[Reader-list] Comments on memo
Jeebesh Bagchi
jeebesh at sarai.net
Thu Nov 28 05:26:41 IST 2002
This is the letter i think refered in the slashdot comments. The
petition/letter has got lots of interesting points. best jeebesh
--------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 19:34:41 +0530 (IST)
From: lawrenceliang at vsnl.net
To: commons-law at sarai.net
This is a memorandum submitted by members of the free software user group in
Kerala, very interesting
lawrence
Memorandum Submitted by Members of the Free Software Users' Group, Kochi,
Maruti Vilas Lodge, Canon Shed Road, Cochin - 682011.
Sirs,
Ref:- IT at School Project - choice of software and syllabus -
We, the undersigned, have recently come across what the government calls the
IT at SCHOOL project. We are extremely happy and fully endorse the objectives
and intention behind the scheme, in so far as the government has made it
possible to bring IT education to even very poor students in our State, at a
nominal cost. We are very much proud of our government in that our
government is one of the few governments in the world which has made it
possible to bring IT education to the masses at a very nominal cost as
envisaged in the IT at SCHOOL scheme. However, we submit that implementation of
the scheme as it is would harm the long term interests of our State, the
general public and the Country. There would be very serious violation of our
citizens' basic legal and constitutional rights. We understand that the
government has made a few changes within the past few weeks to the syllabus
and textbooks. But, we submit that the changes do not go far enough to
redress the real issues involved in the matter.
We wish, by this letter, to
bring to your kind attention, the following issues and request you to remedy
them without further delay.
1. Choice of Software and Commercial Fairness
1.1 We find the manner in which the software to be used at the schools is
chosen, and manner in which it is chosen, to be disturbing. The syllabus has
prescribed software by brand. It is regrettable that the government has not
framed or adopted any guidelines or standards to be followed for choosing
the software. The IT at SCHOOL project patronises and prefers one brand over
other products; and in making this choice, the government has not followed
due procedure laid down by law. We submit that this is not fair to creators
and vendors of other software.
1.2 We gather that there are nearly 2600 high
schools in Kera1a. The scheme envisages that each school should have 10
computers within next three years. Cost of prescribed operating system is
approximately Rs. 3500/- per computer. The application software specified in
the syllabus costs another Rs. 25,000/- per computer. At the prescribed
ratio of 10 computers per school, by the year 2004, this will cost the
schools an astounding Rs. 74,10,00,000/- (rupees seventy four crores and ten
lakhs)- (Rs. 3,500 + Rs. 25,000 = Rs. 28,500 x 10 computers per school x
2600 schools).
1.3 Even if the said corporation whose software is chosen
provides software free of cost, we submit that the government should not
include it in the syllabus. Providing schools or other educational
institutions software at little or no cost, while the same software is sold
at very high prices in the open market is a marketing trick. The corporation
resorts to such tactics in order to reap benefits of having a pool of people
who are familiar with their software packages and thus form an assured
customer base, either as users themselves or as potential skilled employees.
We are aware that equipping our students and teachers with skills in
computer usage is the primary aim of the project.
1.4 But, by confining
students' training to a particular brand of software, the government would
be giving undue preference to a particular vendor and their software thus
discriminating against vendors of other software. Thus, even by providing
software free of cost to the schools, the said company will make immense
profits, to the detriment of public welfare and without any corresponding
gain to the public, state or institutions. You will recognise that this
policy discriminates against vendors of other software and in favour of a
particular corporation. You would be aware that this is discrimination and
unconstitutional.
1.5 The Supreme Court has laid down in several cases that
the government shall be fair and equitable in choosing beneficiaries of
government activities. The IT at SCHOOL project involves expenses from funds;
created with authorization from government and in pursuance of and
compliance with guidelines and rules issued by the State government or other
statutory authorities in exercise of statutory power vested in them by the
Kerala Education Act. Hence, the government has an obligation to act fairly
and equitably while choosing software for school curriculum. But,
regrettably, we find that there is not even an attempt to act fairly in the
matter of prescribing syllabus and curriculum for the IT at SCHOOL project.
1.6 We also would like to point out that Government's approach would result
in compelling not only schools, but also the general public to purchase
software from this particular vendor in the future, because people have been
denied access to software from other vendors. This would create a monopoly
in favour of that corporation and expose the public, the State and the
nation to the mercy of a single company. It may be recalled that this
particular corporation has been found guilty of unfair, monopolistic and
restrictive trade practices in its own country.
