----- Original Message -----
From: "Georg C. F. Greve" <greve@fsfeurope.org>
To: <plenary@wsis-cs.org>
Cc: <wsis-pct@fsfeurope.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2003 8:52 PM
Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Demarginalize Free Software
Hi all,
in the scope of the United Nations World Summit of the Information
Society (WSIS), Free Software in both its philosophy and its potential
has been throughly marginalized and -- as all of us know -- is in
danger of disappearing entirely.
Several aspects seem responsible for this and it seems we must realize
that we partially brought that upon ourselves.
Free Software is remarkable for the freedom it brings and is itself
defined through four freedoms: The freedom to run a program for any
purpose, the freedom to study a program and adapt it to your own
purpose, the freedom to copy a program and the freedom to pass along
modifications. [1]
In the case of compiled programming languages, access to the source
code is a precondition to make use of two of these four freedoms.
This became essential in 1998 when a group of people in the United
States suggested using "Open Source" as a marketing term for Free
Software. [2] Because they felt it was counterproductive to fast
commercialization, their approach was to deny software any political,
social, ethical or philosophical consideration.
They suggested to concentrate on the technical advantages only.
This spawned the terminology "Open Source development model,"
modifying the perception of Free Software towards being a technical
development model only, not the change in paradigm that it truly is.
This perception was used quite effectively in the WSIS process by some
countries -- e.g. the United States of America -- first denying Free
Software larger impact by referring to it as "Open Source development
model" and later trying to write it out of the WSIS documents almost
entirely.
Because if it is a technical development model only, there are many
others equally valid technical development models. Also it becomes a
non-political issue that is usually left to "market driven
mechanisms."
The freedom that Free Software brings is lost entirely in this kind of
perception. [3]
By using the "Open Source" terminology, civil society its undermining
its own position.
Some have argued for and used for "Free and Open Source" or similar
phrasings. I think that is not a very good idea.
As you know, "Open Source" was started as a marketing synonym for Free
Software. So at best, the term is redundant -- and unnecessary
duplicity is normally no good idea. In this case it seems quite clear
it isn't.
But what we see already today is that the term "Open Source" is used
for many different things and in many different ways, only one of
which is Free Software. The others do not bring freedom.
In fact, Microsoft has been arguing that their "Governmental Security
Program" (GSP), where governments can go to a dark room in a Microsoft
building, look at some code (not all of it), was a kind of Open
Source.
That is an expensive cosmetic privilege: not only can they not look at
all code, there is also no hope they could go through the whole code
and finally they don't know that what they have been looking at is
what they are using on their computers. But most importantly: it does
not give them any freedom.
The term "Open Source" is fuzzy at best.
Taking this into account, it means that the redundant terminology is
quite dangerous.
In the future, people will argue that since people wrote "Free and
Open Source," they must have meant "Open Source" to be something else
than "Free Software" because otherwise the statement can be translated
to "Free Software and Free Software," which makes no sense.
At that point, Open Source will be interpreted in some way that is not
Free Software -- how exactly it is to be interpreted seems unclear,
but it will definitely not be free.
So by speaking about "Free and Open Source Software" we effectively
are risking to open the back door for proprietary software companies
to take advantage of all the statements put in for Free Software,
voiding our efforts.
The suggestion therefore is to as a general rule speak about Free
Software -- or Libre Software if one wants to adopt EU lingo -- and
avoid Open Source.
Moreover, we still need to counter the "development model" idea that
was brought forward. The best suggestion I have for this is to speak
specifically of the "Free Software paradigm."
That way we can communicate we are referring not only to some
technical model but rather a new paradigm to build the information
society upon that will allow freedom, equality, competition and
informational self-determination.
Regards,
Georg
[1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
[2] http://www.opensource.org/advocacy/faq.html:
How is "open source" related to "free software"?
The Open Source Initiative is a marketing program for free
software. It's a pitch for "free software" on solid pragmatic
grounds rather than ideological tub-thumping. The winning
substance has not changed, the losing attitude and symbolism
have. See the discussion of marketing for hackers for more. [...]
[3] As a result, usually it is not taken into account that software is
what the information age is to be built upon -- it is the medium
we operate with and in and it shapes the form of the digital
domain.
Quoting Lawrence Lessig: code is law.
The recent troubles in Germany with the EUCD have provided a
demonstration of this for the private copy (fair use) regulations.
Code can make rights inaccessible even though they have never been
formally revoked. Free Software provides the best protection
against this known so far.
Unless Free Software becomes a strong and guiding principle, we
run the risk of undermining a lot of the work we have done in the
other WSIS areas.
--
Georg C. F. Greve <greve@fsfeurope.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org)
GNU Business Network (http://mailman.gnubiz.org)
Brave GNU World (http://brave-gnu-world.org)
attatchment (application/octet-stream) ignored