Re: [PubSoft] [rms@gnu.org: Nonprofits and free software]

Dear Richard,

a few comments from the front line in Vietnam ;)

In Vietnamese, there is no ambiguity about "free", i.e. there are two very
different words for "free of charge" and "having freedom".

Furthermore, like the French have their "egalité - liberté - fraternité",
the Vietnamese have "Independence - Freedom - Happiness" since long time as
the official state slogan. It appears on every official document. I
therefore thought, that we should push for the use of "Free Software".

However, recent "discoveries" make me think again.

First, one has to know, that the understanding of the idea of a "license"
is close to zero here. People "buy" MS Office on a CD-ROM for around 50
cents. Paper copies of printed books are also available for very low
prices. TV (until recently) broadcast own recordings of foreign Satellite
TV. Music performers can make a fortune, while the composers of the used
music don't get a single penny for their work. A programmer might release a
tool as freeware, without any accompanying license - or even the thought
that something like that might be necessary.

To comprehend the meaning of "Free Software" needs a certain level of
abstract thinking, and to know the background. If you tell a somebody, who
has never heard of the Free Software Movement, that a certain piece of SW
is "Free Software", he might associate it, that he can use it for whatever
he likes, but not much more. If he hears "Open Source", that is much more
clear.

The result: Most programmers in Vietnam associate "Free Software" with "I
can do what I want - including change the name, "close it", and claim
ownership", but not "I have to make it free again". There exist e.g.
translations of Linux packages (RedHat), of OpenOffice, etc. but the
companies which did the translation are very reluctant to release the
source again - if they are willing at all to do it. If you go on the
website of the packages (e.g. OpenOffice.org), you won't find e.g. the
Vietnamese version.

If you complain, that their release is not Free Software anymore, they will
reply: "Of course it is. You can copy it, use it, don't need to pay me,
etc. I don't care!" If you complain, that it is not Open Source anymore,
they will have to admit it. The term "Open Source" is quite self-explaining
(even if it misses out to name the benefits), while "Free Software" is not
(without having some understanding of licenses, knowing the GPL and the
backgrounds of the Free Software movement).

Therefore, especially since it is not only about what to use, but also what
to produce, I tend right now to think that campaigning for "Open Source
Software" is here much more easy than to campaign for "Free Software". And
the benefits in the end are pretty much the same in our situation.

My 300 Vietnamese Dong (about 0.02 cents) on that issue.

Best Regards from Hanoi,
Stefan

PS: FYI: Since the predecessor of this list was more intended for practical
actions than theoretical discussions, we choose the term "Public Software",
with "Public" like "Public Good", which includes not only Software, but
also standards and interfaces.

At 22:09 21.01.2003 -0500, Rohan Amin wrote:
-------------------------

>----- Forwarded message from Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> -----
>
>Delivered-To: rohan@rohanamin.com
>From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
>To: rohan@rohanamin.com
>cc: pubsoft@isoc.org, fred@bytesforall.org
>Subject: Nonprofits and free software
>Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2003 13:16:36 -0500
>
>[I am not on the pubsoft list, so perhaps I cannot post to it.
>If you don't see this message come out on the list, would one
>of you please forward it there?]
>
>If your aim is to appeal to non-profit organizations,
>organizations that normally have an idealistic goal,
>why use the anti-idealistic term "open source"?
>
>The Open Source Movement was started in 1998 as a reaction against the
>idealism of the Free Software Movement. Our purpose in developing the
>GNU operating system was so we could have the freedom to cooperate.
>In the 90s, our free software developed a reputation for being
>powerful and reliable so much that millions began using it for those
>reasons alone. They started the Open Source Movement as a way to talk
>about our software while allowing our ideals to be forgotten.
>
>That movement deliberately avoids saying that users are entitled to
>the freedom to share and change the software they use. They only say
>that it is a way to develop powerful, reliable software. The software
>they develop contributes to our community, but they don't teach people
>to value freedom, and that leaves the community weak.
>
>It's understandable why corporations and corporate-friendly
>governments typically use the term "open source": they are not
>interested in encouraging the spirit of freedom. But it would make
>much more sense for your organization to talk about "free software".
>Surely you don't want to help the corporations co-opt our work.
>
>See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html for
>more explanation of the difference between the two movements.
>
>----- End forwarded message -----
>_______________________________________________
>PubSoft mailing list
>PubSoft@isoc.org
>http://www.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/pubsoft

To facilitate co-ordination regarding the introduction of OSS SW in Vietnam

Subscribe to OSS:

Subscribe | Unsubscribe