[Fsf-friends] Re: {Arun M] Another world is possible

[V. Sasi Kumar]

On Sun, 2003-01-19 at 23:57, PostgreSQL Server wrote:
> 
> We are distributing all software developed by OSS, under GPL since 
the 
> formation of OSS (ie in early 2000). It is accroding to the statements
in the 
> OSS's bylaw.  Its Arun's duty to prove his statment that OSS is taking
> opportunistic stand. Arun, you may recall the discussion between us at
Bose 
> Bhavan, Ernakulam, when I have clarified all these things to you. Let
me make 
> it clear that, It is not our duty to hand over the software to Arun.
GPL does 
> not mention that software should be given to a particular person or 
> Institution.  We are distributing our package along with service  for
a 
> price. The customer gets its source code, they can modify it and they
can 
> re-distribute it under GPL.

I am not aware of the details of your confusion with Arun, but I would
like to note a point or two here.

When we are dealing with moral and ethical issues that led to the
formation of the Free Software Movement, we cannot confine ourselves
just to the terms set forth in the GPL. The GPL is only a licencing
scheme that was formulated to reflect the principles of behind the Free
Software Movement. If we imbibe the spirit of the movement, then we will
be able to see that the whole issue is about sharing with the community,
and not just giving a copy of the source code to the customer, who, for
all one knows, would often not be able to make head or tail out of it.
Just as a programmer has the freedom to make use of code written by
someone, (s)he has the responsibility to give back to the community code
that (s)he has written. I think that is the spirit. Do correct me if I
am wrong.

A second point is that the strength of Free Software originates from the
fact that thousands of programmers see the code and identify bugs in it.
Without this facility, there would hardly be any difference between
proprietary software and Free Software.

In view of both these aspects, it is essential that GPLd software is
made freely available to anyone who wishes to download it.

> 
> OSS (full name Open Software Solutions Industrial Co-operative Society
Ltd. 
> Chottanikkara) is an  Industrial Co-operative Society which is a good
example 
> for social entreprenuership in the field of Information Technology.
The 
> Society is having around 40 members among them one is honourary
member. All 
> the regular members, who were now associating with OSS is fully
depended on 
> OSS. They have no other income. The honourary member does not accept
any 
> payment from OSS. So it is the responsibility of OSS to provide income
to its 
> member. So we provide software solution for local needs for a price. 

It is understandable that those who work for the organisation have to
earn their livelihood. The general understanding in the Free Software
community is that this should be achieved through selling services. You
certainly have the right to charge for installation and maintenance from
every user who engages you to install and maintain. If you insist that
you will give the source code only to those who purchase the software
from you, then, even if you may not be violating the letter of the law
as far as GPL is concerned, you will be violating the spirit behind it.
It could also be sending the wrong message to society.

It may be easy to say that, if you cannot make a living through selling
services, then you do something else. But we all know that in the
context of our state this is not easily practiced. But I am not sure
that not putting up your software for download would help you earn more
income. If a programmer really wanted to make use of your code, (s)he
could get it from one of your customers, as you yourself have stated.
Or, am I wrong there?

> > - Is software patents and 'closing' the source only issues ?
> > - What is the stand on 'cost effective' proprietary software ?
> I thing softare part of our discussion will be focused on GPL'd
software. Cost 
> effectiveness is also a important matter of concern 

Cost effectiveness becomes secondary because of a few reasons. I think
the most important issue is empowerment. People who talk about Total
Cost of Ownership forget about the costs of dependency in the long term
and the gain to society through empowerment. While cost becomes
important for a society like ours, it can be properly considered only
when all the implications are taken into consideration, and not just the
immediate cost of implementation. I find a similarity here with the
debate about environment and development, where many people tended to
overlook the long term environmental costs of development projects and
saw only the short term benefits. It is, therefore, important to see
things in their proper perspective.

Regards
V. Sasi Kumar