The following was submitted by the Free Software Foundation of India to the Department of Information Technology, Government of India on 8th December, 2003. OPINION SUBMITTED BY THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION OF INDIA In The Matter of Rules to be Promulgated Under Section 87(2) of Information Technology Act, 2000. The Free Software Foundation of India, TC-27/2207, Chirakulam Road, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 001, Kerala e-mail:- gnu@gnu.org.in Website:- http://gnu.org.in 1. ABOUT THE FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION OF INDIA 1.0 The Free Software Foundation of India is a non-profit organisation engaged in advocating and propagating use and development of free software. The word `free' in free software has the same meaning as in free speech', free people' and `free country' and should not be confused with the concept of zero-cost. We consider that users should have their software free of encumbrances. Therefore, in the Indian context, we can refer to free software as `swatantra software'. 1.1 FSF-India is related to Free Software Foundation which sponsors the GNU project. We are creators of the well known GNU General Public License, or the GPL, as it is often referred to. Use of the GPL, and the concepts of free software as envisaged in the GPL has been effective in advancing the cause of free software and more important, users' freedoms world over. For example, the popular Linux Kernel is licensed under the GPL. Several distributors have been using components from our GNU project to create the GNU/Linux and GNU Hurd operating systems. Today, the GNU/Linux operating system is widely used and recognised as the most stable, advanced, dependable, cost-effective and secure. 1.2 From what we can gather from http://www.mit.gov.in/opinion.asp, we feel that the proposed rules will have very far reaching consequences. They relate to electronic submission of information and records; and electronic payment into and out of the government. This will pave way for paper-less governance. 1.3 A wrong move in a matter which has far reaching consequences may seriously prejudice the freedoms now enjoyed by the government, public and citizens to communicate between themselves and restrict the freedom to use software of our choice. Our submissions are elaborated below. 2. RULES SHOULD ENCOURAGE FAIR COMPETITION 2.0.0 Computer programs which create digital information to be used by both the government and public will be provided on a commercial basis. The government by itself would be a huge market for computer programs. The potential size of the public market in terms of individuals and corporate bodies who require the appropriate software so that they can communicate electronically with the government is equally huge. The choice made in the rules would influence private communications too, since people would use same programs for private communications. 2.0.1 We wish to point out that the government is proposing to prescribe a medium for communication. Like communication through all media, digital communication too has to be transparent, accessible, and unencumbered. 2.0.2 Therefore, the first objective of the government should be to avoid creation of monopolistic situations whereby the entire nation has to depend on one of few vendors of programs. This can be achieved through designing the rules to be (i) technology neutral; (ii) vendor neutral; and (iii) the file formats should be designed such that any program can create and read files in that format. 2.1 Rules Should be Technology Neutral 2.1.0 Information to be covered by the proposed rules is of public nature. Such information, whether published or not, should remain accessible for several years. Accessibility, in the context of digital data, means not merely creation of data or its conversion from traditional media like paper to a digital format, but also the ability to convert back such information into human readable form. Public information, unlike information in private hands, needs to be stored for and has to be accessible, over a long time spanning several decades, even centuries. 2.1.1 Digitised information requires identical technology, (both hardware and software) for conversion into digital format and back into a form perceivable by human beings. In the context of government, use of digital technology requires that same technology is available over long periods of time; since public information has to be accessed long after it is created. 2.1.2 However, technology does not remain static. It is constantly evolving. Business models dictated by financial and marketing expediency requires the manufacturers of hardware and providers of software to constantly change the technology provided by them. The common practise of all technology vendors for last three or four decades is to discontinue support for their technologies few years after launch. In case of hardware, according to Moore's law, processing speed (and therefore, capacity) of hardware doubles every 18 months, while costs for the same computing power halves in the same time period. Since software is often written specifically for a particular hardware platform, once hardware is obsoleted by Moore's law, or deliberate discontinuance of support by the manufacturer, software too becomes obsolete. Thus, there is no assurance that technology, or rather, the providers who support the technology in vogue now would be available a few years later. This necessitates reliance on other vendors for support of the technology. 2.1.3 Excessive application of copyrights and unwarranted invocation of patents by certain vendors has lead to a situation where products utilising any given technology is available only from a single vendor. Specifying use of only certain technologies through statutory rules would therefore require reliance on a particular vendors. When such vendors discontinue or become incapable of providing support or service for their products, other vendors might not be able to step in to fill that vacuum, because they are excluded from supporting that technology by copyrights or patents. 