Guru गुरु wrote:
Dear Renuka and friends
Thanks for your suggestions and concerns. Currently I am in the middle
of some 'non-postponable' work and will come back with a note on what
we think of this issue and how it relates to /addresses the concerns
raised.
regards
Guru
Dear friends,
A detailed note on public software, its rationale, convergence and
divergence with FOSS and its imperative is provided in this mail. A PDF
version is available on
http://public-software.in/sites/default/files/Note%20on%20public%20software%20for%20FOSSCOMM%20-%20September%202010_0.pdf
regards
Guru
*Response on 'What is Public Software'*
*IT for Change*
The key issues raised in the mails
<http://lists.fosscom.in/pipermail/network-fosscom.in/2010-September/002830.html>
are: the term /Public Software /is a distortion of /FOSS /and takes away
the key principle of freedom implied in /FOSS/; and that using these
terms in a somewhat overlapping manners causes confusion and introduces
a new agenda which is harmful to the FOSS movement and its goals.
Narendra called it a 'altogether new agenda'. Yes, it is indeed a
relatively new agenda, though proceeding from the same old agenda (while
we are it, maybe we need to revisit and have a discussion on what our
basic agendas are). Therefore whether it is a 'altogether' new agenda
may need to be debated. Further, though we are convinced that the two
agendas are mutually reinforcing – it may still be useful to discuss
here whether the public software agenda is prejudicial to the FOSS agenda.
The underlying rationale of the two concepts are different and need to
be understood so that we have clarity on both. That would be a good
basis of a continued discussion on this important subject.
_What is public software_
The point of departure for articulating, and for understanding, the
concept of public software is the concept of 'public goods' or commonly
shared goods, as against private and commercially traded goods in a
society. What are the implications of 'public goods' thinking and
requirements vis-a-vis the digital society? While this question merits
close attention, unfortunately it has not received that attention, for a
variety of reasons.
We can construct a response to this question in two* *parts.
1.
*How digital possibilities can be best applied for production/
provisioning of existing (pre-digital) public goods?*
2.
*What new public goods, in the form of entitlements to digital
possibilities, now become relevant in the digital age? *
The first aspect of the emerging 'public goods - digital society'
dynamic is about what kind of digital resources should be used by actors
involved with providing traditional or pre-digital era public goods –
basic health, education, livelihood support, security etc; and in what
manner, in order to maximise the basic/ original objective of providing
these pre-digital public goods.
The second aspect is about universal provision of such digital goods and
services which can be seen as the 'new public goods' of the digital age.
Participating in the digital society requires that basic applications
such as operating systems, editors, web browsers, screen readers be seen
as 'public goods ' from which no one 'should' be excluded, and thus
whose universal availability is a societal responsibility.
(Apologies for a brief digression here. It is important to understand in
what implications the term 'public goods' is being used here. The term
is originally from economics, whereby it means such goods that are
non-excludable and non-rivalrous. Non-excludable means, from which no
one can be excluded. And non-rivalrous means that consumption of the
good by one does not reduce its supply for the other. However, in its
larger social meaning the term 'public goods' is used to mean goods from
which no one 'should' be excluded, whether they by their nature are
non-excludable and non-rivalrous or not. On the positive side, digital
goods are inherently non-rivalrous. However, on the negative side, the
digital phenomenon enables new means of exclusion which may not exist
earlier – for instance broadcast versus DTH TV. These characteristics
complicates the digital 'public goods' discussion, but more on that some
other time :-) )
*It is in this overall 'public goods' ecology that the concept of public
software takes birth and is situated. *Now since, a lot of objections on
the list to the concept of 'public software' has been of the logical
variety, challenging the very validity of the concept, I hope the above,
and the following, discussions answers those objections. If not, I am
willing and eager to discuss it further.
