On Friday 03 September 2010 21:36:11 Guru गुरु wrote: > 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