2.1.4 Further, newer technology which may be more efficient than older technologies will develop over time. A statutory `freeze' to a particular technology can result in lack of incentive to develop better technologies. Therefore, if rules insist on use of specified technologies it might result in technological stagnation. 2.1.5 On the other hand, It is neither possible nor desirable for the government to constantly monitor such technological changes for purpose of revising rules according to changes in the technology available in the market place. Therefore, any kind of information intended to be accessible over along term should be stored in a technology neutral format. 2.1.6 Where choice of software is to be mandated by legislation, it is essential that regulations and rules permit use of technology neutral formats for digital information; without requiring use of any specific technology. 2.2 Rules Should be Vendor Neutral 2.2.0 The Copyright Act, 1957 provides for a sixty year duration of copyright in a work. But experience in the market shows that no software vendor provides support for such a long time. In fact, several software vendors do not even exist for such long periods. This means that if the holder of copyright refuses, or is otherwise rendered incapable of supporting their products, other willing entities would be prevented from providing support. This results in wastage of time, money and efforts invested by users in that particular product. 2.2.1 If the rules mandate a named technology, chances are that it is monopolised by a particular company, and monopoly in public use granted by proposed rules would be in addition to the monopoly granted by copyright and alleged applicability of patent laws, There would thus be excessive favouring of the manufacturer / provider of the specified technology. Such favour through rules might not stand the scrutiny of administrative and constitutional fairness requirements. Ethically too, such actions do not augur well for a constitutional democracy and libertarian society like ours. 2.2.2 The situation is of course different when the owner of the technology grants unrestricted and universal royalty free permission for use of the technology for any purpose. A monopoly in favour of technology licensed under such permissive terms is in public interest. Such public licenses enable other vendors to provide better and more efficient re-implementations of technologies and more important, an alternative for the user. 2.3 Rules to be Program Agnostic 2.3.0 A natural corollary of technology and vendor neutrality is that the rules should not be concerned with what programs are used to create the files for information exchange. So long as there are no restrictions for any program to read and create a specified file format, so long as the file itself is fully compliant with requirements of the standards set out in the rules, it matters little which program created the file. Therefore, it would be sufficient if the government specifies the standards and protocols to be met by files and programs to be used in electronic filing and payment systems. 3. THE PROPOSED RULES 3.0 The government is seeking opinion on the benefits of choosing between open source' and proprietary software`. We submit that the term `open source' is misleading. What ultimately matters is freedom of government and the public to:- a. use the programs for any purpose. b. modify the programs to suit the needs; c. view the source code of the programs. This is only a part of the larger right in (b). d. distribute the programs, in its original form e. distribute the modifications to the programs. 3.1 Mere access to source code, or collaborative development does not, by itself, ensure these freedoms. On the contrary, collaborative development and access to source code are a natural consequence of use of free, or `swatantra' software. Access to source code is a sine qua non of swatantra software. But, mere access or ability to view the sources, without the right to modify and use the software for any purpose is meaningless. We have had bitter experiences with providers of technology who forbade us from appplying it to a use of our choice. Hence, more than mere access to technology (or source code in this case), it is freedom which is more important in matters concerning technology. Over a period of time, we have been able to overcome the technological barriers faced by us, by sheer dint of hard work. The proposed rules should be drafted bearing in mind the past events, and ensure against further dependence on unknown, and more important, restricted technologies in programs. 3.2 Like technology, computer programs too should be `free'. We have already pointed out that it is `free' as in freedom and liberty'. That does not mean that the programs should be free of cost'. For businesses, freedom also means `free as in free enterprise'. Since technology would be unencumbered; any person can, at any time, without fear of violating any laws, implement (or reimplement) programs which can write or read the files containing governmental information. A choice in favour of free software would ensure multiplicity of vendors, and resulting fair competition will reduce the financial burden on end users. . 3.3 Therefore, once an open, unencumbered file format is adopted, there is no scope for the apprehension regarding licensing of programs which create the file; or rather, digitise the information. 3.4 Our submission is that a standard format in which all electronic records to be submitted to, and published by, the government is sufficient. There is no need to prescribe how the electronic form of the record is generated. 3.5 We however strongly urge that the government should use only free software for all purposes, including generating electronic records and making and receiving electronic payments. The government should never get tied down to particular vendors. Nor should it ever have to use software whose source is not known or which comes with no right to modify the sources. The government itself, like all other users, should have full control over the programs used within it; including the right to modify the program to suit its particular needs. The government should not be tied down to same vendor for upgrading, bug fixing and maintenance of the programs. This is a requirement of freeness of the software; mere `open source', or access to source will not ensure vendor independence. 