Hi Sudhir, First of all, I'd try not to use terms like `hijack' with respect to Linux-Delhi. If I had wanted to hijack Linux-Delhi I would have done it a long time ago and you probably wouldn't even have known about it. The whole idea is to keep all the workings of Linux-Delhi as open and transparent as possible. If you can point out one instance where there have been conspiracies going on please let us know. If not, please stop using derogatory terms to make your point, whatever it is.
In response to your Linux vs purely free software question, I could also make counter-allegations about proprietary software people trying to hijack the group for their vested interests. I don't make those allegations: I believe that you are doing what you are doing -- writing and promoting proprietary software -- because you believe in it. That is fine. Every one is entitled to act on his/her beliefs and promote them to the best of his/her ability and intent. On the other hand, I do have some very fundamental questions for this group. Let's see if we can start a process of thinking about these so that we stand clear in our own minds about what we believe in. Firstly, I'd suggest that whoever has not read the GNU Manifesto (http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html) and `Why Software Should Not Have Owners' (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html) should do so now. Software is a resource, and not permitting free dissemination of that resource is, in my mind, an anti-social and unethical activity. Let's take a couple of examples to show what I mean: If you have 100 rupees, the value of that resource is Rs. 100. The amount of wealth represented by that resource is Rs. 100. If you give me Rs. 20 out of that, you are left with Rs 80 and the total amount of wealth represented by the shared resource is still Rs. 100. This is true of all tangible resources and property, whether money, food, land, clothes or computers: sharing tangible resources does not change the amount of wealth in the world. However, when we start discussing intangible resources the situation changes dramatically. How does it do that? Let's suppose you have a piece of software that downloads data from the Internet every morning, figures out where there are traffic jams and tells you the optimal route to reach your office. This software saves you one hour every day. Assuming that your time is worth Rs. 1000 per hour, the value of this software is Rs 1000 per day, Rs. 25000 per month or Rs 3,00,000 per year. The wealth that this software generates, thus, is Rs. 3,00,000 per year. Now you give me a copy of this software so that I can also plan my routes in the morning. Assuming all the other factors remain the same, the software saves me Rs. 3,00,000 per year. So what is the total wealth that this software generates now? Yes, it's suddenly doubled from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs 6 lakhs! The more people that use the software, the more the amount of wealth generated. In other words, when you share software you increase the amount of wealth in the world. This is in sharp contrast to tangible resources, as we saw above. Hence I postulate that not sharing software is anti-social and unethical. Effectively, a person who doesn't share his/her software is saying, `I will reduce the amount of wealth in the world for my own personal gain'. This is not a stance I would like to take. This is not a stance I would advise others to take. Now let's have a look at what free or open source software brings us. In an earlier message I had noted some of the benefits of Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS). These include: - Stability - Features - Security - Efficiency - Freedom from bugs - Excellent support It is quite clear that Linux would not have any of these features if it had been made by a single entity: a corporation. FLOSS offers fantastic benefits to the user specifically because it is FLOSS. This point is so important that I feel justified in repeating it: If Linux weren't free (as in freedom), it would not be as popular and high quality as it is today. No organisation (except maybe a handful) today has the capability to make products like Gnome, KDE, the kernel, Apache and BIND all on its own. These products are at the top of their pyramids precisely because they have been worked upon by a diverse set of programmers from all over the world, who have no deadlines to meet and who consider their work a labour of love rather than a job that they must do to put meals on their tables. Given this, would it not be a bit immature to assume that we can separate the FLOSS development model from the benefits of FLOSS? Is it really possible that we can take a FLOSS product, apply non-FLOSS paradigms to it and continue to reap the benefits of FLOSS? In other words, if we start using proprietary software on Linux, don't we lose the model and hence the benefits that Linux offers? I'd say that the answer is quite clearly Yes. In my opinion, using proprietary software on Linux will only harm Linux, not improve it. You cannot separate the development model of the software from its benefits. Finally, let's take the case of an entity that is making proprietary software for Linux. One of the reasons I don't use MS is because I refuse to be under the control of a single corporation. If I am under that control, it means that a number of my freedoms are taken away: - The freedom to remove features from the software - The freedom to add features in the software - The freedom to fix bugs in the software - The freedom to be sure that the software does not have any hidden backdoors - The freedom from one company's licensing policies - The freedom to continue to use and upgrade the software even after the company that created the software doesn't exist any more. Yes, the last one is important too. Just imagine the plight of all the Windows users in the world, say 3 years down the line, if Microsoft didn't exist any more. Where would they go? What would they do? Who'd provide them security patches? Who would support them? Anyone who uses proprietary software cannot have any of the freedoms listed above. Here are some questions that any software vendor must be able to answer before you buy any software from him: if your company goes under tomorrow, where will I get support and upgrades from? How can I be sure that your software