Fsf-friends January 2003

fsf-friends@gnu.org.in

25 participants
49 discussions

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

by Dileep M. Kumar

On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 09:38:57AM +0530, V. Sasi Kumar wrote: 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. You are wrong Mr. Sasi Kumar. Even RMS wont agree to your argument. It may be true for a general purpose software like an editor. But programs for specific industry need not be or rather should not be freely (as in free beer) available on net. Pls refer the discussions on LIG some time back where for a similar case (RMS himself have replied to it). I appreciate OSS for showing others "We can make a living using Free software business". as far as GPL is concerned, you will be violating the spirit behind it. It could also be sending the wrong message to society. No. Not at all. Pls support OSS and similar industries so that the idea of Free software business grows. Let's not kill or blame such a movement. They are helping the FSF movement. They also should make a living ... there is nothing wrong in it. Don't blame somebody for something which we never does ourself. Regards -- .''`. Dileep M. Kumar <dileep(a)kumarayil.net> : :' : http://www.kumarayil.net `. `'` `- Debian GNU/Linux - Choice of the Freedom Lovers

20 years, 10 months

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

by CK Raju

I think perhaps the dialogue between M$ and Villanueva would quell some of the doubts arising here. The link is at http://pimientolinux.com/peru2ms/villanueva_to_ms.html CK Raju

20 years, 10 months

OSS and free software

by Sajith V K

OSS may be the first free-software based bussiness moden in kerala. I suggest a discussion on free-software bussiness model But being a bussiness firm don't free them from their duties. OSS says they provides the source code to their customers, which I beleaves meaning less. 1. Why OSS is not ready to give the source code for public, when anybody can get it from OSS's customers ?.(It only ensures that they get atleast one customer !!!!!) 2. Why OSS beleve source should be opened? (Is it just because GPL says it?) 3. Now several persons says 'core softwares (OS,compilers etc) should be free and the rest ........ How OSS view this? _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

20 years, 10 months

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

by 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

20 years, 10 months

Free Software ... at OneWorld

by Frederick Noronha

Dear friends, Oneworld.net is organising a meet of its NGO partners in early February. So, at the last minute (virtually) a thought struck me and I dashed off a mail to Delhi. If we are talking about the principles of freedom and development, wouldn't it make sense to talk about Free Software, GNU/Linux and related issues? Jaba Menon called back from Delhi, and offered to have a one-hour panel, which possibly could be included to sensitise NGOs to the entire debate about freedom around software concerns. Needless to say, this has immense implications not just to software, but also to knowledge and information, and how we gain/lose from the entire framing of the copyright debate. I'm copying this letter to friends in Delhi. Oneworld needs to put together a panel of 2-3 persons, who could speak for an hour collectively, and also field questions. Raju Mathur, Tripta@Sarai and Sunil Abraham, these are the first three names that came to my mind. Could you'll help please? I know that Sunil is in Bangalore, but he has done useful work in helping NGOs shift over to software generally, and of late, in promoting Free Software. Raju has both the technical and oratorial skills. Tripta is with an NGO herself (Sarai), and that too, one of the few that has been strongly pro-Free Software. Am copying this message also to Karl, who is working on the international NGU project, meant to take Free Software to the NGOs. Please let's work together to make this happen. I would very much like to be in Delhi, but my writing commitments mean it is difficult to take time off without everything else collapsing here, since I work on my own. FN -- Frederick Noronha Freelance Journalist Goa India 0091.832.2409490/2409783 http://www.bytesforall.org Writing with a difference ... on what makes *the* difference

20 years, 10 months

CNBC on Tuesday 10:30pm

by Nagarjuna G.

