---------- Forwarded message ----------
Tere Vad�n
Professor, Hypermedialab
University of Tampere
The possibilities that Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS)
offers for development in information and communications technology
(ICT), in general, and for the developing countries, in particular, have
recently gained increasing attention and importance. The following report
provides encouraging examples of the role FLOSS has already had or can
have in the developing countries and developmental co-operation. The
reason for the increased attention is simple: the philosophy, economy and
software development model of FLOSS have in the past 20 years or so made
an ineradicable impact on how information technology is conceptualised,
used and developed. Since FLOSS does not rely on concepts like
intellectual property or copyright but rather on concepts of voluntary
co-operation and copyleft ("copyright turned around"), it has been seen
as an ideal tool for bridging the so-called digital divides. What has
made an even stronger impression on some researchers has been the fact
that in the case of FLOSS fun and ethics seem to travel hand in hand, at
least part of the way. The developers of FLOSS, the hackers, often
"scratch their own itch", that is, do what is fun. It appears that in
most cases this fun can be had only if the software the hackers are
interested in having fun with is free and open. The background
motivations that the hackers have for engaging in FLOSS development can,
indeed, be quite varied, and still the result contributes to a freely
distributable, modifiable and usable pool of good quality software. For
instance, the philosophical and social motivations of the Free Software
movement and the Open Source movement are quite different, even
antithetical at places, but the movements can still share-and-share-alike
when it comes to creating software that excels in its technical
qualities. It seems that this kind of co-operation is precisely what
bridging the digital divides on the software side needs. The question of
whether ICT development is necessary or whether it should be prioritised
when it comes to countries that have severe problems with providing for
the basic needs of their citizens may be debated. It seems clear,
however, that if and when ICT development is, for instance, a part of
developmental co-operation, the basic concepts and day-to-day practises
of using and developing FLOSS offer a footing that may be used with
benefit.
Because the background motivations for creating and using FLOSS are
varied, the arguments for FLOSS are also diverse. They range from the
purely technical (e.g. speed of development, security and privacy,
technological independence, ease of use) to the deeply economic, social,
political and philosophical (e.g. price, co-operation, equality,
commitment to the right to know). This spectrum of arguments can be
stratified by thinking about the different levels on which digital
information has an impact. Underlying all the discussions on ICT and its
effect on the emerging information societies is the fact that by its
nature information is different from material things. Information is
abstract in the sense that giving or sharing information does not
diminish the amount of information that the giver or sharer has.
Furthermore, the reproduction and copying of information can be done with
much less cost than the reproduction and copying of material goods. These
characterisations of the nature of information can be captured in the
phrase "Information can be free". As a means of production and exchange,
information is different from material things in that it can be free; as
a resource, information is non-rivalrous. The different kind of "being"
that information has compared to the "being" of material things means
that the sharing of information is in its ontological nature unlike the
sharing of material goods: this is the sense in which information "can"
be free.
The next level of argumentation is crystallised in the rallying-cry of
hackerdom: "Information wants to be free". Information wants to be free
in the sense that information, e.g. computer software, as a tool is made
better if it is free. This is the level of argument that the Open Source
movement emphasises. The development of good quality software is faster
and more efficient if the source code of the software is open and if
everyone potentially interested in the code is free to contribute to the
development. As a means to an end, software is best developed if it is
free. The so-called Linus' Law, after the Linux-hacker Linus Torvalds, is
often cited in this context: "Given enough eyeballs all bugs are
shallow". The global society of hackers has through the internet
harnessed its pool of skills and interests in a distributed working model
that has produced software at a pace that has defied all economic theory
and continues to baffle computer scientists. Software as a tool makes
best progress when it is free. Therefore it wants to be free; its goal as
a tool is to be free.
Information technology as a means is, of course, used towards some
ends. The use and development of technology is embedded in practises and
cultures. It is obvious that technology in general and information
technology in particular are not culturally neutral: a given type of
technology use and development always favours or disfavours different
types of social arrangements. In the case of FLOSS, the position of the
Free Software movement is formulated through considering the ends to
which software contributes. From this viewpoint, the question to be asked
about different models of using and developing software is what kind of
society does this or that model promote. Like Richard M. Stallman, the
founder of the Free Software movement, has emphasised, the goal of the
Free Software movement is to create a society based on co-operation,
equality and sharing, therefore software is instrumental only if it is
free. Software can be a means to the end of a co-operative and ethically
sound society only if it is free in the sense of free speech; even
openness of the source code is not enough. This third level of viewing
software through its social and political goals can be expressed in the
slogan "Information ought to be free". The social commitment to
supporting and creating a society that is not a jungle but a co-operative
whole implies an ethical commitment to the freedom of information.
This third level of argument can be augmented. Following Aristotle,
we may see the goals towards which we are striving as finalities, as
goals-in-themselves that do not require any further motivation.
