The Tender Demands Ubuntu 9.04 Preloaded & Ubuntu compatible / Certified Laptops as Requirements

We Must Congratulate TD Kuriachan, Network Administrator, Kerala Legislative Assembly IT Section for Making This Tender as a Free Software Preinstalled Purchase

Related posts

• No related posts.

Apr. 6, 09
Trivandrum

On 27th March 2009, On 27th March 2009, a section of the press carried a news which said Mr. Anvar Sadath, Executive Director, IT@School has received an international award from ODF alliance for his contribution to the ODF. It was surprising for many of us who wondered what his contribution to ODF was. Two days later, some of us received a press release issued by ODF alliance which made it clear that recognition was given to Mr. Anvar for the ODF adoption in schools of Kerala. The press release also had quotes from Mr. Anvar Sadath and Mr. Marino Marcich of ODF alliance.

“Anvar Sadath has bridged the digital divide in Kerala,” commented the ODF Alliance’s Marcich. “He was among the first to recognize that an open format like ODF means giving students, teachers, and parents alike the flexibility to use a wide range of software than they currently have, including free solutions. Just as importantly, Sadath translated ideas into actions for the benefit of educational development in Kerala.”

Being involved in IT@school project from year 2001, we knew that above statement is factually wrong. Anvar Sadath was never involved in the ODF adoption phase of this project for which the award has been granted. It was clear that a mistake has happened either from the side of those who applied for the award or by those who have given the award. Neither the recipient nor anyone else involved took the initiative to correct the statement. Hence some of us took the initiative to correct the situation by sending letters to ODF alliance and various individuals involved. We are happy to inform that ODF alliance accepting the mistake decided to correct the citation to recognise individuals and the teaching community involved. We welcome the constructive steps taken by ODF alliance in this regard.

However, recent reports in the local media and online forums tried to put this incident in bad light. We want to clarify that the recent reports on the issue in a section of the press attempting to link our opposition to the award as having political connotations is completely misplaced. Our intention, as activists of the Free software movement,  is to correct a mistake on the side of the ODF Alliance . We are happy that the Alliance has been open to our criticism and have admitted the flaws in their selection process.

From the discussions attached with this press release, it can be seen that the entire discussion was to correct a mistake. We request not to inappropriately link this incident to other political issues.

Arun M Ph 09447034795
Anivar Aravind Ph 09663379908

Malayalam:
പ്രസിദ്ധീകരണത്തിന്

ഒ.ഡി.എഫ് അവാര്‍ഡ്: ഒരു വിശദീകരണം

ഏപ്രില്‍ 6 2009
തിരുവനന്തപുരം

ഓപ്പണ്‍ ഡോക്യുമെന്റ് ഫോര്‍മാറ്റിനു നല്‍കിയ സംഭാവനകളെ മാനിച്ചു കൊണ്ട് ശ്രീ. അന്‍വര്‍ സാദത്തിനു (executive director, IT@school) ODF അലയന്‍സിന്റെ അന്താരാഷ്ട്ര പുരസ്ക്കാരം ലഭിച്ചതായി കഴിഞ്ഞ മാര്‍ച്ച് 27 നു ചില പത്രങ്ങള്‍ റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ട് ചെയ്തിരുന്നു. ഈ മേഖലയില്‍ പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്ന പലരെയും പോലേ ഞങ്ങള്‍ക്കും ഈ വാര്‍ത്ത കൌതുകകരമായിത്തോന്നി. ഓപ്പണ്‍ ഡോക്യുമെന്റ് ഫോര്‍മ്മാറ്റിന് അദ്ദേഹം നല്‍കിയ സംഭാവന എന്താണെന്നു ഞങ്ങള്‍ക്കും അറിയില്ലായിരുന്നു. രണ്ടു ദിവസം കഴിഞ്ഞു ലഭിച്ച ODF അലയന്‍സിന്റെ പത്രക്കുറിപ്പില്‍ നിന്നാണ് IT@school ലെ ODF ന്റെ ഉപയോഗവുമായി ബന്ധപെട്ടാണ് ഈ പുരസ്ക്കാരം നല്‍കിയതെന്ന് ഞങ്ങള്‍ മനസിലാക്കി. ശ്രീ. അന്‍വര്‍ സാദത്തിന്റെയും ശ്രീ. മാരിനോ മറിച്ചിന്റെയും വരികളടങ്ങിയ പത്രക്കുറിപ്പും ഇതോടൊപ്പം ചേര്‍ക്കുന്നു.

ശ്രീ. മാരിനോ മറിച്ചി ഇങ്ങനെ അഭിപ്രായപ്പെടുന്നു. ” ശ്രീ. അന്‍വര്‍ സാദത്ത്‌ കേരളത്തിലെ ഡിജിറ്റല്‍ ഡിവൈഡ് കുറച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു. സ്വതന്ത്രമായതുള്‍പ്പെടെയുളള വിവിധ തരം സോഫ്റ്റ് വെയറുകള്‍ ഉപയോഗിക്കുന്നതിന് വിദ്യാര്‍ത്ഥികള്‍ക്കും അധ്യാപകര്‍ക്കും രക്ഷിതാക്കള്‍ക്കും ഒരു പോലെ സൗകര്യം നല്‍കുന്ന ODF പോലുള്ള തുറന്ന ഫോര്‍മാറ്റുകളുടെ പ്രാധാന്യം ആദ്യമായി തിരിച്ചറിഞ്ഞവരില്‍ ഒരാളാണ് അദ്ദേഹം. മാത്രവുമല്ല , അതേ പ്രാധാന്യത്തോടു കൂടി കേരളത്തിലെ വിദ്യാഭ്യാസ പുരോഗതിക്ക് വേണ്ടി ഈ ആശയങ്ങളെ പ്രായോഗിക തലത്തില്‍ അദ്ദേഹം നടപ്പിലാക്കുകയും ചെയ്തു. “

2001 മുതല്‍ IT@school പരിപാടിയുമായി ചേര്‍ന്നു പ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്നവര്‍ എന്ന നിലയ്ക്ക് മുകളില്‍ പറഞ്ഞിരിക്കുന്ന കാര്യങ്ങള്‍ വാസ്തവ വിരുദ്ധമാണെന്നു ഞങ്ങള്‍ക്കു വ്യക്തമായി അറിയാവുന്നതാണ്. പുരസ്ക്കാരത്തിനു പരിഗണിച്ച ODF സ്വീകരണത്തിന്റെ കാലഘട്ടത്തില്‍ ശ്രീ. അന്‍വര്‍ സാദത്ത് ഈ ഐടി@സ്കൂള്‍ പദ്ധതിയുടെ ഭാഗമായിരുന്നില്ല. ഇതില്‍ നിന്നു വ്യക്തമാകുന്നതു പുരസ്ക്കാരത്തിനായി സമര്‍പ്പിച്ച അപേക്ഷയില്‍ നിന്നൊ അതു പരിഗണിച്ചവരില്‍ നിന്നോ പിഴവു സംഭവിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു എന്നാണു. പുരസ്ക്കാരം ലഭിച്ചവരോ ബന്ധപ്പെട്ട മറ്റുള്ളവരോ ഈ പിഴവു പരിഹരിക്കാന്‍ ശ്രമിച്ചില്ല. ഈ സാഹചര്യത്തിലാണ് ഞങ്ങളില്‍ ചിലര്‍ ODF അലയന്‍സിനും ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടവര്‍ക്കും കത്തെഴുതുന്നത്. തുടര്‍ന്നു ODF അലയന്‍സ് അവരുടെ ഭാഗത്തു നിന്നുണ്ടായ വീഴ്ച അംഗീകരിച്ച് പുരസ്ക്കാരരേഖ തിരുത്തും എന്നറിയിച്ചിരിക്കുന്നു. ODF അലയന്‍സിന്റെ ഈ ക്രിയാത്മക സമീപനത്തെ ഞങ്ങള്‍ സ്വാഗതം ചെയ്യുന്നു.

