[Fsf-india] Freedom

[Tapan S. Parikh]

>  > From another perspective, wouldn't the very nature of *free software*
>  > (being open in design and 'free' in replicability) result in the
pulling
>  > down of costs?
> I am not sure how this will happen. Could you please explain?

The way software companies (and many other knowledge-centric enterprises)
make the most money is by protecting their intellectual property, thereby
creating a large barrier to entry.  In the case of software the most
valuable IPR is often the source code itself.  If the source code is freely
available and re-distributable, the price will necessary be less, because
there will be no barriers to other entrants in this space, thereby
increasing competition, reducing monopoly, and reducing price.

Lets take a simple example.  Lets say Oracle, or Windows, or Photoshop was
Free Software.  Than if I bought a copy of it, I could repackage it and
re-sell it myself, once again making the source code available.
Neccesarily I would likely sell it for cheaper than Oracle, or MS, or
Adobe.  In fact the people _I_ sold it to would sell it for even cheaper...
You get my point.

In a developing nation like India, we may even be able to charge a higher
price because of lack of connectivity, and inaccessibility of online
sources and executables, making people pay us to send CDs, etc, which is a
Value-Added Service.

But one thing that is missing from this discussion is the underlying
philosophical viewpoint of FS, and in my mind, the beauty of RMS the man
and FS the philosophy.  RMS himself works on a subsistence basis.  He takes
no more money than he needs for his daily needs.  His desire is not to
amass wealth, it is merely to subsist, and build a spirit of freedom and
collaboration, rather than exclusion and hoarding of resources and
knowledge.  RMS even downplays this a little in his talks and public
persona, maybe it is because of having to counterpoint the Open Source
Movement's claims, maybe it is because of the capitalist, sometimes
downright greedy, world we all live, in, and some degree to he feels the
need to play by the rules.

But in spite of this RMS's core philosophy and values, never fails to shine
through.  In my mind his is very much a _socialist_ philosophy, in that we
should all work together, share, and we all find ways to subsisttogether
rather than apart, and in fact, help each other to do so.  There is no
notion of amassing wealth, of a "healthy" competition", of trying to hide
or protect resources.  These all being fundamental values we often take for
granted in the current dominating world view, as much as we try not to
think so.  They subconsciously make us compromise our deep, inner goodness,
feeling we also have to "play the game"  by the rules set forth.

That is why RMS is beautiful.  He doesnt feel any need to play the game.
He sees the world black and white.  He builds outward from his core inner
beliefs and values, values of sharing, and freedom, and openness.  He never
compromises those.  Yes, he is pragmatic, in that he tries to make this all
work in the conflicting world view we all live in, to allow us to subsist
in a world that seems hell bent not to want to permit that, at least not
without fighting, or competing, for your subsistence.  In that lies some of
the confusion that is arising here, and some of the less idealogically
clear things RMS says.  But the core philosophy should not be forgotten,
and just as RMS tries his best not to compromise, neither should we.

--Tapan