[Fsf-india] Why cost is not an issue

[Khuzaima A. Lakdawala]

On Mon, 18 Mar 2002, Frederick Noronha wrote:

[...]
> 
> Of course, I'm not sure I agree with both when it comes to some finer
> points and approaches -- particularly on the 'free speech versus free
> beer' debate... and what strikes one as a deliberate playing-down or
> sidetracking of the 'free' (or low-cost aspect of GNU/Linux) which has
> tremendious implications to countries like India, in a market which is
> very price-sensitive. You're talking about two-thirds of humankind!
> 
[...]

The deliberate sidetracking of the low-cost aspect of free software is
extremely important. Please consider the following:

1. A large proprietary software corporation like, say Microsoft, if
   and when sufficiently threatened by free software, could flood the
   Indian market with low- or no-cost versions of its proprietary
   softwares without seriously affecting its bottom-line in the short
   term. It could even turn a blind eye to so-called "piracy" of its
   products (for a while!). Why? To achieve what is called in the
   industry as "product lock-in." This is a classic technique used
   widely in the proprietary computer industry (hardware and software)
   and Microsoft in particular excels at it. Once locked-in, many
   customers find it more difficult and costly to switch to
   alternatives (free or non-free) rather than just purchase the next
   "upgrade" from the earlier benevolent Microsoft.

By stressing on cost rather than software freedom, we fall into the
above trap. When a user is not even aware of software freedom it can
be very easily denied to him or taken away from him. It is of
paramount importance to make him see that this is not an issue of
cost. That in fact it is not unthinkable that may be, just may be, at
some point in the future he might actually have to pay a higher
monetary cost to guard (or achieve) this freedom.

2. Next comes the issue of service and support. By stressing on the
   low- or no-cost aspect of free software products, we would be
   completely disregarding the service and support of these
   products. We would be really kidding ourselves if we thought that
   the free software movement can be permanently sustained by
   voluntary service and support. Service, support and customization
   would in fact be the main revenue sources of future free software
   business models. By saying that free software is gratis we make it
   very difficult for people to make money from it.

Let's face it, (free software) programmers have to make a living too
(yeah, surprise!) And there's no such thing as a free lunch. By
stressing on the low- or no-cost aspect of free software, we would be
doing a great disservice to great programmers and putting hurdles in
their path to making a living. This in itself may prove suicidal for
our movement.

3. Government procurement: This is actually a non-issue. We all know
   that procurement decisions of our governments are based on several
   complex criteria (many of them _extraneous_) which have very little
   to do with *COST*. The less said about this the better.

I urge fellow free software advocates to please sideline the issue of
cost in the course of advocacy. To bring up the low- or no-cost issue
is to tread a dangerous path strewn with potential minefields.

-- 
Khuzaima A. Lakdawala