CNBC is broadcasting a story on tuesday 10:30pm. I expect the story is about the spread of GNU/Linux. I was also interviewed for this, so I know :-). Nagarjuna

20 years, 10 months

Ten reasons why NGOs should give Free Software a serious thought...

by Frederick Noronha

NGOs AND FREE SOFTWARE: A MADE FOR EACH OTHER MATCH? This writer believes that this would be so, because: o If NGOs don't subscribe to the principles of sharing freely, reuse and waste-minimisation, then who will? o If NGOs take the easy way out and end up on the side of a global monopoly, then words and deeds don't match. o 'Freedom' is something NGOs always talk about, in whatever form. In the software world, this is already a reality. The possibility exists; are we ready to take a little extra trouble (the initial learning curve) in opting for it? o Because NGOs need quality, stable software. o Because NGOs are even more talent-rich, resource-poor than most in the Third World. o Because Free Software works out reasonably priced both in the short and long term. o Because Free Software creates local jobs and multiplies local skills. o Because Free Software is transparent enough for you to (i) learn it, if you have the technical background (ii) make custom changes in the manner you wish to, or pay others to do this for you (iii) enable both you and your staff to learn at a much more deeper, rather than superficial level. o Because Free Software is an ethical choice -- not one of convenience. Copyleft 2003, FN If anyone would like to add to the above list, feel free to do so. -- Frederick Noronha Freelance Journalist Goa India 0091.832.2409490/2409783 http://www.bytesforall.org Writing with a difference ... on what makes *the* difference

20 years, 10 months

Re: [fsug-kochi-discuss] Re: {Arun M] Another world is possible

by gnu＠vsnl.net

I am afraid you are wrong here. GPL'd software need not be open to any third party. ie, If I sell you a GPL'd software I should give you the source also along with the binary. But I need not give your friend the source of same same software till he purchases it. Thanks. I stand corrected. I quote sec 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: * a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, * b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, [....] The important point to note is that the first para says "...you also do *one* of the following..". Since the party involved is already distributing source to the customers, (which is (a)), he does not need to do (b). thanks Dileep, for pointing this error out. best regards ramakrishnan

