2010/9/3 Guru गुरु <[email protected]>: > 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.
This is wrong and somewhat vague. GPL does not restrict anybody from making a private modification of software under GPL. Redistribution is all that it blocks under the circumstances. The BSD license is worser. > 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 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. No we do not want to accept the 'brainless idiocy of M$, similar companies, corrupt bureaucrats and politicians'. If s/w for triggering mines is at all released under a FOSS license, then it will still be for public good. If s/w for triggering mines is released under a proprietary license with its source closed, then it will be doubly evil. FOSS + 'good for public' := FOSS closed source s/w + 'good for public' := 'evil for public' > 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 sector1' 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. who are these 'public good' actors? ... a small set of bureaucrats, political leaders and others. Are they so illiterate that they cannot be made to understand a few simple concepts? or are you being misled by their 'refusal to understand' or 'other compulsions'? > 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. <snip> There is no logic in this. To convince a few bureaucrats and others, there is no need to dress in this kimono with legs attached to iron balls. It would be better to redefine 'public software' as 'public good' + 'FOSS' in a more long winded way for the people you want to convert. The Indian system is completely plutocratic, the bureaucracy is mostly corrupt, pro-MNC and leaving a few holes unplugged is not going to prove to be a wise idea. Your idea of 'public s/w' is 'harakiri'. Best A. Mani -- A. Mani ASL, CLC, AMS, CMS http://www.logicamani.co.cc _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
