I read the article titled "Groping in the dark ... ", by Frederick Noronha, in LINUX For You, November 2003, and thought some light should be thrown. Sorry, there are no links to the article on the world wide web.
The we-don't-need-to-promote-FLOSS attitude can lull everyone into a
false sense
of over-confidence. People who could have used this technology
effectively simply
don't get a chance to. ... the FLOSS fold has a special responsibility.
Free software was born out of the need and necessity to break free from the tyranny and obstacles of proprietary software. Right from its inception, the expression Free Software has meant a negation of all that constituted proprietary software. Software can be intelligibly classified only as free or proprietary, where each class clearly and fully negates the other.
The expression FLOSS was used in a survey and study financed under the European Commission's IST programme, which did a case study of Free/Libre Open Source Software, and the work done is available at http://www.infonomics.nl/FLOSS . The FLOSS study was started on June 1, 2001 and terminated on October 31, 2002. The concept of sharing which is innate and elementary in the free software movement, was researched by elaborate questionnaires! The FLOSS study report, while referring to PostgreSQL, says "it is mainly deployed in private use and projects not involving mission-critical business operations", which is plainly wrong. Several goverments and entities are developing live projects using PostgreSQL, that has a rich set of functions not available in even commercial database servers. The "FLOSS survey and study" is a gloss, when all relevant material is already available at www.gnu.org and www.opensource.org. Is FLOSS a technology? The expression FLOSS was used in the emperical study to refer to Free/Libre Open Source Software generally, and cannot be called a "technology". Even if the FLOSS study and report are useful to the European Commission, and to others, it would be no reason to use the expression FLOSS to refer to Free Software.
If a new group props up from the community, calling Free Software as Public Software, reasoning that "public" is the best word to convey the intent of GPL, then would there be another study group, that surveys Free/Libre Open Public Source Software - FLOPSS? Would we then seek to replace FLOSS with FLOPSS? This would be endess and meaningless.
We need to gracefully accept the historical background that led to the free software movement, and avoid inventing new expressions to maintain clarity and stay focused on the deeper goals and intents of Free Software. Some people freely dip into the Free Software Directory to meet needs, but openly refuse to give credit, or use the expression free software, which is only unfair.
The good thing about the meet is that it's [a symposium in Singapore] trying to network all the FLOSS initiatives in this part of the globe
and put
together a more reliable picture of what's hapenning
At present, we can check into globally accessible servers, and download, use, modify, improve, and distribute free software. If spreading the use of free software is itself seen as a project, it would be ideal to adopt the same methods adopted to develop free software, by commencing a project at savannah or sourceforge, so that there can be global access and robust practices evolve. It may be a mere shell script that will download relevant software, and install the same in the user's server and this could keep count and create feedback channels. There are no sound reasons for isolating software use from software development, as both are essentially two sides of the same coin. If Asian projects on i18n, l10n, etc are operated from a few well known CVS foundries, then even persons with access to the internet, living in even remote villages, who clearly understand what is happening can make contributions that are globally relevant. Free software movement has incidentally promoted the principle of equality like never before.
Mastering technology is good but it's more important to be
large-hearted when it comes to sharing it
I hope that this is a reference to our friends who work for proprietary software. Quite obviously, free software is the ultimate in sharing, and it would be crude to accuse people who have contributed towards free software of not being large-hearted.
We could well convert this into a small self-serving club that doesn't
grow ...
A friend sent me a copy of Tarka Samgraha by Anambhatta, with its expository gloss on ancient Indian epistemology usually called Nyaya [Realism] + Vaisesika [Atomistic Pluralism]. The Indian works on logic were born, not through any gentle flaming, but through an intense burning desire to get to truth. Modern India's motto is a phrase from the Mundaka Upanishad: Sathyameva Jayethe, translated as "Truth Triumphs". The Upanishads are seen as a clear strarting point for studies on logic, and further works on the methods of arriving at the truth by reasoning developed and evolved gradually. The Nyaya Sutras were written by Gautama. The Vaisesika Sutras were by Kanada. Vatsyayana was the first author who explained the entire scheme of Indian epistemology, however, globally better known today for his Kama Sutra. The Tarka Samgraha is a dipika or commentary on the original older works. The Tarka translation in hand was rendered by Swami Virupakshananda of the Ramakrishna Math, Chennai. The opening quotation is: "Logic and grammar are indispensable aids for every branch of Knowledge". AI applications, even today, do not give grammar the importance it deserves.
Long before Stephens drafted the Evidence Act in 1872, we had several works, dealing scientifically and comprehensively with primary evidence, verbal testimony, inference, deduction and these works were actually used in every day life.
