hi,
an interesting discussion took place on IRC today regarding this: http://www.space-kerala.org/downloads/foss.pdf
The question was, with regard to #2 on the list - software developed by keltron, is it foss or not? My contention is that the tools used are irrelevant. The software was paid for by the government, and developed by the government, all using our tax rupees. But there is no indication whether the source for the application is open or not, available to the users or not, modifiable, downloadable or redistributable or not. Therefore this is not f/oss as it goes against the fundamental notion that software should be freely available, downloadable, modifiable and redistributeable with or without modifications. I was further of the opinion that the authors of the PDF in question have tried to give an impression that free software is flourishing in the state. I am also suprised that Richard Stallman has lent his name to this - I am quite sure that he would have opposed the same thing tooth and nail if it had happened in the US or Europe. However the free software guru with whom I was debating seemed to thing that this did not fall under the definition of proprietary software. Opinions anyone?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Sunday 11 March 2007 12:36, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
hi,
an interesting discussion took place on IRC today regarding this: http://www.space-kerala.org/downloads/foss.pdf
The question was, with regard to #2 on the list - software developed by keltron, is it foss or not? My contention is that the tools used are irrelevant. The software was paid for by the government, and developed by the government, all using our tax rupees. But there is no indication whether the source for the application is open or not, available to the users or not, modifiable, downloadable or redistributable or not. Therefore this is not f/oss as it goes against the fundamental notion that software should be freely available, downloadable, modifiable and redistributeable with or without modifications. I was further of
Maybe we should withhold comment on the software in question until we do know whether it's FLOSS or not?
Instead of giving a dog a bad name and hanging it, why not ask Keltron/Govt of Kerala what license the software is available under and THEN indict them if it isn't a FLOSS license?
Do remember that even if the software is, e.g., GPL, there's no reason why you should have access to it. If I write a GPL software, only the people I distribute it to have any any right to the software. There is nothing in the GPL that states that I must make the source available for download, modification and/or redistribution to anyone except the people I distribute the software to.
the opinion that the authors of the PDF in question have tried to give an impression that free software is flourishing in the state.
I thought the statement in the beginning of the PDF, ``based on FOSS'' is pretty clear. All the projects that I saw in the document were based on FOSS. The licenses for the individual projects weren't specified in the document, so unless you have some other source of information, I'd postpone the discussion until it has been proven one way or the other that those projects are FLOSS or otherwise.
I am also suprised that Richard Stallman has lent his name to this
- I am quite sure that he would have opposed the same thing tooth
and nail if it had happened in the US or Europe. However the free
Er, would he? After having met him numerous times, I can't even predict what Stallman would do in well-defined situations, leave alone ambiguous ones like the one you're referring to. You obviously have a much better grasp of his personality and priorities than I do.
software guru with whom I was debating seemed to thing that this did not fall under the definition of proprietary software. Opinions anyone?
I wonder who this free software guru was? You and I did discuss this on IRC earlier today, but (a) I'm no free software guru and (b) I never discussed whether this was proprietary software or not. Unless you are referring to some other person, in which case I apologise for imputing an issue with your grasp of reality.
Regards,
- -- Raju - -- Raj Mathur raju@kandalaya.org http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F It is the mind that moves
On 11-Mar-07, at 9:42 PM, Raj Mathur wrote:
Do remember that even if the software is, e.g., GPL, there's no reason why you should have access to it. If I write a GPL software, only the people I distribute it to have any any right to the software. There is nothing in the GPL that states that I must make the source available for download, modification and/or redistribution to anyone except the people I distribute the software to.
when government writes software with our money, they should be forced to release it under a f/oss license - that is my contention. They havent.
the opinion that the authors of the PDF in question have tried to give an impression that free software is flourishing in the state.
I thought the statement in the beginning of the PDF, ``based on FOSS'' is pretty clear. All the projects that I saw in the document were based on FOSS. The licenses for the individual projects weren't specified in the document, so unless you have some other source of information, I'd postpone the discussion until it has been proven one way or the other that those projects are FLOSS or otherwise.
and why werent the licenses specified? why didnt the authors investigate this? Isnt it practically the sole objective of FSF to concern itself with software licenses?
I am also suprised that Richard Stallman has lent his name to this
- I am quite sure that he would have opposed the same thing tooth
and nail if it had happened in the US or Europe. However the free
Er, would he? After having met him numerous times, I can't even predict what Stallman would do in well-defined situations, leave alone ambiguous ones like the one you're referring to. You obviously have a much better grasp of his personality and priorities than I do.
I dont move in such exalted circles, but somehow i got the impression that he was interested in seeing that all software is shared - I could be wrong
software guru with whom I was debating seemed to thing that this did not fall under the definition of proprietary software. Opinions anyone?
I wonder who this free software guru was? You and I did discuss this on IRC earlier today, but (a) I'm no free software guru and (b) I never discussed whether this was proprietary software or not.
It was you. and it is no point debating this as the IRC conversation is not available, so it will be an endless 'I said this', ' no i didnt say that" etc etc. (incidently, whether you like it or not, you *are* a free software guru - and I dont mean this sarcastically either)
On 12-Mar-07, at 8:26 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
information, I'd postpone the discussion until it has been proven one way or the other that those projects are FLOSS or otherwise.
and why werent the licenses specified? why didnt the authors investigate this? Isnt it practically the sole objective of FSF to concern itself with software licenses?
incidently, although i did not send a registered letter, I had sufficient enquiries made to ascertain that there were no foss licenses for the software
On 12/03/07 08:26 +0530, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 11-Mar-07, at 9:42 PM, Raj Mathur wrote:
Do remember that even if the software is, e.g., GPL, there's no reason why you should have access to it. If I write a GPL software, only the people I distribute it to have any any right to the software. There is nothing in the GPL that states that I must make the source available for download, modification and/or redistribution to anyone except the people I distribute the software to.
when government writes software with our money, they should be forced to release it under a f/oss license - that is my contention. They havent.
