Reply in multiple parts. Looks like my mails are blocked due to size. 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-Septem >be 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). -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