ഈ അടുത്ത ദിവസങ്ങളില്‍ ചില മാധ്യമങ്ങളില്‍ വന്ന റിപ്പോര്‍ട്ടുകള്‍ ഈ സംഭവത്തെ തെറ്റായി ചിത്രീകരിച്ചുകാണുകയുണ്ടായി. ഈ അവാര്‍ഡിനോടുള്ള ഞങ്ങളുടെ എതിര്‍പ്പിനെ കക്ഷിരാഷ്ട്രീയപരമായ വിയോജിപ്പുകളായി ചിത്രീകരിക്കുന്ന ഈ വാര്‍ത്തകള്‍ പൂര്‍ണ്ണമായും തെറ്റിദ്ധാരണാജനകമാണ്. സ്വതന്ത്ര സോഫ്റ്റ്‌വെയര്‍ പ്രസ്ഥാനവുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെട്ടുപ്രവര്‍ത്തിക്കുന്ന ആക്റ്റിവിസ്റ്റുകളെന്ന നിലയില്‍ ODF അലയന്‍സില്‍ നിന്നും വന്ന വീഴ്ചകള്‍ തിരുത്താനും ഈ പുരസ്കാരം അര്‍ഹതപ്പെട്ടവര്‍ക്കായി ലഭ്യമാക്കാനുമാണ് ഞങ്ങള്‍ ശ്രമിച്ചത് . ODF അലയന്‍സ് ഞങ്ങളുടെ വിമര്‍ശനത്തെ തുറന്ന മനസ്സോടെ സ്വീകരിക്കുകയും അവരുടെ അവാര്‍ഡ് സെലക്ഷന്‍ നടപടിക്രമങ്ങളില്‍ വന്ന വീഴ്ചകളെ ഉള്‍ക്കൊള്ളുകയും ചെയ്തിട്ടുണ്ട്.

അനുബന്ധമായി ചേര്‍ത്തിരിക്കുന്ന രേഖകളില്‍ നിന്നു ഈ സംഭവത്തിന്റെ പൂര്‍ണ്ണ ചിത്രം ലഭിക്കുന്നതാണ്. ഇതിനെ മറ്റ് രാഷ്ട്രീയ പ്രശ്നങ്ങളുമായി ബന്ധപ്പെടുത്തരുതെന്നു അഭ്യര്‍ത്ഥിക്കുന്നു.

അരുണ്‍ എം Ph 09447034795
അനിവര്‍ അരവിന്ദ്  Ph 09663379908

—————————————————————–

Mail Communication

From: Arun M
Date: Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:23 PM

Dear Friends,

It was really shocking to see the press release from ODF alliance which has attributed the entire credit for promotion of ODF in the schools of Kerala wrongly to Mr. Anvar Sadath. Giving credits wrongly can be discouraging and painful to those who had done the real work. There are several hundreds of people in Kerala whose painstaking effort and dedication lead to the integration of Free Software and ODF in the schools of Kerala. It has a long history starting from year 2001.

Today we find that ODF alliance has credited the entire work to one person who had no role to play in the process. ODF alliance should have recognised the real individuals who worked for what we see as IT@school today.

You should have recognised Sri V. S Achuthandan, Chief Minister of Kerala ( Opposition leader then), whose political endorsement lead to the introduction of free software and ODF in the schools of Kerala.

You should have recognised hundreds of teachers who took the pain to learn and promote Free Software and ODF. Without their political courage nothing would have happend.

You should have recognised Mr. Biju Prabhakar, the former director of IT @school who initiated the introduction of FS and ODF in Schools of Kerala.

You should have recognised Mr. V K Sasidharan, who was the leading master trainer whose leadership brought together the entire change.

You should have recognised volunteers of Free Software community who communicated the importance of digital freedom in the schools of Kerala.

It’s a shame that a community organisation like ODF alliance could not to recognise the real heroes of this project. This press release can be seen only as a black humor.

“Anvar Sadath has bridged the digital divide in Kerala,” commented the ODF Alliance’s Marcich. “He was among the first to recognize that an open format like ODF means giving students, teachers, and parents alike the flexibility to use a wide range of software than they currently have, including free solutions. Just as importantly, Sadath translated ideas into actions for the benefit of educational development in Kerala.”

I would like to know how this statement can be substantiated. May be I’m missing something here! I would like to hear from you all.

Warm regards

Arun M

———-
From: Anivar Aravind

Crediting a bureaucrat who pushed to Introduce windows and Photoshop in Completely Free Software powered schools using his power position(in the name of some e-gov works http://www.gnu.org.in/fsf-india-sends-letter-to-education-minister-of )   is now awarded in the name of a collective effort done by other people & Departments like SCERT who designed the syllabus. I Dont have a problem if it is awarded to IT@school Project because it worth it.  we like to know the rationale of statements like below .. Anivar Aravind

———-
From: Praveen Arimbrathodiyil

As far as I know from my experience with teachers, Freedom was the primary motivation in promoting Free Software. I suspect this is an effort to push proprietary software implementing ODF, using the momentum the community have built up in the past years with their hard work. If people look carefully, they can easily see, who would benefit from such a move.

I tend to think the quote below is true, because he may be first one to see the potential of “the flexibility to use a wide range of software than they currently have, including free solutions”. We adopted OpenOffice.org much before ODF came, in the days of sxw, because it was Free Software.

- Praveen

———-
From: Marino Marcich

Hello Arun: Thanks for the feedback. I can appreciate the intense interest in the award given the considerable efforts of so many who helped make the IT@School project a reality.

To be considered for the ODF Alliance Award, an individual or entity (project) must first be nominated. Anvar Sadath was nominated and received  the award as an individual in recognition of the IT@School project. We did not receive a nomination for the IT@School project itself or any other individual involved in the IT@School project. Regretfully, we are unable to issue awards to people or projects that aren’t nominated. Though there were a number of worthy candidates in this category (education) around the world and we regret not being able to recognize their work, we felt and continue to believe that the nomination received for Mr Sadath in recognition of the IT@School project was the best.

There was considerable discussion regarding open source in the emails that followed. Please note as well that the award is for work done on ODF, not open source. ODF is not the “OpenOffice format” (while recognizing its origins), nor is it open source or even software for that matter. It is an open standard for document formats that can be implemented in both open source and proprietary software. It is “free” in the sense that it is freely available for implementation and use. Importantly, it comes with the “freedom” to choose from among many implementations, including but not limited to open source, and the freedom to migrate to a different brand of software if desired.

We recognize that any significant change of the kind witnessed in Kerala involves a team effort and the actions of hundreds of individuals. This award  is a global recognition of the teaching community in Kerala and its many achievements. In the write-up of the project we would be happy to acknowledge the many people involved in this effort. We hope that you and others in this community can share in the award in the spirit in which it was intended. Sincerely,

Marino Marcich
ODF Alliance

———-
From: Anivar Aravind

Dear Marino,

I just want to point  time line of IT@school Project & Its ODF Adoption for your clarity .

2004: Free Software Implementation in 8th Standard IT@school Project. Document Standard is sxw  . Text books mentions Both Windows & GNU/Linux. IT@school Project Director is Biju Prabhakar . SCERT Started Developing Free Software Only Text Books under the leadership of Satyapalan sir. Software FREE Software Foundation is Training Teachers with the support of Kerala School Teachers Association . IT@school uses a Debian Based Custom Distribution made by Vimal Joseph

2005: 9th Standard syllabus Completly moves to Free Software. Text books Only Covers Free Software. Document Standard SXW  IT@school Director: Biju Prabhakar  IT@School decided to move to new Debian sarge based Distribution. IT@school Initates EDUSAT under the leadership of Biju Prabhakar

2006:  10th stanadrd also migrates to Free Software. New IT@school Distribution based on Debian Sarge included Open Office 2.0  (Which support ODF because of the peer pressure from Teachers) .  Texts books were developed by SCERT covers this Change in Curriculam. IT@school Director : Biju Prabhakar ( he is left in 2006 August)  SCERT ’s  Team head : Satyapalan Sir (retired in May 2006 after the Text book  based on new Distribution & ODF i ready) .  Next IT@School Director was Sankaranarayanan (short term) and then it was under DPI’s control

Anwar Sadath Comes as IT@school director after this..   After all the ODF adoption is happened. Also it is worth to mention that ODF adoption is a Logical Followup of Open Office adoption happened in 2004

Also it is worth to note that Kerala State Issued IT Policy in 2007 which clearly adopted ODF . Kerala Become first state in India adopted this change. Policy discussion  were started in 2006 itself. Also Kerala was the only state which wrote to BIS to vote against OOXML in ISO Standardisation Process

Based on the above facts  you can clealy identify that Anvar does not have any role in ODF adoption too.  I consider this as a clear example of how award committees were misleaded by getting partial information.  I just want to ask ODF alliance that what ODF related activity you have seen to award Mr. Anvar sadath.

