On Saturday 04 September 2010 21:48:59 parminder wrote: > Responses to Guru's clarifying note have been very thorough and > rich. Let me try to engage with some elements of these responses. > > As made clear in the referred note, public software is *not* a term > arising from categorisation of software based on licensing models. > (That is one of the basic elements of this concept.) Therefore it > may not be very meaningful to argue that this term is confused vis > a vis copyright licenses related issues. It is not intended to be > 'public domain software', as meaning irrevocable surrender of all > forms of copyrights vis a vis any software. We understand what is > public domain software, and that is not what is meant by public > software. There is no confusion in this regard.
Incase you are implying this is a new movement with a new agenda, seeking engagement with the FOSS movement, by virtue of the proferred definitions and examples, and it accepts (by definition) closed software as part of public good software. This is very very definetly wrong and there is sufficient proof and logic available for justifying this conclusion. If by some means one might eliminate closed software from Public good software, one would clearly be left with FOSS. > > As mentioned in the note, 'public software' is a term arising out > of categorizing software on basis of its uses, and relatedly, on > the basis of the nature and intentions of its users. Firstly end users do not determine the terms of use, the creators do. But assuming that you mean creators, intentions stated by way of what? a promise?, a press release?, the creators political leanings? There is only one tenable method provided and recognised by law for controlling creative works - the copyright licence. No amount of contortions is going to separate licencing from usage. > If 'public sector practices' and 'procedures' are meaningful terms, > so can public software also be, since software is really a set of > digital processes, like are paper based practices and procedures (I > can also see the difference but the point here is to look at the > commonality) . A very tenuous commonality observable far more easily in it's lack than any real commonality. > We consider the public sector as the larger 'public > goods producing sector' which is much more than just the > governments. However we are discussing governments (policy interventions) controlling the usurped commons. > (This point in itself will make for an interesting > discussion, which we indeed should do.) How modern "democratic bureaucracies" crowned themselves feudal overlords of the commons producing public goods is indeed a point for discussion in some other forum. > at ITfC consider this larger socio-political > propensity of erosion of public values and systems, vis a vis > market/commercial values and systems, at least as problematic as > dangers to software related freedoms. (In my understanding, this is > *the* key issue on which many of us may differ. And this difference > largely underlies the present debate.) Yet allowing compromises which deeply undermine these values is ok, (as presented in your next para), as long as it garners some wholly dubious advantage in the short term. ( gratifying brownie points to whoever controls these movements now ). > The concept of 'public software' arose from this specific context > and problematique, and we consider the struggle represented by the > concept of 'public software' at least as important as that being > done under the FOSS banner. (One can easily see that the two > struggles even if overlapping may also in some important ways be > different). We do understand that different people here may rate > and espouse the two struggles differently. We also agree that there > may, on the margins, even be some trade offs involved between the > two struggles, in being more concerned with one of these struggles > than the other. In this regard, different people here will see > these trade-offs differently. Therefore, we neither think we will > be able to, nor do we particularly aim to, convince all with whom > we work in the FOSS area that the use of the term 'public software' > in the way, and for the purpose, we are trying to do, may be useful > for the larger social goals we mostly share. We are only hoping to > make our context and intentions understood by our partners in the > FOSS community. > Lets say, a set of actors involved with the area of democratic > governance practices - from within governments and outside, and for > sure, there is a large civil society contingent active in the area > of democratic governance practices - get together and 'decide' that > as there are some generic characteristic that should inform > processes of democratic governance, some such characteristics > should also apply to all software used in (or as) governance > processes, as well as software used by non government institutions > that are responsible and accountable to the wider public. For > instance, as for all offline governance processes, all software > used in the public sector should be right to information compliant, > should have open and transparent processes to allow community > monitoring, should allow public feedback as built in processes, > should be universally accessible including to those with various > disabilities etc etc. They then publish a set of criteria for such > software, and use the term 'public software' for software with > these characteristics, I cannot see how anyone can reasonably step > up and say, hey, you are doing the wrong thing!! (This is what > precisely happened at the two recent workshops on public software - > one regional and one international - which indeed came out with a > set public software principles. ) Happy and gungho as the above sounds, and allowing for "Public software nuances" in all it's finery, yet missing the central theme that without the conditions (including specifically the restrictive terms) as set out in FOSS, one is setting a deadly trap for all whom you seek to empower. A result which the closed software guys have considered a holy grail, and which has eluded them so far. > We want governments to bring out public software policies, which > will inter alia mention that FOSS is the most appropriate software > licensing model. I dont think any government is going to name its > overall software policy as FOSS policy, since no government will > make it an absolute law that only FOSS would ever be used by the > governments. However the looser public software term is something > they can work with, because the term 'public' is highly nuanced, > and yes, when required, flexible, which is always required when > dealing with real life larger social and political realms. Sadly it is this very accommodation in every sphere of governance (which always seems to be wholly more accommodating of the status quo), that results in the proclaimed goals never being achieved. While it is indeed "expected" that the existing power structures will always seek to dilute or exert strangulating control over every method of empowerment, it seems ironical that those trying to get empowered fall for the exact same honey trap, over and over. > > On a somewhat different note, I think that the FOSS community needs > to also move its concepts and frameworks along (not at all meaning > that they should follow us in this regard) as the digital realities > are fast changing. It may have not addressed the context of > networked digital reality/ environment as much is needed to, and > urgently. While many of FOSS adherents here may never touch non > FOSS software, or so they may claim, can they say the same thing > about the networked environment, I mean over the Internet. What > about google, facebook, twitter... do they not use it. No I am not > being cynical or fatalistic. I dont say we should therefore > surrender our purity. Only that we should also address the new > context and see what is our best bet in the new context. Keep our > eyes on our basic larger objectives, and not that much on what may > really be instrumentalities. This process started a few years ago, and culminated in the GPLV3 addressing the technology aspects. Further even with the mentioned services, most of the techniques ( i might even say all of the techniques) used within these services are easily available as FOSS components. However their power over the data they control is indeed extraordinary, and this is not brought about by secret or violative or misuse of technology. A job for Privacy rights groups of which one constituent will surely be FOSS creators. > > I wonder, when we are so strident vis a vis violations of freedom > and openness in non-networked digital environment, ...cut... Nothing to do with use / non use / misuse of FOSS. But overwhelmingly large numbers of FOSS users are at the forefront of protests in various forums. Same goes for your next para. > Again, tentatively, I think that there has not been such a clear > response to the new dangers to the openness of, and freedoms vis a > vis, the Internet by FOSS community, because this new struggle > clearly requires figuring out ways to work along with governments > and regulators, and this perhaps requires a conceptual leap, or a > leap of faith :), many in FOSS community are not too ready to make. So the "conceptual leap" consist of accepting honey traps, the pitfalls of which are very clearly understood and experienced by FOSS. > Raymond, one of the pioneers of the open source movement, said > /"If you want to change the world, you have to co-opt the people > who write the big checks."/ At least one developer subscribing to this view is now reaping the aftermath (Java developers locked out of their creation by Oracle). Those who accept the term OS do so not because of ESR's humorous blurb, but out of respect for the numerous (smaller groups, though very competent) non GPL contributors to FreeSoftware. The term Public as belaboured in this thread and the "Public producers" who have contributed precisely zero so far, and might vaguely promise to contribute astoundingly larger number of zeroes, in return for accepting honey traps, win my sum total of zero support. -- Rgds JTD _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