3.6 There is always the danger that non free software might deviate from the prescribed standards and refuse to interact with software provided by other vendors. Such refusal to inter operate is frequently touted as a security measure, but is in fact, a marketing tactic to force other users into purchasing software from the particular vendor. A common example is that of certain web servers and web page creating software deliberately implementing non-standard networking protocols and markup languages, which are incompatible with recognised standards and sometimes, even refusing to authenticate or give information to browsers from other vendors. 3.7 Experience shows that swatantra software is secure and technically best. It always tends to be more compatible with software created by other vendors. But, these are NOT the reasons we urge the government to use free software. For the government, PUBLIC INTEREST is the priority. Government and the public should never be tied down to what is dished out by vendors of products. Freedom is an issue of users being able to deal with software developers on users' own terms. Mandated use of vendor specific or legally restricted software technology will never allow that. 3.8 Again, it is essential that programs used by the government test and verify that submissions sent to the government by the public actually conforms with the standards prescribed. When software with unknown sources is used, there is the danger of erroneous or improper authentication of files not complying with the standards. 4. THE ISSUE OF STANDARDS 4.1 What is a Standard? 4.1.0 We also note that opinion is sought only on the issue of licensing of software to be used for creating the files; and adopting the portable document format seems to be a foregone conclusion. While commending the government in adopting a free and open standard for information exchange, we would like to point out that it is undesirable for statutory instruments to mandate use of the portable document format. 4.1.1 The issue may be with compared to prescribing emission or safety standards for automobiles. In the automobile industry, the government's role is confined to fixing standards to be adhered to by manufacturers of automobiles. It is not the practice for the government to choose a brand and insist on use of only that particular model or brand. 4.1.2 We urge the government to follow a similar approach in the matter of deciding on a file format standard. 4.1.3 It is true that the portable document format, or PDF is an open format. There are no restrictions on anybody writing software for creating or reading files in that format. The company which has published the format has declared that all patents required for implementation of the format are licensed free of cost; so long as the patents are used only for the purpose of creating and writing files adhering to the standard. 4.1.4 But. using the term `standard' to refer to a document published by a single company is inappropriate. True standards are created by independent organisations consisting of representatives from industry and after open, public and transparent discussion. 4.1.5 Prescription of the PDF format would give the particular corporate body which creates the format an undue advantage at the market place for the precise reason that PDF is a non participative standard. As a single company standard, other vendors dither before adopting this standard. Also, the company enjoys an undue advantage because in revising a standard, this company alone will know of the proposed changes till they are published. The company thus gains an undue advantage in the market place because it is able to develop and launch software ahead of competition. 4.1.6 We would like to point out that at present, to our knowledge, the only vendor of software which accurately creates or displays PDF files, (in its latest version which is 1.5) is the company which publishes the standards itself. No competing software would be available for some time; and one of the earliest providers would be the free software community. 4.1.7 Further, the Government of India would have to be content with prescribing that `portable document format' is to be used; but what the format itself is, will be decided by a private company; and the Government does not have any control over the format itself. The legislative will is that the government prescribes the format to be used for submitting and issuing electronic records and payments into and out of the government. By prescribing use of PDF, a format over which the government has no control, the government would be abdicating its powers and going against the legislative will. 4.1.8 The fact that the standard is controlled by a corporate body, without any participation from other companies or representatives of the industry also means that there is no guarantee that there would be compatibility between future versions of the PDF standards and the present versions. 4.1.9 Please note that our objections are not to use of the PDF format; we accept and recognise PDF as a free format -- 'free as in freedom'. Our objections are based on the control over the format; and the inappropriateness in a democratic and sovereign government legislating mandated use of a format controlled by a corporate body, thus giving virtual legislative powers to that corporation. The inappropriateness lies in fact that if the rules require use of `portable document format', what the portable document format is, is something beyond the control of the government. But the explicit wording of Section 87(2) (b) and (c) requires the GOVERNMENT to specify the `manner and format' in which the records are to be filed and payments are to be made. The terms of the PDF license as published by the company does not permit the government to do that. 4.2 Alternatives 4.2.0 Free standards created by independent and representative organisations like the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) are available. The W3C promulgates more than one standard for use in communication through the web and the Internet. In particular, we feel that the government can adopt Extensible Markup Language, or XML. XML permits creation of a custom mark up language, defined in a `Document Type Definition' or DTD. The government should, in exercise of its rule making powers, ideally confine to creating an XML DTD. 4.2.1 We feel that adoption of XML as the format of information interchange will provide the government and public with more flexibility and freedom in the matter of choice of programs and vendors. It also has several technical advantages. For example, the files containing the information will contain only plain text; thus eliminating embedding of executable and unknown code inside the files. The portable document format stores information in binary format. Hence, there is little or no means of ensuring that the file actually conforms to the standards except by relying on another program. 