-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Specific issues with version 2.4 of Draft Policy on Open Standards for eÂGovernance (India)
,----[ Quote ]
| This document examines the Draft Policy on
| Open Standards for eÂGovernment v2.4 dated
| 25.11.2009 and the process followed in
| adopting the same. You can download from
| http://fosscomm.in/OpenStandards .
|
| If v2.4 is adopted as official policy, it will
| result in:
|
| 1. The legitimization of proprietary
| standards that entail the payment of
| royalty fees and huge foreign exchange
| outflows. This cost will be paid by Indian
| taxpayers and pocketed by monopolistic
| vendors located in foreign countries, since
| most proprietary standards are controlled
| by entities outside India. Unlike royaltyÂ
| free open standards, the usage of
| proprietary standards will mean that users
| will, directly or indirectly, pay a royalty
| to a private entity for the privilege of
| communicating with the government.
| 2. Reduce eÂGovernment in India to a mess of
| incompatible systems that cannot
| communicate with each other, thus defeating
| the very purpose of eÂGovernment, if
| multiple standards for the same purpose are
| allowed.
`----
http://lug-iitd.posterous.com/specific-issues-with-version-24-of-draft-poli
Recent:
Steps to adopt open source standards draw flak
,----[ Quote ]
| Indiaâs open source software lobbyists
| allege that the countryâs proposed draft
| recommendations for adopting open
| technology standards and software for
| automating different government departments
| and functions, favours popular software
| solutions from large companies such as
| Microsoft.
|
| According to people familiar with the draft
| recommendations, a meeting of the apex body
| on Standards for eGovernance was held last
| week, and the policy is close to being
| approved. ET was shown a copy of the
| proposed recommendations by one of the
| persons who requested anonymity.
|
| [...]
|
| The most contentious point of the policy is
| that it includes standards which may be
| royalty free and non discriminatory (RAND)
| as compared to fair royalty free and non
| discriminatory (FRAND), which many experts
| had recommended.
|
| âThe entire standard should be royalty-free
| and not just the âessentialâ parts of it.
| In other words, All patent claims necessary
| to implement the standard should be
| royaltyfree. Also, royalty free on
| FRAND/RAND is self-contradictory. If a
| Standard is Royalty Free (RF) then it
| cannot be RAND,â says Venkatesh Hariharan,
| a blogger and expert on open source
| affairs.
`----
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/infotech/software/Steps-to-adopt-open-source-standards-draw-flak/articleshow/5475276.cms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAktYokQACgkQU4xAY3RXLo5bfACfSqsryUUuoztpcFVhJYu0JEKk
ikwAn1EvqLEdD5Mrpnr6p9HhHDiCVK7J
=i/vy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