does not steal my sensitive data and do unethical things with it? How can I ensure that your software doesn't have coding errors? In other words, how can I be sure that your software works and continues to work? The reason many of us speak out against MS is because MS embodies the proprietary software world. They produce buggy software with backdoors. Their software doesn't work as it's supposed to. They change their licensing policies whenever they want. Their latest patch automatically forces you to accept MS' intrusion into your system. Of course, if you face any proprietary software vendor with these facts s/he will immediately reply, `Oh, but WE wouldn't do that to our customers!' I presume that if someone had asked MS the same questions 10 years earlier they would have given an identical reply :-) What I am against is not MS but what MS represents: bad proprietary software that takes away the users' freedoms. Instead of being your tool to help you do your job, proprietary software ends up becoming the software vendors' tool to take money out of your pocket and freedom out of your life. Promoting another proprietary software company just to kill MS is thus an exercise in futility. It's like one of those demons: when you cut off one head another 10 heads spring up in its place. Instead of fighting MS and replacing one proprietary software demon with a thousand proprietary software demons, should we not just go past the demon altogether into the world of free software? When I helped start this group it was to discuss and promote these ideas amongst all of us. I appreciate that what I've said so far is only my own point of view, even if it is shared by a number of others, both in this group and outside. However, finally it is the group that must decide the direction in which it wants to go. If it is not the same direction as the one I'm going in, that's fine: we can go our own ways amicably and without strife. To me freedom is more important than anything else, and I will not stand by and give my blessings while it is being trampled upon. Regards, -- Raju >>>>> "Sudhir" == Sudhir Gandotra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Sudhir> First of all, I have changed the subject of this Sudhir> discussion and I hope the writer will not mind that. Sudhir> There has been a very long discussion in the Delhi LUG Sudhir> meetings and mails on the topic of what should be Sudhir> discussed (everything that is Linux based, or just the Sudhir> open-source software based). This lead to a voting and Sudhir> the result was overwhelming in the favour of "Everything Sudhir> that is Linux based". 26 Votes versus 5 votes. Having Sudhir> settled this, although people on the other side (free Sudhir> software only) did try to hijack the discussion and the Sudhir> group, but it seems that the group is settling down to the Sudhir> decision taken. I say this, because, finally, in the last Sudhir> meeting, there were two presentations on subjects that Sudhir> were commercial and proprietory. So, that aspect is Sudhir> settled. Sudhir> To me, and obviously when we go by the voting results, to Sudhir> the overwhelming majority in the LUG, it is of interest Sudhir> that LINUX grows and that it grows to become the number Sudhir> one Operating System - not just for some consultants to Sudhir> earn money, but for atleast the majority of users, be they Sudhir> at home, office or enterprise -. Linux has that capability Sudhir> and the world deserves for this capability to be aptly Sudhir> exposed and available and used. We all know very well the Sudhir> benefits that Linux gives to users and so I am not Sudhir> repeating them here. Sudhir> For this to happen, LUGs have an important role to play Sudhir> and at times members here have wondered whether the Delhi Sudhir> LUG is a voluntary group belonging to all the members or Sudhir> just a small group that is trying to hijack Linux and make Sudhir> the group to be "free software group". Sudhir> As it came in the "heated discussions", both these aspects Sudhir> (everything Linux and Free software) can be together as Sudhir> part of the group. But, ofcourse, if those who want a Sudhir> "separate and pure free software group", they have the Sudhir> full liberty to form one. But, in that case, they have no Sudhir> right to hijack the Linux Users Group (the Delhi LUG) and Sudhir> they will have to form their own separate group, calling Sudhir> it whatever they like. But, this issue, has been well Sudhir> settled and I hope they will not try to manipulate things Sudhir> further. I say this setence, because, in the meeting of Sudhir> January 2003, this manipulation was attempted again. One Sudhir> also notices that since the meeting of August 2002 (when Sudhir> this issue of everything Linux or only Free software was Sudhir> started), the minutes of the meetings have not been posted Sudhir> to the group or to the website. This can be seen as Sudhir> another attempt to hide things that are not comfortable to Sudhir> some people (who got just 5 votes against the overwhelming Sudhir> majority of 26 votes). Sudhir> I for one, am for coexistance and reconciliation. I am Sudhir> clear that both these streams can coexist. But, on the Sudhir> other hand, I will put all my efforts to see that Linux is Sudhir> not hijacked. There were attempts at Kolkata also - Sudhir> during the seminar on Linux organised by COMPASS Sudhir> (organisers of the IT fair, on 24 Jan 2003), but more of Sudhir> that later. Sudhir> I hope, as time passes, we, as LUG will grow to become a Sudhir> more and more cohesive team, working together, as much as Sudhir> each one can contribute, towards the cause of Freedom that Sudhir> Linux so well carries ahead. It is important to realise Sudhir> that LUG is not owned by any individual and if someone Sudhir> tries to that, he/she will only be insulting others and Sudhir> hence will be bound to get back a strong kick from them Sudhir> all - because "people do react to insults" and specially Sudhir> when they are all putting their efforts as volunteers. Sudhir> [snip] -- Raj Mathur [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://kandalaya.org/ It is the mind that moves ================================================ To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe in subject header. Check archives at http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd%40wpaa.org