I consider the campaign for IT@schools Free Software Adoption (ODF also Comes as a part of that) is something similar to the fight against OOXML in ISO . Alot of people amoung us were part of both of these campaigns . Both vere bottom Up collective eforts by a lot of people without central Coordination Force. Biju Prabhakar & Satyapalan sir understood that  spirit in IT@School and facilitated the change.  What will be the reponse if someone decided to award Sun’s CEO  for fight againt OOXML .

ODF Alliance says  you awarded  person X for the act  A  . But Above facts proves that Act ‘A’ was done by another persons Y&Z . X was not on picture for that change.  You can provide technical reasons of absence/mistake in Nomination by an ODF alliance member as a face saving reason. But It again points to the credibility of award and the verification of Facts by award commitee.  We were trying to raise the issue in front of ODF Alliance because we value the contributions of your Organisation.  we consider you act as a responsible organisation, which will take corrective measures, if the nomination sent by one of its member is misleading by providing only partial information. I really appreatiate the positive steps you suggested. I hope arun & Others must have a say on it.

Anivar Aravind

———-
From: Arun M

Dear Mario,
I appreciate the work being done by ODF Alliance, and importance of that organisation.
I can also understand the difficulties involved while evaluating/verifying projects from several different countries.

Anivar has layed out facts behind IT@School project and indicated persons responsible for each stage.
From mail sent by Anwar Sadath, I understand that he was submitting the application on behalf IT@School and not on his behalf (Anwar pls correct if I am wrong). May be award committee mistook it for a representation from an individual.
If you go through the document sent by Anvar (which he mentioned as the document he had given to the committee) he  did not make any personal claims of leadership (in ODF adoption). All the activities mentioned in that document  happened under the leadership of Mr Biju Prabhakar IAS in IT@School and Prof Satyapalan in SCERT.

I suggest that ODF Alliance revise the citation to recognise agencies like IT@School, SCERT, teachers who worked for the the change, individuals like Mr Biju Prabhakar and Prof Satyapalan who lead the work, along with  Anwar Sadath, current Director, IT@School.

I think that credibility of an award depends on its genuineness. And we want ODF allience to be above doubts.  As you also know I clearly  understand the difference between free software, open source and ODF. That is the reason  I said ODF was incidental to IT@School project. We would have happily lived with old staroffice format if  there was no free software implementation of ODF.  May be most important contribution of Kerala to ODF was  recognition of ODF in policy document and letter state had sent to BIS on its position. Venky and others know the history.

This incident also highlights some weakness of process of ODF Award. A more open process would  had helped all of us from this kind of embarrassing position.

Since every one agrees with the fact that it is IT@School deserves this recognition (please voice your difference, if any)  as a corrective step we can work together to improve the citation of the award. If you need any help some in this group  who knows entire project can volunteer.

Thank you for the positive note, and we take this award in good spirit. This award will be a major recognition to IT@School, and all the teachers, officials and volunteers who worked years for this.

Warmly,
Arun.

———-
From: Marino Marcich

Hello Arun:  Sounds good.  I will do a “write-up” (citation) for the award using the original nomination paper and additional information that has come to light in the subsequent email correspondence. I would then post this document on the web site and do a blog post on the citation. What is clear is that the original nomination paper got lost in translation in the press release, for which I, as drafter of the release, am solely responsible. I do hope this will clarify matters and sincerely regret any difficulties this has caused for anyone involved. Best,
Marino

From: Anvar Sadath

Date: 2009/3/29

Dear All,

First of Let me express the History of ODF Alliance Award.

On August 5^th 2008, I got a mail from Mr Jaijit like this

Dear Mr Sadath,

Thank you for taking out the time to discuss the ODF adoption plans of schools in Kerala.

As discussed, we would like to nominate your initiatives for ODF adoption in schools in Kerala. I would really appreciate if you could send me a short writeup on initiatives taken by the schools in Kerala for ODF adoption in curriculum.

Please feel free to call me at 09818213076 for any clarifications. We would need this writeup by tomorrow.

With warm regards
Jaijit Bhattacharya

After seeing this mail I have responded to it by sending a document called ITSchool odf implementation-SA.odt on 06th August itself ( which is attached here with). Please see this document and you cannot find any part describing ‘Anvar Sadath’ is the man behind all these.

This was a usual practice for filing Awards and we forgot about it after months.

Later I got a mail from ODF Alliance asking for personal profile and then they declared this award.

I do attribute this to the entire teaching community and Free Software loving community of Kerala.

I took charge as the Executive Director of IT@School Project on 16^th August 2008 and was instrumental in giving momentum to this initiatives, with some concrete Action Plans for implementation.

Some of such steps :

• Up to 2007 March there were option for doing Practical Exams in both Windows and IT@School GNU/Linux platform, but less than 10 schools opted for IT@School GNU/Linux. As you are aware, if there is no practical evaluation the level of learning in schools wouldn’t be that much serious.

  So it was an herculean task to make entire exams ( 15 lakhs students from 8^th to 10^th std) on Free Software within this short period. ( You all know how sensitive is our SSLC Exams). But we made it and it went without much issues in this year also.

• ICT Scheme for 4071 schools which is 54 Crore per year project for the ICT Infrastructure deployment for 5 years ( Total 270 Crore). In the Tender ( which is through KELTRON) it was specifically mentioned that all hardware equipments should support our OS.

• ICT Enabled Content generation using Free Softwares and extending the project to the Upper Primary classes as well ( 15 lakhs students more)

• Broadband Implementation to all Schools ( It is the largest deployment of BSNL data One scheme in systems having FS, our team took so much pain to implement this)

• E-Governance Programmes like Online Transfer and Postings, Online Text Book Ordering, Noon meal computerisation etc which was entirely on Free Software

( More details are available in www.itschool.gov.in )

For all these activities we are in constant touch with experts like Shri V K Sasidharan, Prof jayasankar, Shri Biju Prabhakar, Shri Sasi PM , Shri Vimal etc.  Technical Institutions like SPACE ( in which I am a member of the Director Board) , CDIT, KELTRON, CDAC, IEEE, DOEACC etc also supported well.

And We shall continue this association…

Regarding Anivar’s statement

Crediting a bureaucrat who pushed to Introduce windows and Photoshop in Completely Free Software powered schools using his power position(in the name of some e-gov works http://www.gnu.org.in/fsf-india-sends-letter-to-education-minister-of )   is now awarded in the name of a collective effort done by other people & Departments like SCERT who designed the syllabus.

It’s easy to undermine some activities by calling it ‘bureaucratic’ . Last year there were some programmes like Single Window System, SSLC date collection etc in which the software development was done by agencies like NIC and IT@School didn’t have any role to play in th e development part. But even before FSF is thinking to write such a letter to the Education Minister we have decided to shift all these to Free Software platform and this year we have made it.

Our next challenge is Higher Secondary sector, for which we have started working on ..

Shall Write Later.

Regards,

Anvar

From: Arun M

Dear Anvar,

Thanks for your detailed email. As you rightly corrected in the subject line, ODF award “should” have been a recognition to the academic community and the volunteers. Glad that you also endorse the position taken by some of us. Considering this, I suggest that lets all collectively demand ODF alliance to give this award to IT@school and SCERT ( State Council for Education and Training). It may be noted that Redhat India had done it properly when they awarded IT@ school for the introduction of Free Software in Education.