1.7 We note that in G.O.
(MS) No.297/2001/G. Edn. dated 29.09.2001 the government has specified that
'Volume licensing terms of necessary software will be negotiated with
software manufacturers'. This is a very regrettable approach on part of the
government. Negotiations can be only between persons or bodies having equal
bargaining power. A prerequisite of equal bargaining power is that that both
parties have the freedom of choice. But, when schools are compelled to
purchase a particular brand because it is prescribed in the syllabus, the
schools have no real choice and hence, no real negotiating power. Thus the
concept of negotiation looses relevance.
2. Government Should Specify Standards Rather Than Products or Brands
2.1 The computer and the software which drives it are the communication
media of the future. Even today, digital media has replaced traditional
forms of communication in several situations. Digital communication
interposes machine language (language of the computer) between humans. Human
language, whether it be the spoken word, the written verse, or visual
symbols all are converted to machine language by the computer which
originates communication and are converted back to human understandable form
by the computer which receives the communication. It is therefore a
prerequisite of free and unhindered computerised communication between
humans that computers understand languages 'spoken' by
each other. Language used by one machine need not be the same as the
language used by another. But, different machines/computers can understand
each other using internationally accepted standards. Such standards need to
be openly available and accessible to the public. While prescribing software
for schools, the government has an important role of ensuring that software
prescribed or selected conforms to such standards.
2.2 The corporation whose
brands and products are prescribed does not publish standards used in their
software. Even in respect of standards recognized by the entire industry,
this particular corporation is known to create its own variations outside
the scope of such universal standards. Such extensions to the standards are
not published by this corporation and information/files/ programs using such
extensions cannot be accessed except with applications or programs available
exclusively from that particular corporation. This practice compels not only
users of products from that vendor, but also other people who are forced to
interact with users of that vendor's products (like the government and
schools, in this case) to purchase software from this particular vendor
alone. This situation is known as 'vendor lock-in' or 'vendor dependence'.
This is contrary to public interest and harmful to the society in the long
run. The government should not create an atmosphere which facilitates such
dependence. It is essential that the government and schools insist on using
software which uses and conforms to freely available standards so that
people who interact with them are not forced to use software from the same
vendor as the government or the schools.
2.3 It should be realised that
vendor dependence is extremely expensive for the government in the long
term. We will elaborate on this issue below.
2.4 We wish to bring to the
attention of the Government that several software packages, both
applications as well as operating systems, which conform to industry-wide
standards, adopted and maintained by independent vendors - both non profit
organizations and for profit commercial bodies (individuals and
corporations) are available. A list of vendors who sell such products for a
price is available at web sites like, http://www.gnu.org/directory/ and
http:// forum.gnu.org.in/bizdir and, probably, there are other vendors who
have not been listed on such sites.
2.5 In these circumstances, by
prescribing that software of a particular brand alone shall be used, the
Government is cutting off access to a wider choice for itself and the
citizens of Kerala and also cutting off the possibility of tremendous
savings of money for itself and the citizens of Kerala. In the long run,
such restrictions on the ability to choose would ultimately restrict ability
of computers and people to interact with each other through computers.
3. The Issue of Copyright
3.1 We notice that the government has been very meticulous in prescribing the
hardware to be used along with indicative prices. However, there is no
provision for software costsin the estimates and accounting guidelines
published as part of the IT at SCHOOL scheme.
3.2 This approach will encourage
schools to make unauthorized copies of software. The law as it stands now
prohibits copying of software by schools without permission. Therefore, the
government has a duty to ensure that rules / regulations / guidelines framed
by it facilitates compliance with law by the persons or bodies targeted by
such rules or guidelines. We submit that the government's approach of not
providing sufficient funds for purchase of software will bring the schools
into conflict with the law relating to Copyrights and the harsh license
enforcement programs by the software corporations. Ultimately, this will
expose school managements, (including government run schools) to litigation,
including criminal action by copyright holders of software prescribed.
Hence, it is essential that software to be used in schools are made
available under a license which incorporates freedom of use.
3.3 Management
of software licenses is a complex task, requiring constant legal
supervision. Large corporations vending proprietary software enforce their
license restr-ictions harshly - even claiming that the visual appearance of
the screen is copyrighted. Thus, even use of 'screen shots' in textbooks
without appropriate permissions will invite action from the copyright owners
against the gover-nment and its agencies responsible for preparing text
books.
3.4 We understand that the government has not received any consent
from the copyright holders to use screen shots in the text books. We would
like to point out that certain corporations have initiated litigation in
other foreign countries, claiming copyright over screen appearance. We do
not want our government to be put in such embarrassing situations by
uninformed use of inappropriate software and technology. We hope and trust
that the government will see reason and exclude proprietary software from
the school curriculum.
