[I will try to address some factual errors in the note, but there is a larger philosophical angle to this as well, I will try to address it as well]
2010/9/3 Guru गुरु <[email protected]>: > The key issues raised in the mails 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. Guru, I think it a good summary of the discussion, though we will see if you are able to clarify those. > 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. When someone say public software can be FOSS or proprietary the basic argument for FOSS is lost. > 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. yes. > 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. There is a fundamental flaw in that thinking because software is not a physical object similar to other public goods. It is knowledge or at least that is the whole basis of FOSS. When you want to negate the basic assumption and goes back to the proprietary software industry's argument calling software a product, it clearly deviates from FOSS. > We can construct a response to this question in two parts. > > How digital possibilities can be best applied for production/ provisioning > of existing (pre-digital) public goods? Again that comparison is not acceptable to FOSS. It is more like how we approach knowledge. > 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. Again all of them are physical in nature fundamentally different from knowledge and software. > 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. This seems like a good argument. > (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 Protection of knowledge is not a requirement to become Free Software. There many such software under GPL, AGPL, LGPL and other copyleft licenses, that is not a necessary condition to be Free Software. I think there is a widespread confusion that only copyleft/GPL software is Free Software, but that is not true. There are many software which does not have a requirement that works that build on them should also be Free Software. > 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. True only for copyleft and not for entire Free Software. > 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). Yes, it would be good to mandate strong copyleft like GPL as a basis for public software. > One may even > be tempted at this point to jump to the conclusion that public software is Well FOSS under copyleft licenses are clearly 'public'. > 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. clearly there are not synonyms. > 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. How can FOSS accept that? The whole idea of promoting FOSS is the strong belief that FOSS is right. Free Software considers non-free software as unethical and Open Source considers suboptimal solution. So how can we argue for unethical or suboptimal solution? At the maximum we can accept some people may be forced to live with unethical or suboptimal choice, but how can we promote something like that? FOSS aims to offer a replacement, which may take longer in some cases, but the goal is to reach a point of all FOSS. Well, some may disagree with me on this goal aspect, but I believe, everyone accepts, it is desirable to have FOSS in all areas. > 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. Well, if we restricts how a software can be used, it would clearly not be FOSS. > 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. But the cost of deviating from the goals and confusion would be too high for FOSS. Like how Open Source movement was started from Free Software movement, if you feel strongly about the need for Public Software, then you can go ahead with this and see how many people come. > 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. Yes, it would be wrong to say they are synonyms. > 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. Yes, that clarifies how FOSS can't support this public software idea. Because at the heart of FOSS is the license and the Freedoms (Free Software) or the development model (Open Source). > 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 Yes, if you put use restriction, it would stop becoming FOSS. But FOSS is not only about GPL, there are many FOSS licenses other than GPL and is widely used. > fact, FOSS being GPL licensing condition based concept will exclude software > released in the public domain. You are completely wrong here, because public domain is FOSS. I think the whole idea of Pulic Software emerged from a wrong understanding of the basics of FOSS. > 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), FOSS in its current form has found success in many agencies. Just look at FOSS success in Kerala schools or in many countries like Germany. 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 Some may respond to publicness and welfarism, all of them need not. Especially since those concepts are associated with a different political ideology. > 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. But the public software brings in proprietary software as an acceptable solution, which cannot be an aim of FOSS community. > 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 That is a different discussion altogether. The current trend is moving towards private schools. Though I have a different opinion here, this is not the place to discuss that. > 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. We should start from sharing aspect of FOSS there. > 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 But is a legal structure, software is clearly a work of art. > 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, 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 FOSS' place in public software would be an after thought, it does not come from its basics and would not be beneficial to FOSS. > 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 level2. 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. but when we focus on public software the FOSS argument that is dear to a FOSS advocate is lost. > 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' groups3). > > 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. This is again a different philosophy, I have a different view on this but I think this is not the right place to air that. > 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 Completely false. The current FOSS ecology itself is a proof to that. > 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' 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 development4, 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 I agree with this point, but I don't see calling it public software would be of overall benefit to FOSS community. > 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 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. I'm not convinced it would be good for FOSS Community to jump onto public software band wagon. Thanks Praveen > regards, > Guru > > 1 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 > > 2In 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. > > 3The 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. > > 4As 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 > > -- പ്രവീണ് അരിമ്പ്രത്തൊടിയില് You have to keep reminding your government that you don't get your rights from them; you give them permission to rule, only so long as they follow the rules: laws and constitution. _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