I hope this discussion will spark off some constructive debates on the present and future of IT@ School project. Many teachers and activists do have doubts and concerns regarding the current direction of IT@School. Earlier we used to have lots of  public discussions which lead to the introduction of FS in Schools. I would also like to add that the introduction of ODF was never an aim in itself to IT@school, teachers or activists. It just happened over the process of furthering the freedom.

Warm regards
Arun M

From: Jaijit Bhattacharya

Dear Arun,

ODF Alliance is highly appreciative of the combined efforts of many stakeholders in the IT@School project.

However, the ODF Award per se is for individuals and not for projects or organizations.

The ODF alliance looks forward to supporting all your future initiatives in promoting ODF. The ODF Award is for an individual and n

From: Anvar Sadath

Dear Mr Arun,

Regarding the first paragraph, I am not the person to comment on it, let the organisers decide.

Regarding your comments aboutWe do discuss these things ( Implementation and Future Direction  of  ‘IT@School ) with almost all people who have ’good intention’ in this project and especially in the ‘Freedom Movement”. I don’t know who authorized you to make such a statement like ‘ Many teachers and activists do have doubts and concerns’ and I am sorry to say that we cannot take a position based on ’somebodies  personal motives’.

We do get feed backs from many parts and trying to in-coperate the suggestions and we shall continue it.If you have any doubts regarding this please ask to persons like Mr V K Sasidharan, Mr Sasi PM, Dr Achuthsankar, Mr Biju Prabhakar, Mr Satish Babu etc.

We do believe in implementing things which will ultimately benefit to the entire kerala community. We don’t believe in piloting some programme in 5-6 locations, gaining international attention, and then drop it / going for a new pilot…

Sorry, this is March end, I have lot many things to do…

Regards,
Anvar

From: Praveen A

2009/3/30 Jaijit Bhattacharya
I suggest you to clarify it in the press release, that should help
avoid confusions

From
http://www.odfalliance.org/blog/index.php/site/odf_alliance_awards/

“ODF Alliance awards recognize the contribution of individuals or
entities who have significantly advanced document freedom ”

“or entities” seems redundant when you already say it is for
individuals and you intend to give it only for individuals.

- Praveen

From: Joseph Thomas

Dear All,

Is it necessary that there shall be controversy in every thing.
Why not the free software community work in a collaborative or atleast in a contributive way.
Here what we see is a scramble for positions, recognition and awards.
If an award is given to somebody, others in the field accuse the recepient.
Why not we congratulate him and appreciate those who gave the award.

Are the free software volunteers working for recognition and awards ?
Then, the very concept of voluntary work is denigrated !

When an award is given for Anvar Sadath, the question being raised by Arun is why the award was not given collectively to the free software community or at least to IT@School.

Question is raised as to why the award was not given to Hon, Chief Minister of Kerala Com. V S Achuthanandan.

Please leave, atleast, Com. V S, alone.
He is not bothered about any award from the

Is it mean that Anvar Sadath is at par with V S Achuthanandan or vice versa.

Please stop this type of generation of controversies, typical to the Kerala style.
As one of my non-malayalee friend pointed out, the advancement of Kerala is haunted by the controversies generated by the vested interests in the name of politics. The present Kerala society, including the free software volunteers, contending for recognition and awards, accusing the winner as well as the one who instituted the award, bear the legacy of this antogonistic positions crated by the vested interests.

Let us, please, shirk off these sort of notions. Free software community has to go a long way to attain its cherished goals.

Whether it is FSF, FSF(I), SMC, IT@School, ORUMA, SPACE, OSSICS or even the industrial units that are offering services in Free Software, all are part of the movement.

It may be true that some of the individuals involved in the work or at the helm of the affairs now are from organisations that promoted proprietary software in the past. Or even who argued for it in the past. But when they correct themselves, should we, the free software community accept them into our fold ?

Should we drive them away saying that we dont want you in our fold ?

In that case how our movement can expand ?

Can all the free software activists vouch that they never used proprietary platforms ?

Those who correct their past mistakes deserve more appreciation that the one who never committed a mistake as he had no chance to do it.

I think, the arguement that those who stood for proprietary software are to condemned for ever is similiar to condemning  Abdul Nasar Madani, who corrected himself of his past extremist positions.

Any way, better stop such petty controversies in the name of Free Software Ware Movement. Free Software can better be promoted through hard work for propagating it among the people and bringing more of the people who use proprietary software at present to our fold.

Such petty controversies create repulsions.

From: Praveen A

2009/3/30 Joseph Thomas :
Dialogue does not mean we are not collaborating. In the Free Software
community we may not agree with every views of each member but work on
things which we mutually accept. At the same we vocally oppose any
issues which we don’t agree with. That is the way we work. Even though
many in the community oppose using the term Open Source, and vocally
oppose those use it, that does not keep us from working together on
issues like document freedom and software patents.
Because we clearly see the award was not representative of the people
who did the actual work.
Every one may have their own motivations in involving in the Free
Software community, but that is not the point here. We are asking for
including people who were omitted, but deserved to be recognised. Also
the community is not asking to award itself, but the whole IT@School
project and SCERT.
You can’t be selectively Keralite. The high Free Software awareness in
Kerala is because of its dynamism. So you can’t expect people to be
silent when they see things are not right, especially when they have
worked hard to make it happen.
You forgot one thing, it the same Kerala that stands proud with its
deep penetration of Free Software. You don’t have to be silent to work
together. We can, and we are working together on areas we agree, and
that does not stop us from voicing our concerns and differences.
Nobody contested that point here. The debate here is to include people
who were omitted but should have been recognised. Anvar Sadath itself
recognised the collective effort.

From: Joseph Thomas

Dear All,

Despite the comments by Praveen, I still hold that free software movement in Kerala shed its antagonistic polemics within itself. One cannot be blamed if it doubts the real intention of such deliberately generated controversies.

If any body is denied its role to work within the movement, then questioning such actions are justified. But if the very freedom to work together is misused to create disputes and continue with  polemics in the name of clarity of concepts or purpose, that will only lead to discrediting the movement.

This exactly is happening in Kerala.

The real force behind migration of IT@School from proprietary platform to free software platform was the KSTA, one of the teachers organisation that represent bulk of the school teachers in Kerala. It was in the back ground of state wide campaign and on the threat of trade union action by that organisation, the then UDF Govt had to agree to consider the use of free software in schools.

The same way, it was the KSEBOA & KSEBWA that spearheaded the movement for migration of its systems to free software.

None of them are claiming seniority in the use of free software. None of them claim recognition for their efforts. None of them are even referred to by those who claim the credit for every thing that happens in the realm of free software in Kerala.

Kerala Society and the government shall have dependable organisations to go for large scale use of free software. Free software movement has to establish that it is responsible and not anarchic. Such type of controversies over claim for recognition, claim for award etc shows the immaturity of the concerned or anarchic tendencies, deliberately brought in to discredit and retard the movement.

This exactly is happening in Kerala.

That has to be stopped forthwith, if the intention of the concerned is to see that free software is widely used.

Related posts

• Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) Agreement on Procurement in Support of Interoperability and Open Standards (0)

Preamble

The Contracting Parties,

Recalling the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) Declaration of Principles which states that “[i]nternational standards aim to create an environment where consumers can access services worldwide regardless of underlying technology,”

Recognizing that standards are increasingly global concerns, involving goods and services that move in international trade across borders,

Aware that current competition and legal remedies may not be enough to solve the inherent tensions that routinely arise in the realm of patents and standards,

Desirous of encouraging procurement policies that require evaluation of multiple, competing products based on open ICT standards in order to ensure a level playing field for vendors, governments and consumers,

Cognizant of the need for procurement policies for software programs that are predicated upon an open standard,

Open Standards

Given the multiplicity of interpretations of the term open standards, for the purpose of this document we endorse as an acceptable definition the position contained in the European Union’s draft European Interoperability Framework:

The open standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).

