hi but i thought he said something about foscomm itself on the list. i.e bringing in open source and free software together is problematic. maybe some folks on this list dont agree with rms or may be we had a debate on that earlier and i missed it ;)
cheers -s --- On Wed, 8/9/10, Anivar Aravind <[email protected]> wrote: > From: Anivar Aravind <[email protected]> > Subject: [fosscomm] Fwd: Conceptual clarity about public software > To: "Indian FOSS Community Network list" <[email protected]> > Date: Wednesday, 8 September, 2010, 1:28 AM > Dear all, > > We had a discussion today with RMS about the this thread. > As many > people pointed in the thread he also expressed pushing a > new term will > make policy circles more ambiguous . See his detailed > response below > > Anivar Aravind > Moving Republic > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Richard Stallman <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 12:00 AM > Subject: Conceptual clarity about public software > To: Renuka Prasad <[email protected]>, > [email protected], > [email protected] > > > Perusing some of the documents from IT for Change, I see > that the term > "public software" is used for at least five different > concepts: > > 1. Software necessary for participation in digital society > > 2. Software used by the government. > > 3. Software developed for the government. > > 4. Software development projects that would serve a public > interest. > > In addition, there is a fifth possible concept of public, > which enters > because IT for Change uses "private" as the opposite of > "public". > > 5. Software that is published. (The FSF speaks of a > program as "private" > when it has not been published.) > > Their text refers to these four concepts indiscriminately > by the same > term; only by studying the meaning of the text is it > possible to tell > which concept is in use in any given place. Clear > understanding of > the various issues requires distinguishing these concepts. > It will be > useful to have shorter and distinctive terms for them; here > are some > suggestions. > > 1. Everyday necessary software. > > 2. Government-used software. > > 3. Government-commissioned software. > > 4. Public interest software development. > > 5. Published software. > > Some statements by IT for Change contrast public software > with "FOSS". > Thsi introduces another conceptual difficulty, because FOSS > identifies > free software and open source -- two different > philosophies, with two > different practical criteria. The term "FOSS" is usable > when this > difference is of no concern; but the difference matters > here. > > For the free software movement, what matters is to contrast > public > software with free software. The results will be > different, because > IT for Change's analysis presumes that FOSS is always > published, > but free software is not always released to the public. > > Free software is defined in terms of freedom for those who > have the > program, not in terms of who has access. If you write a > program for > your own use, you enjoy the four freedoms in using that > program, so > your copy is free software. This is true even if you > never distribute > a copy to anyone else. We refer to these programs as > "private > software". > > This is pertinent because IT for Change gives, as an > example of a > program that should not be "FOSS", a program to break > encryption. The > argument is that the government might want to develop this > but would > not want to publish it. Perhaps so -- but it does not > follow that the > program is not free software. On the contrary, if the > government has > the four freedoms in using the program, the program is free > even > though it is private. (Whether it is good for the > government to be > able to break our encryption is a question that we need not > raise > here.) > > When IT for Change argues that public software is not > necessarily > "FOSS", it cites the example of software that "should not > be > published". However, that example is not pertinent to > free software. > (Open source might be a different issue.) Software users > all deserve > freedom, so all software should be free, but this does not > mean that > all software must be published. > > With case eliminated, perhaps there is no case in which > public > software would not be free software. > > Another question that arises in the IT for Change texts is, > in which > circumstances should the government support software > development. I > agree with IT for Change that the government should devote > its > resources to development of software in the cases where its > existence > benefits the public. Otherwise, it would be a waste of > public funds. > For instance, I see no reason why the government should > develop > software for people to use for gambling. > > But if, perchance, the government does develop and release > software > for gambling, it must release that software as free > software. To > release it in any other way would be wrong. > > If the government does not develop and release software for > gambling, > anyone else is free to do so. He might release the > program; if so, it > ought to release it as free software; to do otherwise is > wrong. Or he > might use it privately, in which case, it ought to be free > software > for the sake of his own freedom (and normally, it will be > free > software for him). > > Distinguishing these various concepts of "public", and > understanding > their relationship, will make it possible to clear up a > number of > issues about public software, and perhaps reduce conflict > between > public software and the free software movement. > > If some public software may not be free, the free software > movement > will have to argue against the claim that public software > is, in > general, desirable or ethical. But if all public software > is free > software, that disagreement doesn't arise -- which would be > a relief. > _______________________________________________ > network mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in > _______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
