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