The open standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.

The intellectual property – i.e. patents possibly present – of (parts of) the open standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis.

There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

(IDABC EIF v2 draft)

As noted in the European Interoperability Framework cited above, open standards or technical specifications must allow all interested parties to implement the standards and to compete on quality and price. The goal is to have a competitive and innovative industry, not to protect market shares by raising obstacles to newcomers. Thus, open standards or technical specifications must be possible to implement in software distributed under the most commonly used open source licences, with no limitations arising from patent associated with the standard in question.

In addition to the above requirements, it is recommended that there should be multiple independent implementations of the standard.

Governments, publicly funded and non-profit institutions agree to implement the following policies.

Governments, publicly funded and non-profit institutions
Hereby agree to the following measures in order to promote interoperability and accessibility through the use of open standards.

To create a policy statement on interoperability and open standards, to be available to employees and the public.

By 2010, procurement of all software should be vendor neutral and implement open standards

By 2010, tender specifications for hardware (including peripherals and mobile devices) should require that manufacturers provide the driver and interface information necessary to work with a reasonable range of proprietary and free operating system platforms.

By 2010, all public facing web pages should conform to W3C standards for structure, presentation and accessibility.

By 2010, tenders for the supply of web based services (for example, online reservations) must specify the requirements of point 4.

By 2010, agencies should implement policies regarding the storage and archiving of government data and records to ensure that data is stored in open data and document formats.

Signed by the following parties:

• Aslam Raffee, Government IT Officers’ Council, OSS Working Group, Republic of South Africa
• Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
• Bob Jolliffe, Freedom To Innovate, South Africa
• Centre for Internet and Society, India
• Hamid Rabiee, Sharif University of Technology, Iran
• Knowledge Ecology International
• Moving Republic, India
• Shuttleworth Foundation, South Africa
• Swathanthra Malayalam Computing, India

Endorsed by the following parties:

• Bangladesh Friendship Education Society, Bangladesh
• Indian Social Action Forum (INSAF), India
• Foundation for Media Alternatives, Philippines
• OpenForum Europe

Related posts

• ODF Alliance award: A Clarification (0)

Q:Why You are Opposing Novell?

You all are aware of the 2 major campaigns in which Free Software community in India fought Last 1.5 Years. The Campaign for Document Freedom and Ongoing Campaign against software patents. Novell was always opposite to the Free Software Movement’s position

After the evil agreement with Microsoft Corporation (MS), Novell betrayed the Free Software community by violating the spirit of the GNU General Public license, which is the corner stone of the Free Software movement and legitimising the patent threats of Microsoft corporation.

The deal also legitimized Microsoft’s doubtful and undisclosed patent claims. This stigmatised every other distribution as open to lawsuit and disruption. Novell continues to advertise this.

Novell’s deal with Microsoft has many noteworthy impacts. To list several principal ones:

1. If Novell and Microsoft get their way, then metaphorically speaking, GNU/Linux will increasingly be pressured into a corner of the datacentre, essentially being marketed as a guest machine (running under Windows), as opposed to a host running with or without Windows virtualised. The virtual machine can be exploited as a sort of ‘gateway’, much like OEM bundling or even interference with boot sequences.
2. Microsoft formats and protocols, some of which are encumbered by software patents, receive priority, precedence, prevalence and promotion at Novell.
3. Microsoft creates revenue streams at the expense of those who build, maintain, support and distribute Free software. This not only deters developers but it also makes Free software a less appealing choice, based on cost. It impedes adoption of Microsoft’s number one competitor (according to Microsoft’s CEO).
4. It divides GNU/Linux into two classes; on the one hand you have ‘legal’ GNU/Linux (only a perceived notion fueled by threats of lawsuits) and ‘illegal’ GNU/Linux, which is “not licensed”. This raises tensions and it is not healthy to the ecosystem which is supposed to thrive in sharing of code. This week’s announcement of a predatory strategy against Red Hat is a timely example of that.

To name detriments that have occurred in the two years since that agreement, Novell lost the community’s trust and their market share arguably fell relative to competitors that did not make a similar deal.

Here are a few key detriments that affected Novell’s competitors (there are many more):

1. Patent allegations came from Microsoft in the middle of May 2007. At times, these allegations were explicitly backed by the deal that had been signed with Novell. This was not the first such incident and it was not the latest either (last one spotted a month ago).
2. The deal with Novell may have led to a chain of at least 7 more patent deals that cover Linux and accompanying parts. Novell’s deal served as precedence for ‘marketing’ such deals, as myself as others anticipated from the very beginning. The harms of these newer deals are similar to the harms of the deal with Novell, which was by far the most comprehensive (involving the most strategic collaboration and having the most negative impact).
3. As noted above, exclusion came from hypervisors, particularly in Hyper-V, using patent-protected hypercalls.
4. In a gruesome display of manipulation and misconduct, Microsoft managed to force OOXML through ISO’s gates. Novell helped this happen in a variety of well-documented ways. This type of help was part of the deal — the binding contract Novell had signed.
5. Concessions from regulators, who are being ’sold’ the story that Microsoft collaborates with GNU/Linux (but only Novell’s).
6. The deal enabled Microsoft to ’sell’ the impression that it intended to do well with the Free software community and thereby enter Linux and FOSS conferences as early as the deal was signed, sheltered by Novell’s presence or implicit invitation.
7. Novell is developing the GNU/Linux version of Microsoft’s proprietary web Technology called silverlight. The ‘covenant’ under which Novell has been granted this exclusive access also specifies conditions that are incompatible with the licensing that covers most other free software. As examples, it specifically requires that the software must have been “obtained directly from Novell or through an Intermediate Recipient” and that it must be “not licensed under GPLv3 or a Similar License”. free software proponents Groklaw have called the covenant “radioactive” and “worthless”, although Novell, Inc. is enthusiastic.

Our Campaign is just a Continuation of Campaign for Document Freedom and Campaign for Open standards in general and Ongoing Campaign against software patents .  The posting mela on FSF-Friends & FSF-Bangalore only shows some of them does not have enough exposure in Free Software. At least they must understand Novell- Microsoft partnership hazardous to free software community compared to Indo-US nuclear deal  to India

Boycott Novell campaign in CUSAT : The Process

While we came to know about Novell’s role in Software as a Platinum sponsor, we were too sad because it was not communicated earlier /through event website & we all are working for the success of Conference (I am a programme committee member, Swathanthra Malayalam Computing is a supporting Organisation, Shyam, me and Hiran were speakers , We all are planning to conduct a Free Software Film festival inside conference). On that night we (Hiran Venugopalan, Unni, Shyam Narayanan, VK Adarsh, Me ) Planned how to raise this issue without affecting the Conference. The major reason for our concern was the newbies in the conference. Novell is the Only GNU/linux company name mentioned in the Conference. since it is organised with the silent support of CPIM (You can understand it simply by going through schedule) a lot of people from Employee Unions, Students Unions, teachers Unions etc were participated in the event. Our intention is to protect these people being misguided by Novell. Novell was mainly promoting their fork of OpenOffice 3.0 (after they implemented notorious OOXML support & forked it after OOO3 moved to  to LGPLv3)& SUSE in their stall. Most of the participants in the Conference were newbies and Novell is the only GNU/Linux distro widely promoted in the exhibition. Our protest is not targeted at Organizers or Novell. It was just a way to spread awareness on Novell’s evil trends through the posters to protect  new users  being misguided.

Thats why we prepared the charge sheet. We communicated the idea to few friends like Sameer Thahir from Ilug cochin on same night itself and communicated the idea. and he offered full support. We considered it as a Corrective measure taken by the free software Community towards the proper success of a Free Software community event.

On second day morning we reached early (by 8.30 )in Computer centre and prepared charge sheet. Unni created some wonderful posters, with the help of hiran. Arky joined us in the lab and also given some more poster inputs (A Chameleon changing to Windows logo colors) . And Jefry & me printed and photostat to A3 from TD Junction.

The Campaign.

