|
Friends, Nearly seven months after the discussions on public software on this list, and a few off-line exchanges with some of our free software friends, we have much more clarity on the term. The revised definition of public software is provided on the site http://www.public-software.in/Public-software and also below: ------------------- Public software is all software that is essential for participating in the digital society and thus needs to be provided to everyone as an universal right and entitlement. It includes operating system, text / image / audio / video editors, email, web browser, search engine, social networking software etc. It also includes applications used by governments for interfacing with citizens including public services offered through web services (such as passports, visas, job applications, school college examinations etc). Public software needs to be free software, providing the freedom to use, study, modify and share, to ensure universal access as well as participation in its creation and modification. As in the case of public education or public health, public institutions are responsible to ensure universal access to public software as well as support public participation in its creation and sharing. Software developed for public service has a unique context and objectives deriving from those of public service; with its imperative of providing public goods and ensuring equity and social justice. It is well known that private and commercial actions have very different context, motives and considerations than public actions. For instance, the largest possible reach and diffusion as well as transparency of actions are basic to public service, which are not necessarily values espoused by private and commercial players. Thus public software would cater to the requirements of universal access, transparency and participation. Public Software being publicly owned, allows for its free sharing as well as modification by all. Public Software is thus Free Software. In addition, public software is also a public good. While Free Software <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> requires the freedoms of the individual user to use, study, share and modify the source code, in addition to this, public software emphasises its 'public good' nature and vests on government the responsibility of ensuring that basic software required for negotiating the digital world is freely available to all. --------------------- Along with a reading Dr Stallmans mail below, the following points are clear: a. Public software is software that is essential for the participation in the digital society. Eg - operating system, editors, web browser, search engine etc b. Public Software must be free software, allowing the freedoms to use, study, modify and distribute (with modifications if any) c. Public institutions need to adopt and promote public software. This means that Governments as key public institutions need to fund/invest in the development of public software. For e.g screen readers or voice to text converters, language translators need to be developed, Governments need to support their development, including by funding free software communities and enterprises, as required. d. The concept of public software is in line with that of public education or public health - that society is responsible to ensure that basic resources required by all, are made available to all and also permit the participation of all in their creation/availability. This concept therefore appeals to public institutions and helps them see their responsibility in its adoption and promotion. The primary concern from the free software community was that public software was defined to include cases when it would not be free. We understand that our examples for such exceptions have been shown to be invalid (and we are happy about the same). Some smaller comments IN-LINE in the mail from Dr Stallman, forwarded to this list. regards, Guru Why Public Institutions MUST adopt Public Software? see http://public-software.in On 08/09/10 01:28, Anivar Aravind wrote: 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.) This meaning / explanation given by Dr Stallman is very useful. If free software does not by definition need to be published, then it would allow creators in specific cases, to use software without publishing it. This explanation makes our explanation and differentiation unnecessary and removes a conceptual divide. Accepted, as also in previous in-line response.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. Agreed, This is an important rationale for the term.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. Public Software needs to allow the freedoms to use, study, modify and distribute. Hence the disagreement on this aspect, that was voiced on this list around September 2010 time is no longer relevant. These issues have also been specifically discussed with FSF and FSF has mentioned that with our clarification that we will emphasise the necessity for freedom in public software, FSF does not have any issues with the term Public Software and considers public software as worthy of support of the free software community. |
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