3.5 We also would like to point out that due to
inappropriate handling of licensing issues, several schools in the United
States of America have, in recent past, found that they are unable to answer
Microsoft Corporation's request for an account of licenses for the number of
computers used by them. For example, in 1994-95, some schools in Los Angeles
have had to pay fines of up to $300,000 (equivalent of Rupees 1,44,00,000/-
or One crores and forty four lakhs) in fines and to further spend an
identical amount for purchasing actual licenses. This was in addition to the
legal expenses and the embarrassment of facing public humiliation.
3.6 In
this context, we request the government to recall the recent problems faced
by the highly successful and popular 'FRIENDS' project. If the concerned
agencies were adequately aware of issues relating to copyright and
licensing, the unfortunate incidents of executives and officers of
quasi-governmental organizations being arrested by the police and detained
in custody, like petty thieves could have been avoided. We would like to
point out that unless the government is careful, teachers in our schools too
might be faced with a similar situation.
3.7 The government or the schools
should not have to constantly worry about licensing issues and should be
free to teach. Imposing proprietary software on the schools means pushing
the school administrations and managements into the difficult and tricky
area of license management. The schools should be free to choose software of
their choice; but if the government wishes to impose its own choice on the
schools, the government has an obligation to ensure that no present or
future burden, economic, social or technological, is imposed on the school
managements.
4. The Prescription Stifles Development of Software Skills
4.1 If our students are to really understand and learn programming and
develop software skills, they should learn not only to use computers, but
also understand why they function the way they do. This involves learning
programing skills. To learn programing, students should have access to
source code of the software they use. We trust that you have studied and
understood the terms under which the corporation, whose software is
currently prescribed for study, licenses its software. It should be
emphasised that they do not provide access to source code, which is a a
closely guarded secret. By insisting on programs from a particular company,
the government is denying our students an opportunity to learn about
programs and software development skills. We need not repeat that this
policy would not help our community in the long run.
4.2 We do appreciate
that the IT at SCHOOL project may not involve teaching programing skills to the
students; but at a young age, the students are curious, and are apt to
explore and examine the systems they are using. This is an excellent
opportunity to introduce students to software programing. Providing access
to source code to the students who display curiosity about understanding
software programing would channelise their creativity into development of
useful skills. On the contrary, denying access to source code might result
in such students being frustrated, and turning to unproductive activities.
5. Proprietary Software Is More Expensive Over Long Term
5.1 It goes without saying that all software packages, including those
prescribed in the syllabus are covered by copyright. The corporation which
provides the prescribed packages charges license fees for each computer on
which their software is used. Moreover, the Operating system and the
application software packages (MS Word, as per the syllabus) has to be
purchased separately, and separate licenses have to be obtained for each
machine / computer. It should be recalled that the government is aiming to
have computers in all the schools in Kerala by the year 2004 at the rate of
between 6 and 15 computers per school, in all the more than 2600 schools in
Kerala.
5.2 We have already pointed out that this would cost the state over
74 crore rupees in terms of license fees alone at the modest rate of 10
computers per school. The government has actually prescribed use of up to 15
computers per school. Thus, there would be more than 41,600 computers in
schools alone by the year 2004, and either the schools, or the government,
stands to lose, and the corporation actually stands to gain, not merely
rupees 74 crores, but sums far in excess of Rs. 118,56,00,000/- (Rupees one
hundred and eighteen crores, fifty six lakhs) on license fees alone.
5.3
Apart from initial license costs, the government / schools would have to
incur recurring expenditure on software maintenance and upgrades. This
happens because however well developed a software package is, it is always
prone to defects known as bugs. Since source code for the software
prescribed in the syllabus is not available, the schools will be dependent
on the same vendor for upgrades and 'bug fixes' and also have to
periodically pay them for such services. The vendor would therefore be in a
position to extract more money from the government or the schools in the
long run. However, when source code for software is made available, with
universal permission to modify and redistribute, it is possible for anybody
with the necessary skills to provide after sales services, thus resulting in
competition and consequent cost savings.
5.4 On the other hand, creators of
free software have explicitly permitted modification and redistribution of
their programs, without any royalties. Therefore, the schools would not be
tied down to after sales service from vendors who created the software
alone. When software is available with support from several vendors, this
would naturally keep the prices low. Yet another difficulty with frequent
upgrades is that the government / schools would be compelled to replace
hardware too, (like processors, hard disks, memory modules, etc.) thus
further adding to total costs.
5.5 In these circumstances, the government's
insistence on the schools purchasing proprietary, non-standard, and
expensive software cannot be justified on any account, and makes no
commercial sense.
6. Obsolescence
6.1 It is very surprising to notice that the documents relating to the
IT at SCHOOL project mandates usage of Windows 98 operating system
pre-installed on all computers purchased by the schools. Windows 98 is a
very much outdated product. Several newer versions of that operating system
have been issued and are currently in market. Very fact that you are
insisting on outdated products shows that the government has acted in a very
arbitrary and capricious manner in prescribing the syllabus and choosing the
topics to be studied.