_What is FOSS_
The logic of FOSS arises differently. It came from the idea that locking
down knowledge is essentially wrong in curtailing both freedom and
opportunities of people. The knowledge embedded in software therefore
should be freely accessed by all, and also be able to be used freely to
develop more knowledge/ software. To this idea of freedom, the genius of
Stallman added a brilliant new dimension. It is only freedom if it
multiplies freedoms of others rather than curtail it (which is in fact
adding a 'positive' element to the otherwise 'negative' – as in negative
rights – conception of freedom). He very cleverly used the legal
framework around proprietisation of knowledge (to which the basic idea
of freely shareable knowledge is in fact prima facie antithetical) to
posit an enforceable legal condition – anyone will be able to freely use
free software knowledge /only if/ any further knowledge produced by
using this knowledge is also available freely. In fact this legal
condition can be said to curtail the 'freedom' of the person creating
some new knowledge using the old free software knowledge (the freedom to
to keep this new knowledge created by him as private). But well, that is
it, take it or leave it. *This provision was expressly made for
furthering the cause of common digital knowledge, a public good.*
_Convergence and divergence_
Here, one can clearly begin to see the convergence between two concepts
of /FOSS/ and of /software as and for public good /(/public software/).
One may even be tempted at this point to jump to the conclusion that
public software is FOSS and vice versa. Well, it is 'almost' always so.
But since the two concepts have clearly different constituent logics –
even if practical convergence - it is 'logically' possible that there
may be cases where FOSS is not public software and vice versa. A couple
of examples used in the quoted write up
<http://public-software-centre.org/node/31> on public software were made
just to present this 'logical' though rare, if ever, possibility. (The
exception was cited as an attempt to prove the rule.) Though an example
like the one used, and much criticised on the list, of use of software
for some extremely secretive purposes but serving public interest, would
always be open to contestation. But as said, the point was only to
provide a possible example showing the logical distinction, which comes
from the very different logical construction of the two concepts. It is
however possible that some other examples may be better than the one
used in the quoted text.
It is certainly at least 'logically' possible that there could be (some
extremely rare) times when a software needed to be used in 'public good
space' may best not be FOSS. This can and will be contested, but most
people traditionally in the public goods space (not only governments but
also outside it), whom we have spoken with, understand it in this way.
Lets accept that. On the other hand, a software can have its source code
open, but its design may be directed towards ways of stealing personal
information or for triggering mines (banned under a global treaty) as a
person approaches them, which though obviously FOSS (because FOSS is
about open publication of the source code and the underlying licensing
condition and strictly nothing else) can not be called a public good
software, or public software.
_Why we need the term 'public software'_
If FOSS and Public Software are mostly the same, then the question would
come, why should we have two different terms then. The reason is
somewhat obvious. There is a big sector in society long devoted to the
'public goods space' which understands the idea and concept of public
good much better than that of FOSS, which, I may be excused for saying,
is often thought by them as a technical obscurity that will never be of
much interest to them. (I agree, this may not be completely true, but
that is how they feel). Now this 'public goods sector^1
<#sdfootnote1sym>' is a serious business, a big and necessary part of
our social arrangements. They need to understand, and internalise in
their work, the role of software in the digital society. And they will
best understand it, and do what is necessary to do thereafter, if it is
presented in the *'public goods' framework which they not only
understand but take it to be their serious responsibility to work on. *
But it will be wrong to tell these 'public good' actors that FOSS was
always meant to be the 'public goods software' or 'public software' and
that the two are exactly the same, because that would be unfair to both
this group and the FOSS groups. As mentioned earlier, *there is a clear
logical distinction between the two concepts even if a very large
practical overlap. *
If those involved traditionally with public goods space or sector in the
society find it useful to use the concept of 'public software', why
should they not be able to do so? Public software is defined in terms of
its public good nature, inherent in the outcomes arising from its use.
*'Logically' it has nothing to do with publishing the source code or the
nature of copyright licence involved, though it is quite clear that
publishing the software and using a GPL licensing will almost always
serve the best interests of the public. *On the other hand, FOSS is
'logically' only about publishing the code and copyrighting under GPL
licence and it has nothing to do with the purpose for which the software
may be used – which in fact could be quite destructive, and whereby the
software cannot be called public software. In fact, FOSS being GPL
licensing condition based concept will exclude software released in the
public domain. However the concept of 'public software' could include
such software it is best qualifies the conditions of 'public good' in
the given circumstance.
