[Fsf-friends] Monkey business

Ramanraj K ramanraj@iqara.net
Fri Nov 26 20:08:12 IST 2004


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




More information about the Fsf-friends mailing list