[Fsf-friends] Good FREEDOM Software

[Harish Narayanan]

I've been observing these threads for a while, and couldn't resist the 
urge to jump in with my point of view anymore.

First, "freedom" is a noun, so "freedom software" sounds very odd, so 
I'll stick to free (meaning freedom, as is obvious to people here). 
Everyone is right when they say good means different things to different 
people. And this divergence in interpretation exists even between "lay 
person" and people on this list, say. (Not that I'm saying anyone is 
better off, just different.)

There seems to be a fundamental difference in perspectives here. Tarun, 
if you didn't add the "Over and above that, if it is FREE; masses would 
embrace it instantly.", at the very end, like (not actuality, like) it 
was an afterthought, more people here would tend to assume you conform 
to their notions of what is "good". If your list went (and you truly 
believed) something like,

0. Software is good if it is free.
1. Software is better if it lets me achieve ....

and so on, much of this discussion won't even be taking place.

People (me included) sometimes do things because they've been 
conditioned by their environment to behave in a certain way. "Lay 
person" or "end user" doesn't mean the person is unintelligent, 
incapable of, or unwilling to learn. Society as I've experienced it (and 
anyone else in a similar time frame, for that matter) made it common 
place (if not acceptable) to treat software, loosely, like "intellectual 
commodities" whose insides can be hidden from the user when sold. It was 
reasoned out to us that those insides had more value to the creator as a 
secret. They were the reason the creator could put food on their table. 
Perfectly legitimate sounding argument given only so much information. A 
large portion of the regular population, haven't experienced how much 
easier and faster (intellectual and consequently societal) progress is 
if information and ideas are shared as in say, an open academic setting. 
That is how everything they saw around them was done, and they don't see 
the need to question it or think it wrong. For anyone, their freedom 
matters to them. Some people just don't realize what they are giving up 
when they use software that is non-free. Once explained, they will see 
what you're talking about and eventually convert.

[Arbitrary conversation log that seems fitting: 
http://actuality.wahgnube.org/index.php?p=88 ]

This isn't about the inherent capability of the software itself, because 
for most common tasks, excellent free software exist. Today. The reasons 
why the masses don't flock to them is social inertia as much as anything 
else. If the common man were to wait until "software becomes best" (by 
the definition on that list of  yours) and free before using it, at that 
point of time though you've opened a channel to communicate your 
message, it might not be the person's driving force to stay there. What 
if a "bester" (making up words as I feel the need) non free software 
comes along?

What people are looking for here (or at least I am anyway), is something 
along the lines of "if the philosophy wins, what happens to the software 
is inconsequential".

Harish | http://wahgnube.org/