This above was about the logical basis of the term 'public software' and
the distinctions as well overlaps involved vis a vis the concept of
FOSS. Now we can move to practical matters. /Even if logically
defensible, an obvious question is, why should or did we expend so much
energy in developing and promoting the concept of public software./
_Public software – the practical imperative_
It has mostly to do with having encountered great difficulties in
promoting FOSS among public sector agencies (which agenda we found very
important per se, as well as to promote the overall cause of FOSS in
society), and less than satisfactory progress in promoting it with
academic institutions, NGOs and community based bodies. Through these
experiences we realised that these agencies responded so much better if
engaged through notions of publicness and welfarism vis-a-vis different
software models. For instance government officials engage so much better
if we start with the objectives of the work of the government and of her
particular department, and then extend the characteristics of the public
goods work she is involved with to the kind of software that should be
used by her/ governments.
Similarly, in discussions with government school teachers, we find that
it is intuitive for them to grasp the idea of software as a basic
learning resource that should be free, and a universal entitlement. They
are also immediately attracted to the idea that the learning software be
produced and supported by public interest groups/ bodies rather than
commercial ones, whereby instinctively there is greater trust. It is
then easier for the teachers to relate to the fact that since the
interests and motivations of the public interest/ goods actors (or
public actors) are only to help them, the software has all the qualities
that makes their and students work easier and education more fruitful.
They then relate to the features of the such software as its openness to
modification, sharing etc as the way they see normal public education
processes. Using the term 'public software' (accessible to all,
involving participation of all) seems to them quite aligned with the
underlying philosophy of the public school system (accessible to all,
involving participation of all). At this point, they can of course be
explained the production and licensing model underlying the software
they are using, and why it is called FOSS. Frankly, starting with the
license model of the software they are going to be introduced to, makes
little sense to them.
*Principles of universal access, full inter-operability, not getting
exclusively dependent on a private vendor for any government (or public
education) process, collaborative building of governance processes
*(including digital ones, and software is nothing but structuration of
such social/ governance processes)*, principle of transparency, of
community monitoring, right of information, full and perpetual public
ownership *etc are clearly understood by public sector actors. It is
easy to argue with them that same principles should apply to software
used by and in the public sector. We could also easily agree mutually to
call such variety of software as 'public software' as opposed to
commercial software used for commercial sectors of the society with
completely different contexts and objectives.
By emphasising that the starting point for public software is the role
of the public sector, (including the government) for the purposes of
achieving larger societal goals of equity and social justice, we could
even get down to write principles for public software
<http://public-software-centre.org/node/6>, which public officials
clearly could own (rather than FOSS principles which looks to them
coming from areas largely alien to them). We could speak together of
coming out with a public software policy, which would simply list what
would be the characteristics of software that governments should
produce/procure and use (in terms of public service principles listed
above). Within this larger advocacy it was much easier to argue that
FOSS is the right kind of software for governments to use, and that this
fact should specifically be mentioned in the public software policies.
In these discussion we, the government officials and us - seemed to be
going forward together, collaboratively, in a manner that the agenda and
discussions were co-owned.
This unfortunately mostly does not happen when we take the FOSS agenda –
direct and simple – to government officials, since, many tend to treat
software per-se as a 'technology issue' which is best dealt with by
technology experts or IT associations - see for instance the role that
NASSCOMM, a industry body with vested interests, plays in many
e-governance processes, including at the policy level^2
<#sdfootnote2sym>. They tend to treat FOSS as just one kind of software
model which can be considered beside other proprietary, models. They
start talking about 'overall' cost implications and performance factors
as the 'obvious' key factors for taking the software procurement
decisions. The ideology involved, which motivates the FOSS advocate, is
largely lost on non-techie public sector actors.