Finalities do not require motivation, they are the motivation that give
shape to the tools, practises and social arrangements that embody the
finalities. It is this level of commitment that often means taking extra
effort. In this sense the (ethical) commitment to certain finalities can
also be quite different from having fun, or from the technical
considerations that have to do with the properties of software seen
purely as a tool. For instance, democracy is often seen as a finality.
Even though democracy might be inefficient and costly, the extra effort
is worth taking, because of the ethical and social goods that democracy
includes. Democracy is worth it for its own sake. This level of
motivation applies also to FLOSS, even though it can not be easily
captured in a phrase. Maybe the verb "x" describing this fourth level of
finalities in the phrase "Information 'x' be free" would have to combine
the senses of the verbs "can", "wants to", "ought to" and "will".
It is also through this fourth level of argumentation that we reach
one of the crucial questions that the so-called developed countries face
when it comes to the use of FLOSS in developmental co-operation. The
global trend towards an "information society" gives an increasing role to
information, knowledge and other immaterial assets in production.
Therefore the economy is also seeking ways of controlling, identifying
and using immaterial assets. This happens largely through the concept of
intellectual property. In economic terms, the notion of intellectual
property and the connected immaterial property rights are a way of
regulating free markets, setting up limited monopolies in the name of
economic incentive for innovation and creativity. This
mega-company-driven trend towards an increasingly tight "intellectual
property" regime conflicts squarely with all the above verbs. If
information is made into property, it can not, will not and should not be
free.
Taken to its extreme, the notion that information or knowledge is
owned and that its use should be controlled by the "owners" becomes
absurd. An infant either has to be taught that information is owned or
otherwise remains ignorant of the fact. In both cases information freely
shared is the basis on which the ownership of information can be based.
The absurdity can be seen in the following scenario: if all information
is proprietary, then the information that information is proprietary is
proprietary, too, and I can choose to stay ignorant of that information.
As with material property, intellectual property relies on the goodwill
of non-proprietary social functions and arrangements. Therefore its
beneficiality is not a given.
Through this perspective it is obvious that a very strict regime of
intellectual property will lead to increased fragmentation and the
unbalanced division of wealth in the world. It would not be too extreme
to claim that certain forms and applications of so-called intellectual
property rights are a way of protecting the "firstness" of the "first"
world against the interests of the other worlds. At its worst, the
concept of intellectual property works in ways that are analogous to the
colonialising effects that the concept of material property has had in
the previous centuries. It has always been known that "intellectual
property laws" can be a hindrance to economic development. This was the
reason why the United States decided not to recognise European copyrights
and patents in the 19th century. It is very likely that following a
tight regime of intellectual property rights will be an obstacle to the
economic development of the developing countries today, too. Therefore it
is essential that the legislative system and the policies of the "first"
world will allow for intellectual and software freedom.
When it comes to information technology, the task is to create a
balanced environment for innovation, both social and technological. It is
a well-known fact that things like software patents and the idea of
"trusted computing" seriously threaten the possibility of FLOSS
development. Therefore it is extremely troubling to see how a strong
big-industry lobby is pushing the legislation and its interpretation in
the "first" world towards an increasingly biased and restrictive
direction. Software patents have already become a burden on FLOSS
development and the innovation of small and medium-sized software
companies in the US, and currently the EU is thinking about having a
software patent legislation of its own. Software patents are a good
example of "intellectual property rights" that are not only harmful to
FLOSS in the "first" world but also to the use of FLOSS in developmental
co-operation. A healthy global information society needs a political and
legal environment that gives possibilities to both independent FLOSS type
development and proprietary software development. Shutting one or the
other out will only aggravate the existing digital divides.
From the point of view of finalities the question is: "What is
information technology for?" Answering this "why" question can give
sustainable form to the "how" questions. For instance, economic and
cultural "whys" may give different weights to different factors.
Globalisation as a narrowly defined economic trend and the creation of a
particular type of information society push towards a strict intellectual
property regime. This, however, does not mean that intellectual property
as a concept or as a practice systematically favours equality, democracy
or development - quite the contrary. Intellectual property rights might,
in principle, protect the livelihood of indigenous populations and local
cultural endeavours, but in practice they next to never do. This is
because established organisations, institutions and companies have an
upper hand when it comes to interpreting the concept and enforcing the
laws that codify it. "First" world countries like Finland can therefore
advance the creation of a global sustainable information society by
giving enough weight to social and ethical issues in the legislative
framework that partly creates the international information environment.
Especially so because there are also strong economic arguments that speak
in favour of free markets and against the restrictions in terms of
"intellectual property".
The use of FLOSS is motivated through concepts like freedom,
independence and swantantra. These concepts have at the same time their
economic, technical and cultural meanings. Freedom and independence in
all of these senses are finalities, goals in themselves and in that sense
very well in line with the ideals of a global sustainable information
society. Making grand ideals like this happen is, of course, always a
complicated thing. However, to be fair, FLOSS is not a dream, but a
rapidly growing reality that has several success stories in its track
record. As noted above, FLOSS is no one thing, either. There are
different sets of philosophical underpinnings, different models of
development, different technological options and so on. There is no
reason to downplay the internal variation of FLOSS or the different
options in building an information society. The proof of the pudding is
in the eating, and the proof of the bridge is in the crossing. Let us
attend to the details.