6.2 Software is subject to very rapid changes. Average
life cycle of software packages is between six to eighteen months. However,
syllabi in Kerala are reviewed only once in four to five years. This would
result in our students having to study obsolete software packages for a long
time in between syllabus reviews. In view of such rapidly changing product
versions it is most inappropriate for the government to prescribe software
by brands or versions in school syllabus. We hope that the government will
desist from insisting on branded software on this grounds alone.
7. Manpower
7.1 It is seen from one of the documents issued in connection with the
project that government is of the opinion that no trained manpower is
available for software other than what is prescribed in the syllabus. If
that be so, we fail to understand why several thousands of teachers were
trained over a long time, spending several lakhs of rupees. They could have
been equally well trained in free software packages.
7.2 We wish to assure
you that ample trained manpower capable of handling free software and also
training school teachers and trainers to teach in the IT at SCHOOL project is
available in Kerala itself. Lists of businesses, companies or individuals
willing to provide support for free software is available at web sites like
http://forum.gnu.org.in/ bizdir and http://www.gnu.org/directory.
7.3 We
would also like to point out that free software is neither 'freeware' nor
'alternative software' as sought to be made out in the 'IT at SCHOOL Project -
an Approach Paper'. 'Freeware' is software available at no monetary cost.
'Free software' on the other hand, is about freedom, not cost.
'Alternatives' are required when we are compelled to use one particular
thing or product. We are not aware of any compulsion on the government to
use any particular software. This being so, we fail to understand such
terminology used by the government.
7.4 We wish to clarify that by the term
'Free Software' used above, we are referring to 'freedom', as in
'swatantryam'- not 'soujanyam'. By freedom, we mean: (1) freedom to runthe
program, for any purpose; (2) freedom to studyhow the program works, and
adaptit to the user's needs; (3) The freedom to redistributecopiesso you can
help your neighbour; (4) The freedom to modifythe program,and release
improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. It may be
appreciated that access to the source code is a precondition for enjoying
freedoms 2 and 4.
7.5 We trust that the government will not be misled by
wrong terminology and misconceptions. We wish to point out that governments
of several developed countries have successfully adopted free software for
various purposes and have openly acknowledged advantages of using free
software. We may also point in this context, the experience of the Kerala
Bureau of Industrial Promotion, which, in association with the Free Software
Foundation of India, is developing software in Malayalam. This is possible
only because they are using free software- software created by others and
made available to the general public with the 'swatantryam' to legally use,
modify and redistribute the same for the greater common good.
7.6 In case
the government has any doubts about free software, we and other persons
sharing our views on this issue, or our representatives will be most happy
to meet and show the government how to go about preparing the necessary
framework and guidelines, including preparation of course material,
syllabus, hardware and software specifications, etc.
7.7 We trust that the
government would view the issue not merely as one of cost or preferring one
software or company over other. The basic question is one of freedom of
choice for each individual and an entire community. What is at stake is not
merely commercial rights or expenses of a few rupees. It is the question of
liberty and independence for the public. We request you to consider all
these issues and review the syllabus and other various notifications issued
in pursuance of the IT at SCHOOL scheme, and hereby request the government to:-
A. discontinue references to brand names and proprietary software in the
syllabus, guidelines, notifications and other requirements under the
IT at SCHOOL project. B. frame rules requiring the use of software which does
not require payment of any kind of royalties and implements open, industry
wide standards in the schools and educational institutions in the state. C.
frame rules requiring that source code for all software and operating
systems, applications and programs used in the school curriculum be
published or otherwise made available to the public, students, schools and
government. D. frame rules requiring that only such software which is
permitted to be modified and maintained by third parties shall be used in
schools and educational institutions.
Dated this the 16thday of November, 2002.
Copyright (C) 2002 Free Software User Group - Kochi.
Maruti Vilas Lodge, Canon Shed Road, Kochi - 682011, Kerala, India. Verbatim
copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium,
provided this notice is preserved.
_______________________________________________
To
1. The Principal Secretary,
General Education Department,
Government of Kerala,
Thiruvananthapuram.
2. The Director of Public Instruction,
Poojapura,
Thiruvananthapuram.
3. State Council of Education Research and Training,
SCERT Buildings, Poojapura. P. O.,
Thiruvananthapuram -12
4. Executive Director,
IT@ School Project,
State Project Office, Ground Floor,
SCERT Buildings, Poojapura. P. O.,
Thiruvananthapuram -12.
5. The Secretary to the Government of Kerala,
Information Technology Department,
Thiruvananthapuram.
More information about the reader-list
mailing list