[Fsf-india] Four more questions...
Pappu
gnuhead@vsnl.net
Fri, 12 Apr 2002 14:21:50 +0530
On Friday, 12 April 2002 00:14:46 +0530, Frederick Noronha wrote:
> 1) How do you "use software for any purpose possible" if
> 90% of the country (that goes for government departments in
> many cases, colleges, almost all schools, etc) cannot afford
Cannot afford is the wrong assumption. A I mentioned in my previous
post, non-free software can be made low/no cost, by the vendor. So
what I am trying to say is that the low/no cost of free software
cannot be proved. If we start giving examples, the non-free vendor can
do at least the two following things...
1) Make the current version of their product low/no cost.
2) Start a FUD attack (backed up by research data of all
sorts) and disprove our claims
When that happens, free software doesn't gain any thing.
Please note that I am not claiming that cost is not a factor. Cost is
a factor and may be, as you say, the most important factor *BUT* free
software don't have any advantage here. Just because of this reason,
mentioning low/no cost of free software (which non-free software can
also claim) will not get free software any further.
The only advantage that free software has is FREEDOM.
Now, if somebody asks whether he has to pay more for free software
than he has to pay for non-free software, we can mention these
factors, not as an advantage but just to claim that we are on equal
grounds in the cost aspect.
> the prices of internationally dominant software products, *and*
This is not an unchangeable rule. MS Internet explorer doesn't cost any
thing. This product, along with many no-cost plug-ins can provide many
features that free software cannot provide (due to various
reasons). Does mozilla have any advantage here, other than the fact
that it is free. Now, if you are thinking of non-free products that
are not no-cost, to counter this argument, please note that if you
manage to convince enough people using this factor, the vendor will
notice the threat and can very easily nullify your argument by making
that product low/no cost.
> 2) How many percent of computer users can really "modify the
> software to suit your uses"?
The question is not whether a person is capable of modifying software,
but whether he has the right to do that. Consider it this way.
Definition:
Software is just a string of 1 and 0, which when arranged
properly, can modify other strings of 1 and 0.
(I don't remember where I found this, but it is correct)
Now take a simple software, say 1010. I may have got this by paying
money or gratis. Now does some one has the right to say that ...
1) I should not use this for doing particular things.
2) I don't have the right to know that I am running 1010 in my
computer (I paid for my computer. I am in a third world country, so
the computer is very costly)
3) I don't have the right to tell you that I use 1010 in my
computer. (If I do, my actions are compared to that of a pirate)
4) I don't have the right to replace a 1 with a zero and a 0 with a 1
and see what it does to my computer (I paid lots of money for this
computer)
5) If I find that 0101 works better than 1010, I don't have the right
to let you know this?
Well, I think these are human rights violations.
> Or, are we talking only of the freedom of the techie here?
No. Freedom is equally relevant for every one.
> If so, aren't we guilty of leaving 99% in the cold?
Are we assuming that non-free software (when it costs as less as free
software) doesn't do this? Why ask this question only for free
software and how is it relevant any way? Are we hurting 99% of
computer users by mentioning the freedom to modify code? Just for
completeness, even if this freedom doesn't provide any advantage to
99% freedom, it doesn't seem to hurt them in any way.
Here we are trying to find how to convince a layman that free software
is better than non-free software. Cost, quality etc being the same,
freedom is the only thing we have, that is worth mentioning.
> 3) How does one "help your neighbour" if money remains the
> primarily motivating factor? If money is *not* the main
> factor, then why not be upfront about that?
Note:
For a program to be Free software, all the four freedoms have to be
there. Even if one freedom is not there, it doesn't qualify to be free
software
Now, think of a non-free software that is available gratis, eg
MSIE. Now how is money the primary motivating factor here? The
non-free software vendor knows this point and will use it against free
software when sufficiently threatened. The action could be to make the
non-free software low/no cost or turn a blind eye towards what they
call *piracy*. So ?
>
> 4) Community comes from sharing and giving freely. Freely as
............
Sorry, I didn't quite understand the relevance of this question to the
topic under discussion. Could you please elaborate?
>
> My feeling is that the 'free beer versus free speech' debate makes sense
> in a North American context. Where money/resources/food/beer is not so
> important an issue as 'freedom', since almost everyone has the
> former.
By making non-free software low/no cost, a non-free software vendor
can easily create that situation in any country.
>
> But, in an Indian context?
A person may not have money to buy software today. The market research
departments of non-free software companies know this as well as we
do. But they also have other departments (or they may out-source),
which can almost accurately predict the way economy is going to change
in India. So the non-free vendor can reduce or remove the price of
their products till the product-lock-in is achieved, and may be wait
till economic standards in the country improves.
If they find out that this will never happen, they won't continue
their operations in the region, and we don't need to discuss these
issues in the first place. People may still get copies of the software
from other sources, without paying - they don't have money, remember?
In such a situation also, people are using non-free software and they
spend no money on it. So where is the low/no cost advantage of FS?
>
> To stretch the argument: at the end of the day 'free beer' is intricately
> related to 'free speech'.
OK. But to promote free software, the only advantage we have, that is
worth mentioning, is freedom. As I tried to explain above and in
previous emails, free software doesn't have any advantage when it
comes to price.
> Could we take a closer look at the terms used in this allegory? The loaded
> nature of the comparision might also be skewing our perspectives...
.........................................
> speech'? Then maybe the arguments against the former wouldn't be so
> sharp.
Well, I am still under the impression that this discussion is
regarding --- what we should state as the advantages of free software
over non-free software, when talking to people and governments in
third world countries like India.---
In this context, due to the reasons I and many others have pointed out
in many emails in this thread, there seems to be no advantage, and
there seems to be clear dangers in mentioning the low/no cost and
quality aspects of free software instead of or along with the freedom
aspect.
> arguing here is that a construct that fits the US perfectly need not be
> the most apt in an Indian, Third World, economically-different
> society.
The non-free software vendors can easily create a US like
socio-economic (wow!) situation in India when it comes to software.
**********************************************************************
I believe, the aim of fsf-india is not to gain market share from
software corporations, but to educate people about free software and
to ensure that we get to keep our freedoms. I don't think that there
is any issue if large corporations use a free-software based business
model (what ever that may be).
I don't think that the agenda of fsf-india is to enable individuals or
small companies in India to compete with and/or outperform large
corporations. Please correct me if I am wrong. If that is the case,
then all my arguments were out of context.
**********************************************************************
bye,
pappu.
PS: Free software is not an answer to all the issues in the world, or
India. It cannot eliminate poverty, corruption, natural disasters
etc... Its only advantage is that, when compared to non-free software,
it gives the user certain freedoms.