We started posting at the Big Flex which displays programme list (also features Novell Logo, them Moved to Indian Coffee House, and posted some posters. Coloured the Logo “MICROVELL” and moved near Open Air Auditorium and posted Posters on Trees and some walls also in front of the state. (See Photos credit: Hiran Venugopalan)

Lot of people asked us about the campaign and we explained the reasons. All them were satisfied with our reply. Pramode sir, Renjith (IT public) , Jaisen(SMC), suresh, some more students from GEC Thrissur & MES (also volunteers of FSUG Thrissur/ SSUG Malappuram) etc joined with us. Vikram Vincent, who is sending abusive mails now also joined us while putting Poster in Front of the Open air State. (Removed as per the request of Vikram Vincent)

Click here to view the embedded video.

We posted another set of Posters on the gate of Kunjali Marakkar Campus. Out side the entrance of Exhibition there was a Banner of Novell. We posted the Microvell Poster and ‘Novell in Trash’ Poster along with the charge sheet on it without Blocking the content in the poster. Then Novell stall Owners came out asked us to remove the poster. I said If Organizers have issues in the content of the poster let them tell it publicly. And One person with Organizer badge (visible in video ) came and asked us to remove the poster. I said, this is just a protest against novell’s anti Free Software Practices. If You have issues, you remove it. And the organizers changed the Flex. See the video ( we never said we will post 10 posters if poster is removed . People like anil, Joseph Thomas and Haynes Davis are using the Goebbelsian tactics  in mailing lists and blogs to make it as truth. But Luckily we had the video taken in Mobile. Thanks to Hiran). The Novell stall Owner visible in the video used the Checkmate response to the organizers.They will not pay if the poster is not removed

Click here to view the embedded video.

Then we posted charge sheet opposite to the wall of Novell’s stall. We never posted anything on their stall. It was removed just after we fixed it. But we didn’t raised any opposition. Some people from Focus Computers stall was arguing with hiran about the issues with Novell.

When moving to ILUG Cochin Stall, Hiran & Unni already reached there and distributing posters to MES Students. Most of them are well aware about Free Software . Manu & Friends were posting these posters on their stall. Jaisen, Unni & me moved to ILUG Cochin stall and put posters with the help of prinson. Then Dr.M.Bhasi came and pulled me from stall. I asked him to dont touch on body and communicate with Stall Owners. ILUG Cochin people said it is the campaign they are supporting. Then Dr. M Bhasi argued Organizers approval is needed for each posters on the stall and pulled me again. Shyam Hiran etc were distributing a poster saying “we support Boycott Novell Campaign” to Other stalls. Dr. Bhasi Threatened us saying he will through us out of the campus. and called security & police.

Me & Unni said we are ready to go out if you can point at least one critique to any one point in Charge sheet. Otherwise it will be the denial of freedom of expression of Free Software Activists.

I called – Anilkumar K V from OSS, One of the Organizer at that time and informed the situation asked him to Intervene. But He refused and said Dr. M. Bhasi (see Photo)will do the needed. Then I noticed a Team of SFI People from Cochin University Student Union under the leadership of Deepak from Cochin University Research Scholars Association(CURSA) also standing behind Dr. Bhasi and roaring at us. Since I studied on same campus and I am familiar with the dynamics of the campus violence by these people. So the better way is to move with the security people. Dr. Bhasi was continued shouting and one more person with him visible in this photo caught my Tshirt’s neck.

Then security people came and separated me from the team and manhandled. SFI people were behind security persons and trying to hit me by shouting who are you to protest in our programme. I got 2-3 hits on my back. People like Hiran & Unni were also treated badly in the crowd. Arky & some students from MES & GEC were taking photos.

Just after reaching back near Open Air Auditorium, people like arun, vimal, Hussain Master (rachana) and informed the incidents. Arun, Anilkumar from IT mission went to Kunjali Marakkar campus for discussion. By this time I got Updates from MES friends that Their posters were forcefully removed from stall and Videos and photos on their mobile phones are deleted.

UPDATE: Freedom of Expression cant be prevented using Muscle power

MES Students recovered forcefully deleted videos from their mobile phones. See the videos below

The first video. You can see i am in phone and asking anilkumar kv to intervene to solve the issue

Second video is without sound. buy you can see Deepak from CURSA leading SFI students

Rest is in Arun’s mail to FSF-Friends

I feel people destroyed the event is the Organisors like Mr. Bhasi from SMS, CUSAT, Deepak from CURSA, Anilkumar K V from OSS, who refused to act on a Crucial time. People who does not have enough exposure on Free Software Politics is made a small campaign as a Big issue through the denial of Freedom of Expression and Giving Weightage to Novell’s Concerns over Free Software Community Concerns.

UPDATE II:

• Mail From RMS

I recived a mail from RMS  (Richard mathew Stallman) , the  founder of Free Software movement. He says

First of all, congratulations on being the first free software activist
to be physically attacked  for a peaceful protest.
This means our movement is gaining in stature .

He also commented about our campaign strategy

me> Most of the participants in the Conference were newbies and Novell is
me> the only GNU/Linux distro widely promoted in the exhibition. Our
me> protest is not targeted at Organizers or Novell. It was just a way to
me> spread awareness on  Novell’s evil trends  through the posters  to
me> prevent Novell’s misguiding new users

That’s the right way to approach it.

• ILUG Cochin’s Event Report

ILUG Cochin Released an Event Report about the event. The event Report says

The series of events that happened was bad in terms of the organizers
taking an unnecessary tough stand on the matter and not lending an ear to
the actual facts.

We were happy to raise our voice and protest with the
Free Software community opposing the likes of forces like Novell. Indeed
it was good to see a resistance in a programme of such magnitude like the
National Conference. Although there is no doubt to the fact that the
conference did its job, bringing people from all walks of life and ILUG
Cochin did the job telling people the principles behind it, the opposition
against Novell has also increased the significance and importance of the
event thereby bringing about a lot of questions into the community which
would not have been raised otherwise.

• SMC’s Statement

<snip>

Members from SMC were part of the Programme Committee and the Souvenir Committee. There were no indication that Novell was the platinum sponsor of this Free Software Event. The organisers never communicated about the sponsorship and thus betrayed the whole Free Software community as Novell did. This is evident from the incidents that occurred after the peaceful campaign to boycott Novell by the SMC members & other Free Software Supporters present at the meeting.

</snip>

<snip>

SMC takes this opportunity to deeply condemn the organisers decision to include Novell into the Free Software event. SMC urges the organisers of the event to aplogize to the community on this dreadful alliance with the notorious Novell Corporation and the way the organisers treated Free Software Campaigners.

</snip>

I am starting an FAQ to answer questions aimed at me in various mailing list. I will update this post by including new Questions and answers.

Q: Who Organised National Conference on Free Software what was your role in it?

A: National Conference on Free Software was Organised by Cochin University of Science and Technology(CUSAT), Appropriate Technology Promotion Council(ATPS), IT@School Project of Kerala Government, Open software Solutions and Industrial Cooperation (OSSIC). They also invited other groups supporting the Free Software cause such as KSSP, KSEB, Indian Linux User Group Cochin , Swathanthra Malayalam Computing(SMC) etc to be part of Various committees to support the Conference. I was included on programme committee representing Swathanthra Malayalam Computing(SMC). We made some suggestions like removal of Anand Parthasarathy from Meet the Personnel section (He is a pro-patent, pro-proprietary gadget reviewer well known in Free Software Circles as a person spreading Fear, Uncertainty & Doubt about Free Software) and suggested some rearrangements in schedule and including new people. Few of them were accepted but changing of people like Anand was not possible due to pressure from some organizers who does not have much exposure in free software.

Q. what are your activities in National Free Software Conference? Why you didn’t Organised protest in First day

A: We were invited as speakers and resource persons to conference and too busy with a lot of stuff. We were too busy on First day with Localisation Track on Computer center, Localisation of swathanthra Software session in Photonics department, meeting friends in the sidelines. Anil already aware that we were completed speaker registration by 7.30 PM . We were noticing Novell’s platinum sponsorship banners in Open air stage during evening plenary & sitaram Yechuries Speech.

