Posts Tagged ‘FLOSS’

Steven, 01

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

From the 18th of May, 2010.

MJ: [W]ould it be okay if I said you use open source because you think it’s cool? I actually don’t know why you do at all. You should tell me sometime.
SD: It is cool. However, not in the high school meaning of cool.
MJ: In what way?
SD: Well, you run Ubuntu right?
MJ: Yes.
SD: Well, take any program you think is cool/useful/fun, [and] if you go to the terminal and type apt-get source program_name in a few seconds/minutes you will have the source of that program. All the cool exciting stuff it does is right there for you to play with, break, fix, improve. Think about the hours and hours of work that has gone into something like Firefox. Instead of jealously guarding the product of all that work, [the] people who make it have just given it to everyone. And not just part of it, but all of it.
MJ: And that is pretty cool.
SD: Something like that. I haven’t had Windows on my personal computer for four years or so. I’m not sure I could go back to a system that’s default was to hide things from me and keep things secret. If I find a good piece of free software for GNU/Linux, I can tell Will or someone else about it and not worry about breaking the law just for giving them a copy.
MJ: What is it the FSF says? The ability to distribute what we use?
SD: Redistribute. Redistribution is one of the “four freedoms” that the FSF talks about. Interestingly, I’ve increasingly found Freedom 0, the ability to run the program for any purpose, to be really important
MJ: Does it come up a lot?
SD: Since so often now, you buy software or other media and find that it is locked down such that it is illegal to run it on a different computer or device. This comes up not just software, but music and other media. People who buy music with DRM from the itunes store. The idea that somebody would want to buy something that can only be used on X numbers of computers and devices made by one company is astounding.
MJ: [Could it be] price [or] availability issues?
SD: Perhaps. Although, I just bought a DRM free copy of this Muse song from the Ubuntu Music Store, so that problem may be gone soon. [The Ubuntu Music Store]’s pretty good and has a decent selection. It is hard to say whether Apple is really being earnest in it’s “we want DRM free, but the labels won’t let us” message. I tend not to try to figure out what companies who are built around secrets are thinking. I mean, it is really easy to get around the DRM of itunes. The problem is, just because I can, doesn’t mean I want to break the law just to get access to something I own. I am still trying to figure out where I stand on certain edge issues such as online services
MJ: Explain?
SD: Well, so when you have software on your computer, it is more or less “your computing” that you are doing, but it is unclear what the boundaries of software freedom are when you are talking about web services because I am explicitly doing my computing on somebody else computer.
MJ: So the question is whether you can force a particular user philosophy on someone else’s computer or if it’s even ethical/legal to use certain things on systems not designed for them or stuff more like facebook, in the sense that they are laying down ownership of data?
SD: See, this is why I am still trying to figure out where I stand. There are a bunch of issues that get tied up together. There is the issue of (1) the software that you are using when you use the web service (i.e., you can’t download facebooks code.), but there is also the issue of (2) why I am handing over my data to some third party.

Rose

Friday, April 9th, 2010

Did you see the otter episode of South Park? I don’t remember the actual name, but it was the episode with the otters in it. Intelligent, talking otters. In it, Richard Dawkins had spread atheism and rationality to such an extent that in the future there was no religion at all. There was a war between two factions of humanity and the intelligent, talking otters. The war was over what the name for the atheist group should be.

FLOSS is a bit like the compromise they couldn’t reach in the South Park episode.

In 1986, the term “free software” first appeared. Richard M. Stallman used it in the first GNU’s Bulletin.(1) He went on to specify:

The word “free” in our name does not refer to price; it refers to freedom. First, the freedom to copy a program and redistribute it to your neighbors, so that they can use it as well as you. Second, the freedom to change a program, so that you can control it instead of it controlling you; for this, the source code must be made available to you.

“Open Source” was coined nearly a decade later in 1998.(2) They wanted to create a new image for what they were doing, free from the history associated with “Free Software.” They believed the term “open source” would “sell the idea strictly on the same pragmatic, business-case grounds that had motivated [the creation of] Netscape”(2) as well as address any confusion about whether the “free” in “free software” referred to beer or speech–that is to say whether it was about cost or liberty.(3)

However, this has proven to not just be a matter of nomenclature. Both schools of thought have provided extensive and specific definitions of their respective term. These definitions include licenses that fall under their name. The Free Software Foundation (FSF) sums it up:

The term “open source” software is used by some people to mean more or less the same category as free software. It is not exactly the same class of software: they accept some licenses that we consider too restrictive, and there are free software licenses they have not accepted. However, the differences in extension of the category are small: nearly all free software is open source, and nearly all open source software is free.(4)

Free Software and Open Source Software are like the Baldwins. There are things that can be used to differentiate one from the other, but you can’t always tell what they are unless you know what you’re looking for. Some things are Free, some things are Open Source, and some things are both. Largely, the groups differ on philosophical grounds, preferring associations with ideas like freedom and concepts like openness.

“Libre” was later offered as another term. The word is related to libere, the Latin root from which words like “liberty” also descend. It was meant to offer an alternative to the ambiguity of “free,” specifically referring to the freedom rather than the lack of cost. I can’t find anything to cite here, but the term was coined because of its relation to languages like French, Italian, Spanish, and Portuguese.

FLOSS was used as a compromise by Rishab Aiyer Ghosh in 2001. The term was adopted by the European Commission in some official documentation starting in 2001.(5) “FLOSS” is becoming the preferred term among academics, people not invested in either side of the nomenclature debate, and people who generally don’t want to offend anyone. While “Free” and “Open Source”–and to some extent “Free/Libre”–come from different philosophical backgrounds and do have slight, but important, differences in licensing, they are the same in overall message and mission.

But, this isn’t just about software. I use the term “FLOSX,” pronounced “floss-IX” to mean “Free/Libre/Open Source X.” X is a standard variable, like you used back in algebra class (or still use today in countless other ways.) FLOSX–which will inevitably become “flosx” at some point–refers to anything that is free/libre/open source. It can be about art, culture, hardware, software, or anything else. FLOSX is about a set of ideals and practical methods for creation and distribution applicable to anything you’re passionate about.

(1) Stallman, R.M.. “What is the Free Software Foundation?” GNU’s Bulletin. 1(1) February, 1986.

(2) Open Source Initiative. “The History of OSI”

(3) Raymond, E.R.. “Goodbye, ‘free software’; hello, ‘open source’”. February, 1998.

(4) Free Software Foundation. “Categories of Free and Non-Free Software” GNU Project. April, 2010.

(5) European Comission. “Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study” June, 2001.