On Wednesday 01 September 2010 09:24:45 Anivar Aravind wrote:
> > --
> > Krittika Vishwanath
> > www.itforchange.net
> > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> > Tel:9535321980
> > What is Public Software? see
> > http://public-software-centre.org/node/31
Cunning and clever, but unfortunately without understanding copyright
law and the implication of making a third party the controller.
> "Software developed for public service, and especially in
> government, has a unique context and objectives deriving from those
> of public service; with its imperative of providing public goods
> and ensuring equity and social justice. It is well known that
> private and commercial actions have very different context, motives
> and considerations than public actions. For instance, the largest
> possible reach and diffusion as well as transparency of actions are
> basic to public service, which are not necessarily values espoused
> by private and commercial players.
>
> Software developed for public service (“Public software”) can be
> defined as software developed for the public good,
This is the authors interpretation. Not as per copyright law.
> which is
> publicly owned. Public ownership also implies that it cannot be
> privatized or privately owned.
This is the authors interpretation. Not as per copyright law.
Works released to the public is publicly owned and a copy can be
privatised and privately owned. Thus a Shakespeare tome printed by
xyz, is entitled to (many) copyright protections - a copy of a public
work now privatised.
Incase of software (as opposed to content) it's a lot more
complicated. Code picked from public domain can be compiled into a
binary, with or without modifications, the whole now becoming
completely private.
>
> Public Software being publicly owned, allows for its free sharing
> as well as modification by all. It thus allows the freedoms that
> Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) allows. Hence in most cases
> public software and FOSS are synonymous.
Specifically when we say software we can mean any of the following.
Binaries, libraries or source code.
There are many public softwares (binaries, exe, runtime, obj),
available at no charge, but without source code, commonly known as
freeware. There are also available (relatively) fewer softwares, with
source code, either specifically assigned to the public domain, or
available to the public without costs ranging from zero to very huge
amounts, depending on the type of attached restrictions.
Also there is a clear distinction between software and content, which
is unclear to the author. The author is conflating content and
software as is evident from a table at the bottom of the referred
url.
Public software and public source code are two utterly different
beasts. FOSS clearly understands this fact amongst many other more
complicated facts, and has provided excellent mechanisms to prevent
wrongful exploitation. Public software and FOSS have absolutely
nothing in common.
The author should refrain from pontificating on stuff that they dont
know anything about.
> However there is an
> important distinction. While FOSS essentially requires the freedoms
> of the individual user to use, study, share and modify the source
> code, in addition to this, public software emphasises its 'public
> good / public interest' nature and vests on government the
> responsibility of ensuring that basic software required for
> negotiating the digital world is freely available to all.
This is the clever part. Handover to the government the right to make
a decision of converting binaries to public domain for freeuse for
the public. Which is actually bad in that everybody is stuck in a
bitrotting boat - java based "publick" stuff on the mca.gov.in site,
that cant pick up the proxy setting for example.
AND
Handover FOSS source code to the private players via declaring it
public for the common good, who then take it private via "embrace and
extend" binaries - eg. kerberos and tcpip stack.
The binaries made public would be ofcourse suitably hobbled, with
expensive paid versions available with "enhanced features" - eg
acrobat reader, flash, media players.
> FOSS is
> premised on principles of freedoms of ownership on products of
> collective labour - essentially a polical economy model that is
> applicable as an exemplar for society's processes of production -
> in most areas of knowledge production and certainly in the digital
> space, where such collaboration has a revolutionary new context and
> possibilities.
> Thus FOSS celebrates a 'negative right' that all
> have the right to use, study, modify, distribute software (share
> the fruits of collective labour).
Twisted logic in keeping with the article. FOSS specifically sought by
design, from it's inception, to protect the freedom to produce and
use knowledge. This right and the resultant benefits to the public
isn't coincidental due to the law of unknown consequences. Linus
Torvalds the first author of the linux kernel, which (unknowingly)
grew from this benefit ("use the best tool"), has subsequently
acknowledged the superiority of the FOSS development model, Having
been badly bitten once on the "best tool" logic aka bitkeeper - git,
he is unlikley to indulge himself with "best tools" logic.
As shown above with the example of Linus Torvalds the reality is the
exact opposite of the authors statement. FOSS strengths are
intentional and designed for and carries within it's DNA protective
mechanisms to ensure public good. "Public Software" might benefit
from a "Negative right" via the law of unintended consequences, but
carries in it's DNA negatively exploitative mechanisms that are
actually damaging to public good.
> Public Software on the other hand
> is organised on public goods principles, that certain goods whose
> production may not offer sufficient incentives for the private
> sector and whose availability is important to all in society, need
> to have an alternate model of production and distribution.
Which is what FOSS has by design. Sorry author, you are a bit late to
the christening - if your intention is to rename FOSS as "Public
Software".
> Public
> Software thus emphasises the 'positive right' of citizens – that
> basic software for negotiating digital society is their
> entitlement. It concerns the public sector and its role and
> obligations to society.
Your conclusions are contradictory to the facts.
>
> In almost all cases, free and open sharing of digital resources
> such as software is in the public interest, hence public software
> is usually also FOSS. However, there may be FOSS applications which
> could be seen as not being in public interest – such as on-line
> gambling software or certain software games.
Read everbodies emails, twits and torrents. But please do UID them, we
dont want misidentification. And while we are at it, how about
prohibition and good old moral policing. Ram/Ravan/whatever Senne
where are you?
> Also public software
> covers those applications which all must have (which is therefore
> the responsibility of government to provide) such as web browser to
> access important sites, including government sites, operating
> system, text, number, image, audio, video processors etc.
Funding perchance? No i am just being wild here. But it will tie in
nicely with policing public ungood software and morals.
> On the other hand, there may be few exceptional cases, where it may
> be in the public interest to keep source code closed – such as
> software that breaks encryption.
Oh god. DONT USE ENCRYPTION THAT HAS NOT BEEN PUBLICLY TESTED FOR
VULNERABILITIES. And when a vulnerability is exposed dump it ASAP.
> While governments may need to have
> such applications in the interests of national security, source
> code of such applications may not be made available to all for
> study etc. But in these cases, the public ownership of such code
> becomes essential, private ownership can severely compromise
> national security interests.
Quite honestly, this piece sounds like a spin doctor's recipe, funded
by the likes of NASSCOM.
> This Term is Creating Too Much Confusion. Recently some of us
> received a call from Kerala Chief Ministers office mentioning about
> a suggestion from an NGO based in
> Blore to change term Free and Open Source Software in the policy
> document of Govt of Kerala to Public Software.
>
> Though it is good that they are trying to promote free software in
> government. To me their strategy looks to be an effort to remove
> freedom from the discussion. It seems to be projecting new name to
> enter into public projects. In places where policy clearly
> mandates FOSS , These terms are bringing more ambiguity to policy
>
> Public software does not have a Proper Definition. and it is still
> one NGO agenda to push their term in Policy. I Think Fosscom need
> to discuss this issue and need to have a position on how to address
> these issues .
>
> Anivar
--
Rgds
JTD
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