4.2.3 XML formatted data makes verification of standards used easier. XML also makes it easier for information to be used in conjunction with databases by making import and export of information from the records into database tables easier. Archiving also becomes easier since XML data is easier to compress, and more compressible than the binary format used by PDF. Access to the data in future too is easier. Further, data in XML format can be displayed by any plain, simple text editor, and understood by any human being in its raw form. 4.2.4 It is also possible to use XML in conjunction with other unencumbered technologies, like the Portable Network Graphics (PNG) format for graphics and Oggvorbis for audio information. 4.2.5 Adoption of XML need not be at expense portable document format. Several tools capable of converting files from XML to portable document format and vice-versa are available. Our suggestion is that XML can be used as the format in which information is exchanged between government and public. Conversion to PDF can be done, if desired, by recipient of the information. 4.3 What all this is for 4.3.0 Please note that use of the XML DTD by itself does not mean that the data format is unencumbered. Some companies claim proprietary rights over XML DTDs and schemas, and use of such encumbered schemas is worse than use of the PDF format. Ideally, the government itself should create an XML schema; or adopt a XML schema which is released by its creators under a permissive license. Adoption of an existing XML schema available under a permissive license has the added advantage of providing instant access to a wide spectrum of programs which already implement that schema. 4.3.1 As we have already mentioned, the issue is of freedom of the public and government to make a choice of their own; it is an issue of equal accessibility; of no private person being in a position to command a royalty for the citizens exercising their basic and fundamental right of communicating with the government. It is a matter of freeing up access to public information like the law and legal resources. It is an issue of being able to bargain with the providers of software on our own terms; not on terms dictated by others. 5. CONCLUSIONS 5.0 To summarise, our submissions are:- a. PDF is a free format; but being a format controlled by a single company it is undesirable that its use be mandated by the government through legislation or statutory instruments. b. Transparent and unencumbered formats like XML, published by representative bodies and created through a participative, transparent and public process should be used. c. The rules should be neutral towards technology and vendors. All vendors of services and program should have an equal and fair opportunity so that healthy competition is ensured. d. The government itself should use free software within it; but it should not be concerned with how or what software creates the files containing the information so long as the files themselves conform with the rules and standards prescribed in them. 5.1 It will not be too much to point out that software is a functional work. Social and economic role of functional works is different from that of artistic works (like music or paintings) or literary works (like essays and speeches). It is users' rights which should be given more importance while considering functional works. Vendors of non-free or proprietary software have no respect for users' rights; (enumerated in para 3.0 above). For vendors of non-free software, what is important are profits, revenues and market share; which they seek control by any means. That by itself is not a bad thing; but public interest should not be sacrificed at the altar of corporate interests or business profitability. No computer program should be used within the government unless and until its licensing terms comply with the five freedoms specified in paragraph 3.0 above. 5.2 As a non-profit organisation, with extensive expertise in social, technological and legal issues concerning digital and computer technology, we offer our expertise in drafting the rules and standards which conform to the rules such that public interest is best served. 5.3 We also would like to make it clear that our representatives would be most happy to spend a few hours with you to allay any fears or doubts which would linger regarding legal, constitutional, social, technological and commercial aspects of use of free software in general, and in particular any our doubts regard. Contact Information Please send inquiries about FSF India to gnu@gnu.org.in Comments on these web pages may be sent to fsf-webmaster@gnu.org.in Copyright (C) 2003 Free Software Foundation of India. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. Last modified: Sun Dec 14 15:40:13 IST 2003 ========== HURIDOCS-Tech listserv ========== Send mail intended for the list to <huridocs-tech@hrea.org>. Archives of the list can be found at: http://www.hrea.org/lists/huridocs-tech/markup/maillist.php To subscribe to the list, send a message to <majordomo@hrea.org>, with the following text in the message: subscribe huridocs-tech To unsubscribe from the list, send a message to <majordomo@hrea.org>, with the following text in the message: unsubscribe huridocs-tech If you have problems (un)subscribing, contact <owner-huridocs-tech@hrea.org>.
[Reply to this message] [Start a new topic] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index] [Subject Index] [List Home Page] [HREA Home Page]