_Public Public Partnerships_
Beyond governments, there are many social actors who involve themselves
in production/ provisioning of public goods. FOSS groups are one such
set of social actors. All kinds of voluntary, community groups are
examples of such social actors. However, we will have to accept that the
state or governments are a very big part of this ecology of social
actors producing public goods. Unlike other actors involved in this
process, governments, especially democratic/ welfarist ones, uniquely
also have the /'responsibility/' for producing these goods (and for this
reason, the other groups in the public goods ecology are often called
'/voluntary/' groups^3 <#sdfootnote3sym>).
It is a part of what has been called the 'deepening democracy' project
to work towards larger partnerships and programs in the public policy as
well as public goods space, involving non-state actors working with
government's in a mutually supportive and complementary manner, whereby
these relationships are characterised by trusts and mutual respect,
though the elements of dissent and even antagonism on many
socio-political issues need not be completely forgone. *It is even more
important in the digital space, with its unique collaborative and
distributed system management capacities, that we seek to build
partnerships among all the public interest or public goods actors.* It
is perhaps impossible to sustain even FOSS ecologies beyond a point
without some kind of institutional public support – whether of a big NGO
or a government agency. On the other hand, governments on their own are
not upto the task of making and maintaining the best public software
needed to maximise public interest opportunities in our society –
especially of ensuring that the egalitarian and social justice potential
of digital technologies is in fact realised.
The 'news'
<http://lists.fosscom.in/htdig.cgi/network-fosscom.in/2010-February/002224.html>
of Oracle stopping support for ORCA development illustrates this case.
There were mails on the FOSSCOMM list that we should write to Oracle to
continue its support to ORCA development^4 <#sdfootnote4sym>, but what
is Oracle's accountability to us. (That is the basic difference between
a private/commercial actor and a public actor.) Since for the visually
challenged, a screen reader is basic to their participation in the
digital society, it needs to be an entitlement and not contingent on
corporate social responsibility or voluntary effort. By definition for
anything to be an entitlement or a right, there needs to be a
corresponding societal commitment or obligation to ensure that right is
fulfilled. And this requires the positive/committed action of the
government/public sector as the primary societal agent for development
and even democracy. This notion of public software thus puts the onus on
governments to ensure universal availability of such basic applications,
through funding, distribution, promotion etc. However, use of this
concept of 'public software' also draws all other social actors
motivated towards public interest to collaborate as well as they can for
universal provision of such public goods.
What Brazil's Public Software Centre
<http://www.softwarepublico.gov.br/> has been doing for past few years,
is along these lines - creating collaboration between government
entities and FOSS enterprises/ communities to develop public software to
promote governance goals. We need to build similar collaborations in
India and that is one of the principal goals of our work.
It is important to note that our work on public software arose from our
own experiences in advocating FOSS in governments and schools and took
shape independent of the Brazil project. (We learnt about the Brazil
project much later, after the Kochi workshop, where the public software
site was launched). Neither for the Brazilian agency involved, nor for
us, the idea and concept has taken complete shape and is largely work in
progress. We invite feedback and comments in this process.
However we are convinced that there are very useful possibilities in
using this concept for both the public sector and for the FOSS community.
regards,
Guru
1 <#sdfootnote1anc> We can also term this 'public sector' with the clear
rider that it means much more than just governments, including NGOs,
public academic institutions and even FOSS communities
2 <#sdfootnote2anc>In the case of the open standards policy, the
NASSCOMM was seen as the relevant body for inputs. However our
interpretation of the 'open standards' from the perspective of the
'right to information' (that open standards are necessary to ensure that
citizens are able to access digital public information without needing
to pay royalties) brought in national RTI movement to write to the
government on this issue and helped the government look at open
standards as a larger governance/equity issue.
3 <#sdfootnote3anc>The relationship (including levels of collaboration
as well as antagonism) between these different actors who are involved
in producing public goods keep on changing, this dynamism is an
essential part of a democratic polity.
4 <#sdfootnote4anc>As recent mails suggest, Oracle perhaps has little
concern for developing FOSS applications which poses potential problems
for applications like Open Office or ORCA.
_______________________________________________
network mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