20 years, 10 months

Another world is possible

by PostgreSQL Server

Hai friends, During the last week of Dec '02 there was a 'Kerala Sangamam' organized by Kerala chapter of 'World Social Forum' . The main agenda was to create a common platform for the efforts of various groups who works for alternative Keralam, and make them work together for common cause. Ther was very active discussion on Software under GPL and on Modernisation of Goverment Program (MGP) using IT. The meet has come to a conclusion that current IT policy and MGP are not on the correct track. It is also decided to conduct a workshop at Kochi during March '03, on MGP for Keralam and IT policy for Keralam. The targeted output of the workshop is an alternative MGP programm and Alternative IT policy for Keralam. ATPS (Appropriate Technology Promotion Society - Kochi) is entrusted to organise the workshop. The ATPS is trying for maximum participation in the work shop. Prior to this a discussion on this subject can be started on this subject. Here I submit a draft document prepared by me for initiating a discussion on IT policy for Keralam. Regards, Anil-Kanhangad ATPS DISCUSSION PAPER -------------------------------- History of Science & Technology ----------------------------------------------- Almost all technical advances are response to social, economic demands made entirely in earlier times and some times even now by the craftsmen, themselves working over and improving their traditional skills. Science is a later event, which emerges in recognizable form from common social tradition on crafts, only with the beginning of civilisation. These separate streams of technology and science were run apart from each other in earlier age. The conditions of earlier civilisation led to a division of classes, which put scientists in a privileged class while manual craftsmen were only a grade above slaves. This division and its impact on all walks of life condemned science to sterility and techniques to frequent stagnation, while radical advances came only rarely. These occasional advances partially broke down and there was gradual growth in mutual stimulation of scientist and craftsmen. The recent scientific technical transformation by which modern Information Technology has been evolved is results of such a fusion of Science and Technology. Information Technology Revolution -------------------------------------------------- The Information Technology revolution, as any other historical creative process appear as a consequence of great social, economic and political movements. The period of technical scientific advance which gave birth to modern Information Technology is in full swing for above fifty years. Ignoring these historical facts, Information Technology, which is a collection of techniques for gathering, storing and processing of data and its dissemination as information, which is as old as society itself, is being presented as a new discovery by its new pseudo care-takers. By this continuous and vigorous campaign, Information Technology often termed as mere software and computer hardware technology. These new imposed definition has led Information Technology as facilitation for a group of elite classes, which in turn leads for a so called digital divide in the society where people is divided as information rich and information poor. Information Technology and society ---------------------------------------------------- The relation of IT and society are fully reciprocal, just as transformation are produced inside IT by social events, so have social transformation been brought about through the use of IT. These direct or indirect effects operating on the material frame work of society and on the idea by which it is sustained. The easily seen direct changes are taken to be the main result of IT by most people. But indirect effects are for more important. Though initial growth of IT was a product of economic and political factors, once it is established as means of securing economic and political power, its very existence become a factor in social life. So it is very much essential to study the total impact of IT, on society whether it is manifold, direct or indirect . Judging from the appropriate flexibility of IT as any other technological tool, it can be stated as neutral and it is the purpose for which it is used, is making the difference. Following are the major economic and political compulsion behind the rapid growth of modern Information Technology. --Processing large volume of Information generated within a short time of war related operation for strategic advantage of nations and for extending the control of state over its citizen. --The Information processing needed to monitor and control production cost and setting of large surplus of capitalist production in a dispersed market. IT for Sustainable Development ---------------------------------------------- Bright futures that IT brings to human kind have been described by many of its conventional promoters. They name it Information Society where information and scientific knowledge replaces human labour as main productive force. These future is not going to be that bright or may be even disastrous until and unless the big mass, to whom it ultimately affects, whose jobs will be ultimately replaced, has effectively intervened in the process of making information society with a definite intention of bringing a sustainable development where all sorts of inequalities are narrowed down. But, the current growth of Information Technology is a typical example of cart before bull. New innovations rarely match the sustainable development needs and always focus on elite sections. New IT innovations are the result of a fierce war for larger market share by a few trans-national companies. Major impact of this phenomenon are --It effectively hegemonies technology by providing earlier access to new technology only to interested parties. --It limits the production and availability at low technological, low cost options, preferably most profitable one. Appropriate IT Solution --------------------------------- For financially starved but intellectual rich country like India emergence of IT revolution is taken as good news. But harnessing the full potential of IT requires an aggressive and visionary policy frame work and creative planning and wider participation of its people at large. The current white collar jobs which fills the gap of conventional inefficient information system will be made void by extensive use of IT. However with a vibrant vision and action plan the human power can be diverted to the more productive zones where they can contribute more effectively which are newly created with the advent IT. If the peoples participation in implementation of IT is not ensured, the complete benefits will be taken away by section of the society with vested interest. Now, global market for IT is predominantly western. A less developed economy trying to penetrate in the world market of information technology can thus be effectively contained by the market leaders. The strict intellectual property rights law in some developed countries are already threatening the new innovation in IT sector. Unless one can design an IT solution truly needed for the social and cultural milieu, it may be impossible to develop systems that satisfy the sustainable development needs. It is therefor very much essential to develop our own methodology and techniques in providing IT solution for social needs. Compared to other activities of IT software, hardware and infrastructure cost seems to be at higher level, while its local expertise remains low. However, cost effective solutions such as localy assembled hardware and relatively higher bandwidth of Wireless Local Loop (WILL) which exactly match the rural network need can be considered. In case of software there is a global movement for cost-effective solutions, popularly known as 'free software' which are distributed under General Public License (GPL). With the use of these software local software expertise will increase and cost of software development will be fully distributed for local employment generation. Closed approach of patented software ultimately cause degradation of our existing software expertise. While use of patented software will take away a huge ammount as software cost and license fees by trans-national companies. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Prepared by Anil-Kanhangad K V for ATPS

20 years, 10 months

Re: [fsug-kochi-discuss] Re: {Arun M] Another world is possible

by Dileep M. Kumar

On Mon, Jan 20, 2003 at 08:27:24AM +0530, Ramakrishnan M wrote: >>>According to GNU GPL section 3(b), you are supposed to distribute >>>the sourcecode to any "third party" who requests your code, since >>>you said you are distributing it to customers. I am afraid you are wrong here. GPL'd software need not be open to any third party. ie, If I sell you a GPL'd software I should give you the source also along with the binary. But I need not give your friend the source of same same software till he purchases it. But of-course you can give the source to your friend. :-) Regards -- .''`. Dileep M. Kumar <dileep(a)kumarayil.net> : :' : http://www.kumarayil.net `. `'` `- Debian GNU/Linux - Choice of the Freedom Lovers

20 years, 10 months

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

Fsf-friends January 2003