BananaTrifleViolin

Yeah I was surprised they took it down. I think it’s a foolish knee jerk reaction and is patronising towards readers.

Ironically there is know nothing to put the current spike of interest in context as you can’t read the letter on the guardian website.

I’m actually really unimpressed with the guardians action - they don’t respect their readers and clearly no longer believe in freedom of speech. They could have modified the article to put the letter in context themselves rather than link to a 20 year old article criticising it. It also makes it hard for those who want to push back against the letter and answer those who are pushing it.

If you implement it from fresh then it is a new program. What matters is what your contract says about what you produce - some contracts pay claim to anything you make even outside of working hours.

Also if you rewrite it, while technically it is a fresh project if there are substantial similarities in how you implement it there could be an argument made that you have reused code that belongs to the company. Even if that is technical false it could be something you’d have to defend sometime in the future. As others have said, implementing the program in a different language and using a different methodology wherever possible should help protect against that.

I think the advice others have given that you should review your contract with a lawyer is sound even if this will be FOSS. It’s mainly about ensuring you don’t inadvertently open yourself to potential legal repercussions down the line, even if your employers at the moment seem benign. If you do work for a company that lays claim to everything you produce even in your off hours then I would strongly recommend you consider leaving or an exit plan, particularly if you are the sort of person who would be working on your own projects for fun or even your own business ventures.

No; it depends on the individual package whether it is open source of nor. Ubuntu uses a lot of Open Source software (including the Linux Kernal) and packages but is not entirely open source. It derives it’s own package base from Debian, and then adds it’s own flavour to things as well as commerical tools it pushes.

Linux Mint is an Ubuntu derivative; its sounds like the Indian Government would be doing the same thing. Basically like Mint, they would use Ubuntu and it’s packages as the basis of their system and rely on most of it to be updated & maintained by Ubuntiu’s teams upstream, but then build their own repositories that contain other software or their own perferred modified versions of things originally taken from Ubuntu. They can build a version of Linux that they control including what software is installed, and when it is updated.

They would not have to make their distribution freely available, but if they modified any open source packages they would have to make those available as open source packages (depending on the license of the open source software). However that can be very difficult to inforce, and if it’s done in a closed military system you’d never even know a modified version of the software exists if they chose not to share it.

Although Ubuntu contains a lot of “open source” software, it doesn’t mean the Indian Governments version would necessairly be open source. But the big benefit to India would be potential complete control of any part of the software chain, and no reliance on big tech companies like Microsoft for the OS and core software like Office. That saves a lot of money and is also potentially more secure (in a national security sense), depending on how much people trust the US government not to interfere in american Tech companies. There has been talk of forcing backdoors into US software in the past which would make any big nation nervous about being reliant on their software.

I think you misunderstand what is happening. You’re merely guests in the cats second home, and he’s making sure you’re not misbehaving in his property. That cat is on the make.