Nachiketa <-at the doorstep of-> Death, Gautama, Kanada, Vatsyayana, Anambhatta are a few names I have listed here, as associated with Indian epistemology. Now, could we call them as "self-serving" individuals who affixed their names to their works? Their works stand on their own, and we will carry forward the memory of the author along with the work, only if we accept their value. I am convinced they are an invaluable source, atleast, to improve my own Calpp: aided legal procedures and proceedings project. Calpp is the mission of my life, and I make no bones about it. The Calpp project could be seen as self-serving its author Ramanraj, but it could also be seen as serving real human needs. We will gain and grow a lot when Indian epistemology is available as part of free software.
Section VII, of the Tarka Samgraha dealing with valid verbal testimony says: "Significative potency is the desire that a certain concept be understood from a certain word."
Viewed from this angle, RMS, the founder of the free software movement desired the world to break free from proprietary licences and initiated the free software movement. The whole philosophy and concepts behind the movement stand elegantly loaded on the expression "free software". I hope that all of us can see the significance of the free software movement, and voluntarily use the expression "free software" instead of other expressions.
Regards, K. Ramanraj.
Sometimes there are activities that want to be neutral between the free software movement and the open source movement; to recognize both but not take a side. I often suggest they say FLOSS.
But we advocates of free software should say "free software".
Please refer to a legislative Bill of South Australia available at http://www.linuxsa.org.au/oss-bill/open-source-bill.pdf [extract given at the bottom of this posting]
Most of the operative words in the State Supply (Procurement of Software) Amendment Bill 2003 Bill would be very familiar to RMS and those in the free software movement for a long time, and are found in the GNU Project documentation. If the first and last lines of clause 17A(2) use the expression "free software" instead of "open source", it would be more true, direct, straight and avoid future inconveniences.
We read the words in law in their context and historical setting.
The History of the Open Source Initiative (OSI) web page says:
"The "open source" label itself came out of a strategy session held on February 3rd 1998 in Palo Alto, California. The people present included Todd Anderson, Chris Peterson (of the Foresight Institute), John "maddog" Hall and Larry Augustin (both of Linux International), Sam Ockman (of the Silicon Valley Linux User's Group), and Eric Raymond. ..."
The OSI faq answers: 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."
The Open Source Case for Hackers argues:
"Mainstream corporate CEOs and CTOs will never buy "free software." But if we take the very same tradition, the same people, and the same free-software licenses and change the label to "open source" - that, they'll buy"
I buy this argument, wholly.
But, the apprehension that we will read "free" or "open source" literally is unfounded. For instance, we understand "judicial review" in its historical and rational context, and not merely the content of just two words. Using the expression "free software" instead of "open source" will avoid needless back tracing. We ought to spare the future generations, of looking into the Open Source history and then again look into the GNU Project history in a round about way.
While initiating the GNU Project, RMS wrote:
"From: RMS%MIT-OZ@mit-eddie Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.usoft Subject: new UNIX implementation Date: Tue, 27-Sep-83 12:35:59 EST Organization: MIT AI Lab, Cambridge, MA ....
"I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement.
So that I can continue to use computers without violating my principles, I have decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I will be able to get along without any software that is not free.
..."
The reasons for free software are clear enough from the start.
The GPL together with the GNU Project and philosophy justify, require and warrant the use of the word "free software" in such legislation.
We could ignore the South Australian Parliament Bill, because its scope is confined to the State of South Australia. But in the legal field, we often see a cascading effect and it is more likely that other legislation will follow the same style. It is therefore important to set the correct and right precedents from the very start.
Regards, K. Ramanraj.
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Extracts: The Parliament of South Australia State Supply (Procurement of Software) Amendment Bill 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Principle applying to the procurement of computer software 17A.
(1) A public authority must, in making a decision about the procurement of computer software for its operations, have regard to the principle that, wherever practicable, a public authority should use open source software in preference to proprietary software.
(2) In this section-
"distribute" means distribute for free or on payment of the reasonable costs of distribution;
"open source software" means computer software the subject of a licence granting a person a right-
(a) without any limitation or restriction, to use the software for any purpose; and
(b) without any limitation or restriction, to make copies of the software for any purpose; and
(c) without any limitation or restriction, to access or modify the source code of the software for any purpose; and
(d) without payment of a royalty or other fee, to distribute copies of
(i) the software (including as a component of an aggregate distribution containing computer software from several different sources); or
(ii) a derived or modified form of the software, (whether in compiled form or in the form of source code), under the same terms as the licence applying to the software;
"proprietary software" means computer software that is not open source software. ----------------------------------------------------------
I wonder if we can think of any practical to measures to arrest the spread of "open source" terminology and associated superficial ideas in government circles?
-
Ramanraj K -
Richard Stallman