Q. Are you a member of FSF India. The event website’s speaker list lists you as a member of FSF India

Q: It is without my Knowledge. After jayakumar pointed it in the sidelines of the conference , I communicated with  joby . In my presentation, He introduced me as a member of SMC and Movingrepublic

Related posts

• National Public Meeting on Software patents (0)
• Good Computing needs Good fonts (6)

The National Public Meeting on Software Patents

Venue

2nd Floor, Ecumenical Resource Centre,
United Theological College,
Millers Road, Benson Town.
(Behind Cantonment Railway Station)
Bangalore–560046
Google Map

Time

10:00–17:00
Saturday, October 4, 2008

Software patents in India occupy a contentious and indeterminate legal space. While recent amendments to the Patent Act have sought to bring our law in conformity with WTO-mandated standards, these amendments have shied from pronouncing conclusively on the patentability of software. The result is an equivocation in the law which is being wrestled aggressively and effectively by corporate interests, patent attorneys and the Patent Office in favour of granting software patents. Unheard, and so unrepresented in this powerful triad are the interests of millions of citizen-consumers who are either presumed too ignorant to be credited with a view on the issue, or are presumed to be irrelevant to the determination of issues which are seen as purely “business” matters (as opposed to “citizen” matters).

Software is everywhere you look (and many places you never think of looking). With the explosion of low-cost computing devices (think mobile phones and iPods), software has leaked out of its traditional home—the PC—and begun infiltrating various aspects of our lives. From traffic signals to toilet commodes in some countries, refrigerators to railway tickets, vacuum cleaners and electronic voting machines, TVs, refrigerators and electronic pacemakers, inanimate objects of all sizes are humming to themselves, chattering amongst themselves in an intricate, highly complex tongue called ‘software’ that few of us can ever hope to understand. On the impulses of software, we stop or move on streets, fill up on petrol, and elect governments. Someone’s heart beats. Someone else receives land records on a village kiosk. Someone is standing by helplessly for fourteen years (the un-evergreened term of a patent) because software failed to factor in her disability.

There are big stakes involved in the control of software in an era when software is becoming increasingly central to the way we humans organize our lives and inhabit a democracy. At one level this is about preserving the right of agency and self-direction that citizens have in their own lives. At another, it is about the right not to be silenced when our long-fought democratic republic is at risk of being diminished by a few lines of software in a machine. Whether or not we are all in fact capable of deciphering software is inessential. Those of us who are ought not to be denied the freedom to interrogate, tinker and improve.

Patents have the effect of adding an additional layer of ‘protection’ to already existing copyright protection of software, while simultaneously overriding the various affordances and safeguards built into copyright law. For instance, the right of “fair dealing” under copyright law permits users to examine and modify any software in order to make it interoperable with other software. This is an extremely potent right that reasserts our right to intervene in the shaping of our surroundings. It is also one of the rights that is most imperiled by software patents.

The present “public hearing” on software patents is an invitation for dialogue on the various issue surrounding software patents. Although the Patent Office had scheduled a public consultation on its Draft Patent Manual to be held in Bangalore in August this year, that meeting was abruptly cancelled (or postponed indefinitely, or to an unannounced date—we can’t be sure) without any reasons having been assigned by the Patent Office. This signals either of two unpleasant scenarios: first, the Patent Office is proceeding with its consultations in an extremely mechanical fashion, not intending inputs received in the course of these consultations to qualitatively impact their functioning in any way; or secondly, perhaps the Patent Office underestimates the amount that citizens living in the IT capital of India might have to say on the subject of software patents.

It is our attempt in this public hearing to organize the kind of consultation that the Indian Patent Office ought to have conducted. We hope also hereby, to serve as a gentle but firm reminder to the Patent Office that its task is as yet undone.

Agenda

See  CIS website for schedule 

Organisers

Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

Free Software Users Group, Bangalore

Free Software Foundation of India

SPACE, Trivandrum

IT for Change, Bangalore

Alternative Law Forum

Delhi Science Forum

Movingrepublic

Sarai/CSDS, Delhi

OpenSpace, Bangalore

Swathanthra Malayalam Computing

Servelots – Janastu, Bangalore

Mahiti, Bangalore

DeepRoot Linux, Bangalore

Wiki Ocean, Pune

Turtle Linux Lab, Bangalore

Aneka, Bangalore

Zyxware Technologies, Trivandrum

INSAF(Indian Social Action Forum)

Related posts

• National Free Software Conference, Boycott Novell & Turn outs (43)

I am specifically referring to recent posts by Pravin Satpute and Rahul Balerao. Since they already set the flame on Planet FLOSS india and Planet Fedora , I am contributing my share to it

Some Background

• Swathanthra Malayalam computing (SMC) team was reorganised in 2006 September by Praveen & me and it developed a lot of tools and improved malayalam support in GNU/Linux Desktop. We feel our major achievement is contributing atleast 20 new developers committed to free software.
• SMC works on upstream, but running our own yum repositories for Fedora 6, 7, & 8 & CentOS 5 and apt repositories for Debian etch, lenny & sid to support old versions in use & to address the delay in getting projects/patches in upstream.

Malayam Rendering & Fonts

• While working on Malayalam Rendering Issues the first bug we need to clear was a bug created by Rahul Balerao by fixing rendering engine against a buggy font called Lohit malayalam. ( ref#357790 and this flickr image). Later Rahul understood his mistake and was ready to work with us for fixing upstream bugs.
• We started with a pango patch by Suruma for perfect malayalam rendering. It was a rendering engine patch + font patch based solution to the issues regarding the shaping of post-base forms of consonants viz. YA,RA,LA & VA , in certain contexts when they are the rendered in pango & QT Treating them as ordinary consonants in the shaping engine means they can be used with ‘akhand’ tag in the font substitution table.ie, the respective form will appear whenever we input followed by the above mentioned consonant, irrespective of the context.
• Another issue solved is the post GSUB reordering of the isolated RA sign(used in reformed script),wherein it should be placed in front of the base glyph.This reordering is still to be achieved by any of the rendering mechanisms except the uniscribe.Moreover, using the post base forms for RA and LA leads to weird shaping results when they are followed by NGA, RA, RRA etc. and may more
• Suresh Worked on restoring uniscribe rendoring support in font and solved shaping issues of post-base forms of YA and VA at font level by adding half form(pre base).The half forms for other consonants are also used for the better shaping of complex syllabic cluster. This leads to 04 version of SMC fonts. It is compatible to upstream pango now.
• Only bug remaining in pango now is the Bug #441654 . A work around is available to fix it. But not accepted in upstream yet.
• In the meantime SMC developed new Traditional fonts Meera (K.H Hussain & Suresh P), Dyuthi (Hiran & K.H Hussain) following the model of Rachana Movement , which restored the traditional script of the language. Meera font become very popular and is now used/recommented by 2 major newspapers (Mathrubhumi & Mangalam) for their online versions.
• Praveen fixed/tested most of the upstream bugs on Mozilla Firefox 3.0 related to Indic rendering and Indic Printing

Reply to Pravin Satpute’s Posts

1. In your post comparing Rachana & Meera fonts , you seem to be unaware of the differences between fonts. In Malayalam we only have 51 basic alphabets but we have nearly 1000 glyphs in usage. Unlike latin, font perfomance for indic languages need to be measured based on how it performs with conjuncts. I am not joining with Malayali-non-malayali comments on the post. But people may get angry while seeing the bugs in Lohit and its design mistakes.(see last part of my post for more details on this). Language is always linked with peoples emotions .
2. Relative size seems to be your major point. Meera using Ascent = 560, Descent = 440, for Em size 1000 while Lohit-malayalam is using Ascent = 650, Descent = 374, for Em size 1024. Meera is using smaller sizes to prevent cutting of glyphs below baseline because it is a traditional lipi font.Relative satus can be configured using proper fontconf scripts. We already used it in SMC Debian Repository.
3. You did a great job in packaging smc-fonts for Fedora9. But In the post you are saying ” license inside fonts but not easily viewable, person should have fontforge or any other font tool to actually see that license” . It is a bug with Gnome font Viewer & not with the font. See bug #407605 . So detaching Licence text is not the right solution.