Or more like the US government rules, where software written by/for the government is all public domain.
Devdas Bhagat
Or more like the US government rules, where software written by/for the government is all public domain.
Not all the time though. i'm sure there's a ton of stuff for ``sensitive" applications which have never(and perhaps may never) see the light of day since nearly half a century or more. The best example being that of the NSA. There have been certain exceptions such as DES, but that too with a pinch of salt(remember the S-boxes and their anger at the algorithm becoming public). Is the NSA internal policy changing(e.g SELinux et. all.) is of course something only they can tell with certainity.
Regards,
- vihan
On 12-Mar-07, at 1:48 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
Or more like the US government rules, where software written by/ for the government is all public domain.
Not all the time though. i'm sure there's a ton of stuff for ``sensitive" applications which have never(and perhaps may never) see the light of day since nearly half a century or more
the national security caveat is also part of the rules
On 12/03/07 22:33 +0530, Vihan Pandey wrote:
the national security caveat is also part of the rules
Meaning what ?
The software is in the public domain, but the government has no requirement to release source or binary.
Devdas Bhagat
On 12-Mar-07, at 10:33 PM, Vihan Pandey wrote:
the national security caveat is also part of the rules
Meaning what ?
that all software made by/paid by govt has to go into public domain subject to national security contraints
2007/3/12, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org:
when government writes software with our money, they should be forced to release it under a f/oss license - that is my contention. They havent.
As long as the user of the software (who bought it or paid for the development) have the basic freedoms, it is Free Software. This is different for a service, like google's services. When google uses Free Software to offer a service it Google who are entitled to the Freedoms and not the users of Google service. Now there is Affero GPL ( http://www.affero.org/oagpl.html ) which says if the software is available for public use then the source code should be avilable to its users. In GPL version 3 there is an option for developers to turn this on. Are you supporting this?
In the #2 the software is developed for Government of Kerala and if they have all the Freedoms then it is Free Software.
the opinion that the authors of the PDF in question have tried to give an impression that free software is flourishing in the state.
And I think that is correct as well.
and why werent the licenses specified?
These are all custom software and I guess the Government of Kerala might be owning the copyright (at least that happens in many of the services companies, the companies assign copyright to clients).
why didnt the authors investigate this?
Ask them.
Isnt it practically the sole objective of FSF to concern itself with software licenses?
are you kidding? http://www.fsf.org/about I didn't see it mentioned there.
I dont move in such exalted circles, but somehow i got the impression that he was interested in seeing that all software is shared - I could be wrong
Every computer user should be Free to use, change, and share the software. In this case the user is Government of Kerala and if they have these Freedoms then it is Free Software. Every users is Free to share but not required to share.
Cheers Praveen
On 12-Mar-07, at 3:51 PM, Praveen A wrote:
when government writes software with our money, they should be forced to release it under a f/oss license - that is my contention. They havent.
As long as the user of the software (who bought it or paid for the development) have the basic freedoms, it is Free Software.
so does the user of the software in this case have the basic freedoms?
In the #2 the software is developed for Government of Kerala and if they have all the Freedoms then it is Free Software.
do they have them? Everyone knows that *if* they have the freedoms it is free software. My question is: do they have the freedoms?
the opinion that the authors of the PDF in question have tried to give an impression that free software is flourishing in the state.
And I think that is correct as well.
you are contradicting yourself. You say 'if they have the 4 freedoms it is free software'. But you dont know if they have. So how can you say it is free software?
and why werent the licenses specified?
These are all custom software and I guess the Government of Kerala might be owning the copyright (at least that happens in many of the services companies, the companies assign copyright to clients).
Isnt it practically the sole objective of FSF to concern itself with software licenses?
are you kidding? http://www.fsf.org/about I didn't see it mentioned there.
i see it mentioned in points 1 and 3 above
I dont move in such exalted circles, but somehow i got the impression that he was interested in seeing that all software is shared - I could be wrong
Every computer user should be Free to use, change, and share the software. In this case the user is Government of Kerala and if they have these Freedoms then it is Free Software. Every users is Free to share but not required to share.
again you say 'if they have the freedoms it is free software'. No one disputes that. But do they have the freedoms?
On Monday 12 March 2007 08:26, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On 11-Mar-07, at 9:42 PM, Raj Mathur wrote: [snip]
I wonder who this free software guru was? You and I did discuss this on IRC earlier today, but (a) I'm no free software guru and (b) I never discussed whether this was proprietary software or not.
It was you. and it is no point debating this as the IRC conversation is not available, so it will be an endless 'I said this', ' no i didnt say that" etc etc.
I have logs of the conversation in question, which I sent you and requested you to show me where I claimed that the software was not proprietary. You couldn't show me that. Ergo, you are lying.
Please refrain from making false claims about other peoples' motives and statements, otherwise even the few remaining people who believe anything that emanates from your completely distorted view of reality will stop doing so.
Regards,
-- Raju
On 12-Mar-07, at 7:56 PM, Raj Mathur wrote:
I have logs of the conversation in question, which I sent you
you dont have the logs - what you sent me is an edited version of a cut and paste.
and requested you to show me where I claimed that the software was not proprietary. You couldn't show me that. Ergo, you are lying.
Please refrain from making false claims about other peoples' motives and statements, otherwise even the few remaining people who believe anything that emanates from your completely distorted view of reality will stop doing so.
lol
-
Devdas Bhagat -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
Praveen A -
Raj Mathur -
Vihan Pandey