[Fsf-india] From free beer to free speech?

[Pappu]

On Thursday, 11 April 2002 16:26:49 +0530, VaRuN SiNhA wrote:
 > an upgrade to make my system work better with Linux. 
What about the rest of the OS?
 > 
 > Let us suppose, we harp about FS as free beer. Get people attracted to it
 > because of it's low or zero cost. 
No. Proprietary software can do the  same thing and they don't have to
worry about *attracting* people because  90% of the computer users are
already *attracted*. Non  free software already has a  head start here
and this point doesn't give us any advantage.
 > IMHO,
OK.
 > " The same logic that some PS
 > companies follow: get the market addicted to their product (more often than
 > not my turning a blind-eye to piracy) and then swoop in with expensive
 > upgrades. Why can't the FS companies do that? 
FS companies  can do  what proprietary software  companies do,  but to
start with,  how do  a free software  company attract  customers? Both
free software  and non-free software  costs the same according  to the
hypothesis we are considering. So the only advantage we can claim that
non-free software  doesn't have  is FREEDOM. You  are just  saying the
same point in a different way :-))
 > take the losses. But I am convinced that FS companies will have to undergo a
 > shorter period of losses, because  they will be able to prove their
 > quality. 
The  freedoms  offered by  free  software  gives  great potential  for
software   quality  to  improve.   But  this   is  only   a  secondary
benefit.  Many non  free  software companies  have  the best  computer
scientists  in their payroll,  have deals  with universities  to share
code  and  thus receive  good  enhancements  (under  NDAs) and  follow
excellent quality  processes (just look at  the number of  cmm level 5
companies in India alone). The bottom line is, efficient, good quality
code is not some thing  that non-free software can't achieve, and they
already have these things. (OK, windows may have crashed, IIS may have
less  market share  than  apache,  but these  are  not non-fixable  or
non-changeable). 

So *quality* is also not special to free-software. 

But FREEDOM is!!!
 > Hypothetical cases:
 > 
 > Case I:
 > 
 > A company wants to setup an intranet. PS cost: 5 lakhs (top of my head, I
 > have NO idea what they really cost) FS Cost: 50, 000 (?) 
The moment we succeed in making people notice this price difference by
harping  on the  low cost/no  cost aspect  of free  software, non-free
software  companies will also  notice this  shift. (They  have trained
marketing geniuses in their pay roll, just for noticing these things)
Then  they  will  react  by  aggressive  price  cuts  and  promotional
offers. The  hypothetical free software  company is killed  before its
first business deal! 
 > FS offers them nearly infinite flexibility: they can have it customized to
 > suit their needs, bug fixes will be almost immediate.... 
True. This is because of the  FREEDOM and not because of *low cost* or
*better quality*.  So we  should talk of  freedom rather than  cost or
quality. 
 > PS, on the other hand, has *very* limited flexibility, bug
 > fixes...lol....take forever, and then also not always perfect. 
Ie, no freedom. That is exactly my point. Thank you.

 > I spent 3000 bucks on a boxed Linux. 
Out of  which more that 60%  is gnu and  you choose not to  mention it
:-)) 
 > I have probably spent 10% of that on PS
Does that  prove any  thing? If your  PC came with  licensed non-free
software, then  you have  spent more on  proprietary software  than Rs
3000. If not, it is another issue altogether.
 > Simply because  I knew that spending  that 3000 was  BIG TIME worth
Yes.  You  got freedom  along  with the  software  for  the money  you
spend.  Please note  again,  that  Freedom is  the  advantage you  got
here. It  is not low  cost, because according  to your post,  you have
spent much less on non-free software. 

 > Why not others, if not me. 
Good question. But I don't understand its relevance in this context.
 > 
 > That  is  one  reason  why  I  believe  that  free-beer  aspect  is
 > important. 
How?
 > 
 > Case II My father is a professor. My mum also works. We aren't rich - we're
 > comfortable, but we won't go abroad every year. For us, cost is probably
 > *the* most important factor while purchasing most things (esp. computer
 > related stuff). 
I am repeating this again and again. (I am not bored)
A proprietary software company  can give you non-free software cheaper
than free software. The only reason why you might want to go with free
software is the FREEDOM that you get.

 > My mum uses Windows at home simply because that's what came
 > with it. Tomorrow, if someone came and said "Ma'am, here is this OS and
 > office suite,  free of charge and  it's really good"  she would use
 > it. 
Why would she throw away some thing she was using for a long time. Not
having to pay  for it is irrelevant because  she already has something
to do her  job whether she paid for  it or not. The only  reason I see
for why  she might  be interested is  FREEDOM, provided she  knows the
importance of  freedom. So best thing we  can do is to  make sure that
people understand the importance of freedom.

 > doesn't care about freedom. She doesn't know *single* bit of any
....
 > done and for as little as possible. She installs the free (beer) SW, see
 > that it absolutely ROCKS. 
She finds the same things for non-free software.
 > She calls the  FS people. "Is it possible  for <certain feature not
 > present> to be done?" 
Again,  we  can get  her  to use  free  software  instead of  non-free
software in the first place, only  if we inform her about the freedoms
she gets with  free software and the lack of freedom  in case she uses
non-free software.
 > She sees the quality of FS. 
Quality is not something absent  in non free software. One non-free OS
may crash often, but there are 10 others that don't.
 > So the way I see, it harping on the free (beer) aspect, 
>From  the points you  have mentioned,  I am  even more  convinced that
talking of low cost and quality  of free software will do more bad for
free software than good, if at all any. 

bye,
pappu.