Reply to Rahul Bhalerao’s comments & advices

• On the post Lohit Fedora & Community , Rahul starts with the the complaint “huge agitation by Malayalam community” . Does fedora thinks reporting bugs is “agitation”? We are just showing the issues we have come across. We also helped him. Accepting issues and solution to better the technology is the duty of a good programming artist. And Hiran Venugoplan, a student & font developer with SMC helped him to fix Lohit-malayalam’s critical bugs . It is available for download here. It still works better than the official 2.2.1 Version of Lohit-malayalam against Upsteam pango

For downloading the new version I went to https://www.fedorahosted.org/lohit it says Current release: lohit-fonts-2.2.1.tar.gz (355 KB) but the link points to 2.2.0 release. I Manually corrected link and got the font from http://rbhalera.fedorapeople.org/released/lohit/lohit-fonts-2.2.1.tar.gz based on the version number given on the Rahul’s blog. The Font still have critical bugs with rendering of RA sign in conjuncts . It is also visibile in the screenshot provided by rahul. see the screenshot with marked mistakes

• I am not in favour of malayali vs non-malayali debate. But Can you think why people are becoming angry?. After reporting bugson lohit in 2007 beginning, and after community offered help, it has not been fixed till date. And first Instruction in SMC Fedora Repos are yum remove lohit-fonts-malayalam
• Your Contribution is not much in solving rendering issues of Malayalam till date and you created enough harm for malayalam rendering. Without your help language community studied it and found the solutions. People may get angry when you are claiming the authority without contributing your ability.
• Inclusion of smc-fonts in Fedora 9 gives you the authority to blame SMC for pointing bugs . But i am considering it is not as a “favour” but as your duty. I am sure without its inclusion you will loose the merit of Language support, because all you have are 2 typewriter script fonts , Lohit-malayalam & samyak-malayalam(Fixed by Hiran Venugopalan). Most of the people who are using Malayalam in Fedora are already using SMC repositories for Fedora 6, 7, and 8.
• See the below image for current rendering bugs in Lohit. Also read the section on Design mistakes in Lohit-malayalam. I am comparing it with Meera a Traditional Lipi font and Raghu-Malayalam, a typewriter script font by R.K Joshi

Design Issues in Lohit-malayalam glyphs

These issues are listed with the help of Hiran Venugoplan, who helped rahul to fix critical bugs in Lohit Malayalam and Samyak-Malayalam. (both are in Fedora 9). For the analysis I have used the Lohit Malayalam font that Fedora 9 contains as its default font. Its just an analysis, not comparision with any other. Issues over rendering is not discussed here.

• In general, the glyphs are just drawn and not designed scientifically. The font as per my analysis is done by using only one font as for reference, which is unfair while design a language which designer does not uses and knows. The size of circles, curves, proportions as foursquare is impressive. The circles need more radius, more lovely curves to be added to glyphs in order to attain better visibility.
• The previously considered four square, is a method that calligraphist suggests over Malayalam language. By that they suggest to divide the glyph to four parts using one vertical and other horizontal lines (as Rule of the thirds in photography). The calligraphist suggest for equal quantity of ink/darkness for all squares (exceptions are there).
• Malayalam digit 0 : The glyph contains a circle, which is NOT the Malayalam digit ZERO.
• Lohit Malayalam contains indo-arabic numbers : As far as I know, no other lohit fonts contains the numeral glyphs, U+0004 to U+000D. As lohit is done in a way “let other fonts replace the unknown”, they where not necessary. The design of numerals is not matching with Malayalam glyphs, in shape and in size.
• Vocalic R : The design of Vocalic R (U+0D43) is imperfect, irregular and unattractive. The glyph design starts before the LBearing hence in certain cases the glyph is overlaps the previous.



• Malayalam digits 3 (U+0D6A) and 9 (U+0D6F) : The glyph used for 3 and 9 digit representation is the similar to that of glyphs 0×00f2 and 00×00f1 respectively. This causes confusion while reading, typing and can cause spoofing.

• Proportion of vertical combination glyphs : The major problem the lohit has is that it fails over readability over screen and print which is supposed to be the major karma for a default typographic language font. The glyphs from glyph157 to glyph165, of X + la form, the size of joined part to X (which represents la) is imperfect, over sized. Similar disproportions can be seen widely over the font for vertical glyphs, glyph152 glyph154 glyph155 glyph202 and so. 0×010D is also having issue over proportion.

• For the same vertical glyphs, the vertical size relation between two such glyphs are not same and hence makes issue over readability as it make the reader a thought that he is reading a zigzag content.

• The issues are still more over readability. The font is unimpressive in screen and unreadable in papers. It is quite disappointing to see version of fedora is the one which contain many Malayalam localisation efforts and packages with such a unimpressive font as its default font. A bad font results in bad computing.

Related posts

• National Free Software Conference, Boycott Novell & Turn outs (43)

Karunakar Rocks!!!

Conclusion: Total Time needed to open an OLPC Laptop is 2.52 Minutes (including time taken to takeout Battery)

Thanks to Santhosh for the video

Related posts

• No related posts.

Related posts

• No related posts.

Related posts

• No related posts.

SMC is reactivated from a dead state, as a result of personal discussions with praveen, hiran & vimaljoseph in the sidelines of GPLv3 Conference in bangalore. The new team is setup at last year SFD celebrations in Thrissur. Suresh, Baiju(the founder of SMC), Hussain KH (rachana), Anwar, Students in GEC etc also joined in the team at that time. Now we have more than 30 developers+localizers. The astounding progress within the short span of time is described below

• December 2006: Debian Installer is Fully Translated into Malayalam ( The Work of Debian malayalam, a sub team of Swathanthra malayalam computing)
• January 2007: Santhosh Thottingal of SMC done a complete architectural rewrite of Dhvani, the Indian language text to speech system by Ramesh hariharan & added Malayalam support to It.
• March 2007 : participated & Conducted workshops in FOSS Meet@NITC, Kozhikkode
• March 2007: Swathanthra Malayalam Computing selected as a participating Organisation ( and only Indian Organisation) in Google Summer of Code Project. 5 projects were allotted.
• April 2007: GNU aspell supported Malayalam (major issues are resolved)
• May 2007: Swanalekha: a Phonetic Input scheme for malayalam using SCIM
• June 2007: Lalitha, Bolnagiri based xkb keyboard for malayalam by Jinesh
• July 2007: Added pango support to Tuxtype by Mobin M as part of GSoC work. Now Tuxtype is usable for all Indian languages
• August 2007: Malayalam Matrix screen saver Release, & First Public Release of Aspell- malayalam spellchecker with More than 137000 words list (It is the largest Indian Language Aspell wordlist. Second is hindi with 25000 words).
• September 2007: Gnome Officially supports malayalam in Gnome 2.20 with More than 80% translations
• September 2007: Sarika : The first Free Indian language speech recognition engine is developed by Shyam K (as a part of GsoC). It Currently identifies more than 50 malayalam words
• September 2007: Tuxtype malayalam is Released by Mobin.M & friends (Vimal, Shreyas, Sreeranj, Prince)
• Meera , a Malayalam Traditional opentype font with more than 900 glyphs is released under GNU GPL by Hussain K.H and Suresh P . It is developed for Suruma renderering scheme (not compatible with Uniscribe scheme for windows) . Authors are working on a Uniscribe compatible (windows) version now

Pramode Sir wrote:

A society and a culture is identified by its language – once the language is dead, the society starts losing its identity. A good way to keep a language alive is to take it to the digital world – the world of the PC/Communication devices and the Internet. This is one context in which developing regional language computing environments and popularising them has great significance.

The theme for the 2 day event was “Swathantra Software and Malayalam computing” . Free software is touching the lives of common man now !!

Related posts

• No related posts.