M.C. Mehta. It ought to be possible to litigate on similar lines, to have free software included into curricula, if the gov. does not voluntarily take necessary steps. http://www.elaw.org/news/partners/text.asp?id=2283

IMO, effective representations directly addressed to those concerned, citing suitable examples should help in this matter.