On Friday 03 September 2010 21:36:11 Guru गुरु wrote: > 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%20 >software%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-Septembe >r/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.* Firstly software has two components the knowledge part (algorithm) and the expression part (as written down in source code). One can use the knowledge, by studying the source code, to create a new body of work, and set arbitrary terms to it's use. However one cannot copy the expression without complying with the terms of use as expressed in the accompanying licence. Further as pointed out by others incorporating the source code within a new body of work - also known as derivative, does not require sharing as long as it is not distributed. Distribution requires complying with the terms of use as expressed in the licence, accompanying the original work. > > _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. That is a sweeping statement far from reality. I shall not use the term "Public software" as it is full of anomalies, and instead use the term "Public domain". Public Domain refers to software whose ownership is specifically assigned to the public, or whose ownership is verifiable unknown and freely available with the public. A substantial portion of Public Domain software, also known as freeware is not accompanied by source code, which is the single most important requirement to be termed as open. Subsequent rights and restrictions on redistribution, derivation, attribution etc. are secondary to the availability of the source code. > 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. This not the case of exceptional cases. It is the rule. FOSS is owned by the authors and certain rights and obligations are assigned to the recipients. Public Domain is owned by no one / everyone and there are no exclusive rights nor obligations. Your statement is factually incorrect. > 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.) It points more to the lack of understanding rather than any "logic" or the so called exceptions and rules. > 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. The examples on security are plain rubbish. Please ask the author never to use software security as an example, without a very thorough reading of what constitutes security. I say this with specific context, in that the government has been indulging in usurpation of privacy rights in the name of security and will use such statements in justifying it's policies. > > 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. That comes about from a very very poor understanding of what constitutes software. Rather than accept a very dangerous fallacy, it is our duty to correct it in every sphere. IMO this is the crux towards the labelling. It allows a forntdoor to closed and non FOSS software. This is totally unacceptable (for reasons that everyone is familiar with). > 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. This is an ancient argument, no amount of new spin is going to hide the argument's very feudal nature. But for the record having the source on mine trigerring software, allows people to trigger anti mine triggering software, not to mention thoroughly useful stuff like trigerring mines to create dams, remove mud slides, mine minerals etc. BTW a magazine from the book stand can be converted into a very dangerous weapon by the simple act of tightly rolling it. Strike soft body areas like eyes, throat, solarplexus, kidney, bladder, groin. > > _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. * How does labelling something that it isn't make it suddenly more amenable?. Firstly such groups have not understood software. Secondly as a result they will have precisely zero understanding of how software, and various digital formats and standards colonise and subjugate them. It hardly matters that it is (or isn't) a public commodity. Trying to gain acceptance by mere labelling sounds like sophistry to me and infact merely exposes them to exploitation that they are trying very hard to get out from. > 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. As stated earlier this perception that availability of source code and the accompanying licence has nothing to do with utility (and usage) stems from a gross misunderstanding of software. Even in terms of commodity, software is not static, but a living evolving meme and it is controlled by the availability of the source and its licence. In terms of a public commodity it has similarities with genetically manipulated seed. If one were to propose an argument that it really does not matter what was inside a seed as long as it was available for use, I am sure the argument would be met by some very strong(arm?) resistance. > *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. We are moving in ever widening circles. > > 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./ I don t see any logic capable of standing cursory scrutiny. The concept is based on a deeply flawed representation of 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. Nothing wrong here. Naming software as FOSS / Closed does not change the nature of engagement being sought . > > 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. Nothing wrong here either. > 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. No we cant. Because of all the logical fallacies inherent in the labelling. Yet nothing stops you from cursorily talking about the characteristics of public goods and then detail the inherent mechanisms to defend these in FOSS. Hence the term FOSS has the goodness of a public commodity, but additionally due the complex nature of software and the knowledge encapsulated within, akin to GM seeds, has builtin defence mechanisms. Hence the term FOSS > > 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 We already have them in FOSS. > <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). Using the term public software without understanding it's meaning in it's entirety, and the meanings of any other terminology that may be included in the policy, is their obligatory duty, not some perk granted to them for sitting in the chair. > 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. We now have two classes of software. Software used within the government and software used for public services. The first category is now an independent category. Every time the first category has to interact with the second category, you will open a very large can of worms. > 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. Based on, at best partially understood frameworks. > > 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. Nothing new here shirking their duties has been one of the important reasons for the lack of meaningful progress in all matters of governance. To this will be added software. On a cynical note, it hardly matters that a "per se" FOSS favourable policy is created, since it will be interpreted as per the whims of the next bloke in the seat. Without being explicit about FOSS and including specifically the term and it's myriad implications in policy, it's merely wishful thinking that the term "Public Software" will magically bestow enlightenment on a bureaucracy steadfast in it's shirking of obligatory duty. Further using the term "Public software" within the meaning sought to be described here, and as is generally used elsewhere, also includes closed software. This is without doubt an alternate agenda totally unacceptable to any FOSS supporter. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
