Re: NOSI releases "Open Source Primer" for Nonprofits
On Thursday 19 February 2004 3:44 pm, Katrin for NOSI wrote:
> Hi, Mark -- There are a few passing references to the free software
> movement and Richard Stallman's contributions in this regard. The Primer
> was specifically written from a very pragmatist perspective rather than an
> ideological one, to help nonprofits understand what free and open source
> software is and assess whether it is right for them to try. I do think
> that it is important to understand the underlying values of f/oss and how
> they, in many ways, align with those of the 'social sector' and nonprofits
> and NGOs. Michelle and I have begun to actually write about this a little
> bit but have not gotten very far. We'd welcome your contribution in this
> regard.
Sure, I would be happy to help here. I probably would start with a story that
illustrates the ethical dilema you choose to put yourself in when you use
proprietary software.
A friend comes by and takes a look at your monitor, and says "Hey, that
WhozemiWhatsit photo editor looks really cool. That would really help me
with a project I'm working on for my parents 50th anniversary. Could I get a
copy?"
Now, you are faced with two bad choices. By using proprietary software, you
have pledged not to help your friend. You can tell her no, or you can break
your agreement. Most people, given this choice, prefer to help their
neighbor.
This story needs some work because it only deals with distributing the binary,
not the source but it is effective in illustrating the point. I think there
are probably some examples based on the restrictions of the Digital Millenium
Copyright Act that would speak to non-technical folks.
> I have heard Richard speak as well and read his papers. He has done much
> to spread the free software gospel, especially in developing
> countries. But even the Free Software Foundation is sounding a more
> moderate tone these days, trying to articulate compellingly the values of
> f/oss without discounting the real and pragmatic issues that organizations
> face trying to deploy it. I think both conversations are important to have
> without pitting them against each other as they really are complementary
> and mutually reinforcing in so many ways. I personally think not much is
> gained by engaging in the high-pitched ideological battles that Raymond and
> Stallman engage in.
I'm not advocating for any kind of ideological battle. They are a waste of
time. Rather, a clear communication of the political and ethical issues. So
people can decide for themselves. I think talking about the ethics helps
explain why people write free software, which is the first large hurdle in
explaining what it is. Presenting the pragmatic does not preclude discussing
the ethics.
If you just focus on pragmatism, then the concepts of freedom will get lost
and people will not understand why it is important to fight things like
software patents. These battles need many many enthusiastic volunteers
because it is a big money fight. The U.S. government is very aggressively
working to export these intellectual product restrictions to other counties
via trade negotiations. In Tuesday's RMS talk, he said this was the best way
for people to contribute to free software.
> Incidentally, I am running a panel at the NTEN nonprofit technology
> conference on "Why should nonprofits care about free and open source
> software" where we will have, schedule permitting, the ED of the Free
> Software Foundation, Bradley Kuhn, speak precisely about the philosophical
> and ethical issues of free software. There will be other panelists talking
> about pragmatic reasons for using Open Source, engaging in a dialogue on
> both angles.
I'm presenting a case study of a free software project I did as part of David
Geilhufe's session so I'll be in Philly as well. If you like, we could work
on your paper then.
Regards,
Mark
Reply to: