[Fsf-friends] Fwd: Response to the e-mail to the Editor. Vivaravicharam

[Anil Kumar K V]

----------  Forwarded Message  ----------
Subject: Response to the e-mail to the Editor. Vivaravicharam
Date: Friday 29 Aug 2003 4:33 pm
From: Anil Kumar K V <eiidp@md3.vsnl.net.in>
To: rms@gnu.org
Cc: fsf-wg@cc4.tifr.res.in, fsf-india@gnu.org.in, fsug-calicut@freelists.org, 
fsug-kochi-discuss@symonds.net, linux-india-general@lists.sourceforge.net

Dear Richard,

I happened read your e-mail to the editor of 'Vivaravicharam'. Here I express
my thoughts on your opinion.

I really wondered why you have used the term “Swadesh” that too while
mentioning about Gandhiji's principle ! “Swadesh” is a word of Sanskrit
origin and its literal meaning is “My own nation”. It is a propaganda term of
the fascist group named “RSS” to spread their fanatic agenda of Hindu
nationalism. This same RSS was behind the assassination of Gandhiji in 1948,
who has actively  campaigned for Hindu-Muslim unity and secular culture among
the people which had  blocked Hindu fanatics from moving their agenda. Now
after around half a century they came to power in India through false
propaganda and carrying on Gujarat like homicides. “Swadesh” is effectively
used by them for these purposes. What Gandhiji promoted was “Gram Swaraj”
which literally means “Self sustainable villages”. I am not sure  whether you
actually mean to use “Gram Swaraj” or “Taddesh”. It would have been better if
you have used the term “Taddesh” which literally means “Their own native”.

So let me re-read your sentence
“Free software is software swadesh--not just for India, but for the whole
world.”
as
“Free software is taddesh software for the whole world”.

Suggestion for using “application of copyrights” instead of “protection of
intellectual property rights" in the case of publishing industry is
acceptable as it conveys better.

I fully agree with the philosophy of freedom, which is propagated by FSF
 team. However imposition of the terms such as "GNU" and "Free Software" is
 not justifiable as these word contains only manufactured messages to convey.
 It is not advisable to urge others to use a term whose message is a
 manufactured one. Advocates of these terms may have some emotional
 satisfication in using these terms and need not be the case with all who 
 campaigns for the freedom.

Usually a movement or philosophy is called after its originator. However a
product is referred by its shortest name for convenience. It is true that
major portion of the Linux OS is developed by GNU. So it can be named as
"GNU/Linux". Since there is no Linux OS other than GNU/Linux, the usage of
"Linux"  is justified by ease of use.

There are spatial variations in the meaning of certain words. The word "Free"
for us is actually more linked with 'free of cost' than to "freedom". However
it is understood that there is concerted effort by FSF team to use "Free" for
freedom whenever it is linked with software. In other sectors, it is
advocates of imperialist globalisation is usually using the term "Free" for
freedom where freedom is a psuedo-freedom. And I consider "Free" as
propaganda term by advocates of imperialist globalisation in other fields. It
is found that nowadays even members of FSF teams are using the acronym
"FLOSS"  to avoid these confusion created by the term "Free".

I have some other doubts which I think you might have some answer.

It is said that "free software" movement is a campaign for freedom. It is
understood that its activity is confined  to “ethics of the social
arrangements of using software”. Whether campaign for freedom can be
restricted  to “ethics of the social arrangements of using software” alone?
What should be its counterpart in other walks of the society life ?

How can a full time activist of a "free software" movement earn their
 livings. Or whether only part-time activist are expected to work for this
 movement, and find their earnings from a proprietary environment? Is it a
 good idea to promote local co-operative movements to overcome this crisis ?
 This has much relevance for software workers  in a third world scenario
 where software development is considered as a source of employment.

Regards,

Anil
Appropriate Technology Promotion Society.
Keralam.

<-- On 28 Aug 2003 Richard Stallman wrote -------------------->
    Traditional proprietary software
    development (which created most of the programs we use daily) adheres
    to the principle of strict protection of intellectual property rights
    found in the publishing industry.</P>

"Intellectual property rights" is a propaganda term, and it spreads
confusion my lumping together copyrights, patents, trademarks, and
other laws, all of which are completely different.

In any given situation, when you think of saying "intellectual
property rights", you really mean just one of those.  For instance,
here you mean specifically "copyright".  The article would be clearer
if you said just "copyright", instead of "intellectual property
rights"  It would also avoid a form of prejudice.

The term "protection" is also a propaganda term.  Replacing it with
"application" would avoid the propaganda, and make the article more
precisely correct as well.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more
explanation.

     Free /open</SPAN>
    software is not a technology, but rather a different way of thinking
    about and organizing the software development process.

It may be true that open source is a different way of thinking about
and organizing the software development process.  However,
that's not what free software is.  Free software is a different
way of thinking about the ethics of the social arrangements of
using software.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for
more explanation of the difference between the free software
philosophy and the open source philosophy.  They are not synonymous.

    <P LANG="en-GB" CLASS="western" ALIGN=JUSTIFY>Free / open software is
    growing its market share

For open source, it makes sense to speak of "market share".
The open source advocates try to appeal above all to business,
saying theirs is a practically superior alternative.

However, the free software movement is a social movement, a campaign
for freedom.  It is more like Gandhi than like Eddison.  It would have
been misleading to describe the success of the Indian National
Congress in terms of "market share" because that would imply it was
merely a matter of business competition.  Gandhi did not seek to
compete with British rule for the support of a larger fraction of
India; he sought to replace British rule entirely.  Likewise, in the
free software movement we do not seek to compete with non-free
software.  Our goal is to replace it entirely.  Free software is
software swadesh--not just for India, but for the whole world.

The resemblance between non-free software and British rule in India
extends much further.  Non-free software is a form of electronic
colonization.

    Because no one is excluded from the development process, potentially
    hundreds of people can contribute to a project, providing a diverse
    group of talents and techniques.

This is the collaborative development model which the open source
movement champions.

However. free software does not imply any particular development
model.  The collaborative model is fine, but what we really care about
is not how the software is developed, but whether we have the
appropriate freedom in using it.
<-- ------------------------------- -------------------->

-------------------------------------------------------