New subject: {V Sasikumar] Another world is possible

21 Jan 2003

You have wrote,
...
  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. 
OSS is considered with moral and ethical issues raised by GPL. OSS is really 
sharing its sotfware with the community who reqiure it. We realised its 
advantage. If our customer could not  be able to make head or tail out of the 
source code, they defenitely will approach the nearest approachable software 
worker. If our project is funded by a social body, we could have share it 
with community for free of cost. Since it did not happen, we have to share it 
with community for a price.

...
  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? 
OSS do not think that our market will be affected by spreading of source code. 
But  our policy is that development of a sotware solution is achieved through
 manpower and infrastructure  utilisation. Our members are not like Sunday
 Congress members. (During the earlier stage of freedom struggle bureaucratic
 members of Indian National Congress meet only on Sundays, Other days they
 used to work for British rule and they used to blame regular congress 
members). As we are full time activists of GPL'ed software. we have to sell
 and service on solutions developed by us.

If the price offered by OSS is unaffordable, they can approach our customer.
Same was the advise we have given to Nest when they approached us. Now for
Mayyanad Service Co-op bank Nest has given the same quotation as ours. They
might have received it from some of our customer. OSS is not at all bothered
of re-distributing the product by its customer under GPL. But as a society we 
cannot provide our product free of cost. Our policy is distribute it under 
GPL for a price.

Here is the lists of customers of ShanghaMithra for convenience interested
parties.
--P&T Employees Credit Society, Ernakulam
--Central Excise Employees Credit Co-operative Society,
--Malayidamthuruthu Service co-operative bank, Ernakulam
--P&T Employees Credit Society, Palakkad
--Parakkadavu Service Co-Operative Bank, Ernakulam
--Mattanchery Mahajanik Co-operative Urban Bank, Ernakulam
--Government Employees Co-operative society, Kollam
--Pothukal Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malappuram
--P&T Employees Credit Society, Thrissoor
--P&T Employees Credit Society, Aalapuzha
--Pattitthara Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Malappuram

...
  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. 
I think there is no one-to-one correlation between software and
non-environmental friendly projects. So there is no comparison between them.
Cost-effectiveness is essentially a prime requirement for a financially
backward community. But Cost-effectiveness claimed for a non-environmental
friendly projects  are pseudo claim. If we are taken into consideration of
environmental costs it is hardly affordable.

You may please list all the cost implications those are to be taken into
consideration when a software is distributed under GPL but not strictly
following your version of ethics of so called free software.

Regards,

Anil
ATPS

-------------------------------------------------------

Re:{V Sasikumar] Another world is possible