[Fsf-india] Four more questions...

Raju Mathur raju@linux-delhi.org
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 09:29:46 +0530


Very cogent arguments from both sides of the fence, so let me also put
in my 2-penny worth.

To summarise, Fred argues that in India (and many other countries) the
cost aspect of free software is the most important criterion for using
it.

Pappu (and other free software advocates on this list) OTOH claim that
unless the `freedom' aspect of free software is kept in mind there can
be no good reason to use free software, since the other benefits of
free software (price, features, stability, security, etc) can be
matched and exceeded by proprietary software too.

Putting on my diplomatic hat, I agree with both.  Note this date down,
OK?  Raju being diplomatic!

It's true that unless you understand the real reason (and I can say
that freedom is definitely the real reason) for using free software
you are on the edge of a precipice: you use free software where it
meets your needs, and the moment you have a better proprietary
software product for the same or lower cost you use that instead.
Unless you subscribe to the freedom aspect of free software there
really is nothing to keep you with it: you become basically what RMS
calls an Open Source user, not a free software user; i.e. you use free
software because of practical, not ideolgical reasons.  I'm not saying
whether this is right or wrong (though many people would be quick to
make a judgement one way or the other) -- it just is.

On the other hand ignoring the ground realities isn't much help
either.  We ARE a country consisting of many individuals who are
starved of cash resources.  We ARE a country where illegal copying and
use of software is rampant.  We ARE a country where access to high
quality, low cost software could make a qualitative difference to
peoples' lives in the long term.

Should we stop promoting free software to people just because they may
use it without understanding the concept of freedom?

I personally believe not.  While all efforts should be made to educate
people about the long-term benefits of free software, just because
they don't understand freedom is no reason to stop promoting free
software to them.  At the risk of repeating myself I'll state again
that you have to first understand peoples' needs and then talk to
them.  To paraphrase someone else on this list, going to someone who
just wants a browser and preaching freedom to them is going to be more
counterproductive in the long term than just giving them a browser for
free and then trying to gently convert them to the values which we
wish to inculcate.

>From this point of view Fred is doing a great job.  He sees a problem
and is interested in solving it NOW rather than in some distant,
utopian future.  While we must not stop yearning and fighting for that
future (that's the FSF's raison d'etre, right?), we must not let the
present become a victim to that projected future either.  The ends
never justify the means, and I'd gladly sacrifice some possibly
wonderful future society for being able to make a difference in the
quality of peoples' lives today, however small.  After all, the stated
goal of free software is to improve the quality of peoples' lives,
isn't it?

IMO just as we should laud Fred for his efforts in promoting the
benefits of free software TODAY we should also laud the free software
advocates (purists) for working towards that perfect future.  Please
understand that your goals are not incompatible, only the time-frames
and means used to achieve those goals may be different.  Please be
sensitive to each others' points of view and needs and we can probably
achieve much more than wasting our energy picking on each and every
point that the other party brings up.

Regards.

-- Raju

>>>>> "Fred" == Frederick Noronha <fred@bytesforall.org> writes:

    Fred> Four questions in response to Pappu's quote (below): 1) How
    Fred> do you "use software for any purpose possible" if 90% of the
    Fred> country (that goes for government departments in many cases,
    Fred> colleges, almost all schools, etc) cannot afford the prices
    Fred> of internationally dominant software products, *and* at the
    Fred> same time we fight shy of pointing out that here's a very,
    Fred> very affordable software option for the millions....

    Fred>    2) How many percent of computer users can really "modify
    Fred> the software to suit your uses"? Is this merely a notional
    Fred> concept?  Or, are we talking only of the freedom of the
    Fred> techie here?  If so, aren't we guilty of leaving 99% in the
    Fred> cold?

    Fred>    3) How does one "help your neighbour" if money remains
    Fred> the primarily motivating factor? If money is *not* the main
    Fred> factor, then why not be upfront about that?

    Fred>    4) Community comes from sharing and giving freely. Freely
    Fred> as in -- without strings attached. In the real world, this
    Fred> gets translated into money terms. Where do we situate FS in
    Fred> this context, specially in an Indian or Third World
    Fred> backdrop?

    Fred> My feeling is that the 'free beer versus free speech' debate
    Fred> makes sense in a North American context. Where
    Fred> money/resources/food/beer is not so important an issue as
    Fred> 'freedom', since almost everyone has the former.

    Fred> If one recalls rightly, the average US worker can earn
    Fred> enough to feed his family for the full day, with just four
    Fred> hours of work.

    Fred> But, in an Indian context?

    Fred> To stretch the argument: at the end of the day 'free beer'
    Fred> is intricately related to 'free speech'. If you have the
    Fred> idea (the recipe for beer, in this case) and are willing to
    Fred> share it because you subscribe to the idea of 'free speech',
    Fred> one day I too could hope to get 'free beer' as a result of
    Fred> your belief in 'free speech'.

    Fred> Could we take a closer look at the terms used in this
    Fred> allegory? The loaded nature of the comparision might also be
    Fred> skewing our perspectives...

    Fred> 'Free beer' (a luxury in virtually any social context) is
    Fred> compared to 'free speech' (an essential in any
    Fred> self-respecting 21st century society). What if we had a
    Fred> comparision like 'free libraries' versus 'free speech'? Then
    Fred> maybe the arguments against the former wouldn't be so sharp.

    Fred> FN

    Fred> PS: We perhaps need to keep in mind the ideological context
    Fred> of such an arguement, where capitalism fails to understand
    Fred> the worth of a 'free' (pricewise) or low-cost product....

    Fred> PPS: Needless to say, I admire RMS, his work and
    Fred> principles. All that I'm arguing here is that a construct
    Fred> that fits the US perfectly need not be the most apt in an
    Fred> Indian, Third World, economically-different society.

    >> There are four freedoms that has to be available, to make a
    >> software free software.  1) the freedom to use the software for
    >> any purpose possible 2) The freedom to help yourselves by
    >> modifying the software to suit your requirement 3) The freedom
    >> to help your neighbor by distributing copies of the software 4)
    >> The freedom to build a community by enhancing software and
    >> redistributing the enhanced version.  bye, pappu.

-- 
Raju Mathur          raju@kandalaya.org           http://kandalaya.org/
                     It is the mind that moves