Introduction
During the last couple of years the use of Free/Libre Open Source
Software (FLOSS) has gathered momentum, which has surprised its
proponents and opponents alike. Looking at the figures, it would not be
an exaggeration to say that the Internet is powered by FLOSS.1 (See.
David Wheeler - Why OSS/FS?)
Given such a huge spread in the use of FLOSS and its very significant
economic impact, the questions arising from the perspective of
development aid and sustainable development are: Does FLOSS offer
developing countries any significant alternative in addressing crucial
problems, such as the alleviation of poverty, the democratization of
society, the reduction of illiteracy, conflict reduction, access to
knowledge, dealing with natural calamities and other emergencies, etc.?
Does FLOSS have the potential to help bridge the digital divide?
In our view, the answers to most of the above questions is a
definite YES, but without attributing some magic wand status to any
technology, especially Information and Communications Technologies (ICT),
including FLOSS.
The solutions to the problems facing developing countries are very
complex, and ICT and FLOSS can at best provide a helping hand to humans
determined to solve those problems. Lacking the political will and social
forces necessary to solve problems, any technology is just another tool
which may throw us into *techno-optimism*, that is, the belief that
*future economic prosperity is dependent upon the rapid development of
national electronic infrastructures* without actually meaningfully
solving the burning problems facing the developing world.
Commenting on the role and impact of Bangalore, capital of the Indian
state of Karnataka, and that country's foremost hi-tech centre, noted
economist and Nobel laureate Dr. Amartya Sen2 said: *New centres of
excellence such as Bangalore can prosper and flourish. Yet even 100
Bangalores would not solve India*s poverty and deep-seated inequality.
For this to happen, many more people must participate in growth. This
will be difficult to achieve across the barriers of illiteracy, ill
health and inequalities in social and economic opportunities.* (from The
Oxfam Education Report Chapter 1)3
Already at this stage, we should note that the present study is not an
economics-based one. The team responsible for it lack expertise in
economics, and is not making any significant claims regarding the impact
of ICT on economies. Having said that, we can still refer to a number of
studies and views which actually show that there is no direct link
between computers and productivity. For instance, World Bank economist
Charles Kenny, in his well argumented paper at a WIDER conference on New
Economy in May 2002,4 believes that the **Solow paradox*5 * widespread
evidence of computer use, little evidence of (widespread) productivity
growth * continues, at least in modified form.*
Warning against techno-optimism and pinning too many hopes on the
Internet and ICT, Kenny notes: *The Internet is a powerful technology
that will have a long-term impact on the quality of life in developing
countries* and *Having said that, our record in predicting the dynamic
impact of technologies on development in the past has been very weak. To
take three communications-related examples, the railway was predicted to
spark the dictatorship of the proletariat, the telegraph was predicted to
engender world peace and the television to revolutionize education.
Broadly, it appears that even while the role of technology in economic
growth cannot be questioned, the dynamic impact of a particular, invented
technology is never very large. It looks increasingly as if the impact of
the computer on US productivity will be a good example of this. The
impact has been limited so far, and might not increase in the future.*
(Charles Kenny: The Internet and Economic Growth in Least Developed
Countries. A Case of Managing Expectations?)6.
At the same time, however, we can note that ICT, or rather thelack of
it, does significantly impede access to information and knowledge for a
vast majority of developing countries, especially their academic and
educational institutions, students, government officials, economic and
financial institutions, businesses, etc.
The main objective of this report has been to analyse the significance
and relevance of FLOSS for developing countries.i In doing so, we have
tried to take a brief look at the the overall use of ICT and FLOSS,
especially at some of its most significant and popular software, such as
GNU/Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Open Office etc, as well as its possible
impact on the societies, lives, and economies of the people of those
countries.
As noted earlier, our focus in this study is more on the wider impact
of ICT and FLOSS on societies than on economics. That is why we have
tried to look at a number of issues which hinder a more widespread use of
ICT in general and FLOSS in particular in most of the developing world.
Keeping in mind a host of social, political and economic factors,
especially the overall huge cost of employing ICT (compounded in most
cases by hard currency shortages), we contend that FLOSS offers an
affordable and useful alternative to proprietary software for all the
concerned parties in those countries: governments, public institutions,
education, NGOs and the private sector.
Another objective has been to evaluate projects which utilise FLOSS
technologies and to see whether they have any significant impact on the
democratization of countries, increased access to knowledge, enhancing
the quality of education, andaiding sustainable development. We have
tried to achieve that objective by going beyond the purely technical
merits and use of FLOSS and look instead at the very nature of FLOSS (its
philosophy of freedom, openness, community activation and collaborative
nature) as well as make a link between FLOSS and any developmental effort
dependant upon humans determined to solve problems.
We let the reader determine if we have succeeded in achieving those
objectives. We can only reiterate that FLOSS and developing countries
make a great partnership.
Helsinki, 28th February 2003
