[Fsf-friends] Tere Vaden: Information wants to be free (long)

[Frederick Noronha (FN)]

---------- Forwarded message ----------


    Tere Vadén
    Professor, Hypermedialab
    University of Tampere

    The possibilities that Free/Libre and Open  Source Software (FLOSS)
    offers for development in information and communications technology
    (ICT), in general, and for the developing countries, in particular, have
    recently gained increasing attention and importance. The following report
    provides encouraging examples of the role FLOSS has already had or can
    have in the developing countries and developmental co-operation.  The
    reason for the increased attention is simple: the philosophy, economy and
    software development model of FLOSS have in the past 20 years or so made
    an ineradicable impact on how information technology is conceptualised,
    used and developed. Since FLOSS does not rely on concepts like
    intellectual property or copyright but rather on concepts of voluntary
    co-operation and copyleft ("copyright turned around"), it has been seen
    as an ideal tool for bridging the so-called digital divides. What has
    made an even stronger impression on some researchers has been the fact
    that in the case of FLOSS fun and ethics seem to travel hand in hand, at
    least part of the way.  The developers of FLOSS, the hackers, often
    "scratch their own itch", that is, do what is fun. It appears that in
    most cases this fun can be had only if the software the hackers are
    interested in having fun with is free and open. The background
    motivations that the hackers have for engaging in FLOSS development can,
    indeed, be quite varied, and still the result contributes to a freely
    distributable, modifiable and usable pool of good quality software.  For
    instance, the philosophical and social motivations of the Free Software
    movement and the Open Source movement are quite different, even
    antithetical at places, but the movements can still share-and-share-alike
    when it comes to creating software that excels in its technical
    qualities. It seems that this kind of co-operation is precisely what
    bridging the digital divides on the software side needs. The question of
    whether ICT development is necessary or whether it should be prioritised
    when it comes to countries that have severe problems with providing for
    the basic needs of their citizens may be debated. It seems clear,
    however, that if and when ICT development is, for instance, a part of
    developmental co-operation, the basic concepts and day-to-day practises
    of using and developing FLOSS offer a footing that may be used with
    benefit.

    Because the background motivations for creating and using FLOSS are
    varied, the arguments for FLOSS are also diverse. They range from the
    purely technical (e.g.  speed of development, security and privacy,
    technological independence, ease of use) to the deeply economic, social,
    political and philosophical (e.g.  price, co-operation, equality,
    commitment to the right to know). This spectrum of arguments can be
    stratified by thinking about the different levels on which digital
    information has an impact. Underlying all the discussions on ICT and its
    effect on the emerging information societies is the fact that by its
    nature information is different from material things. Information is
    abstract in the sense that giving or sharing information does not
    diminish the amount of information that the giver or sharer has.
    Furthermore, the reproduction and copying of information can be done with
    much less cost than the reproduction and copying of material goods. These
    characterisations of the nature of information can be captured in the
    phrase "Information can be free". As a means of production and exchange,
    information is different from material things in that it can be free; as
    a resource, information is non-rivalrous. The different kind of "being"
    that information has compared to the "being" of material things means
    that the sharing of information is in its ontological nature unlike the
    sharing of material goods: this is the sense in which information "can"
    be free.

    The next level of argumentation is crystallised in the rallying-cry of
    hackerdom: "Information wants to be free". Information wants to be free
    in the sense that information, e.g.  computer software, as a tool is made
    better if it is free. This is the level of argument that the Open Source
    movement emphasises. The development of good quality software is faster
    and more efficient if the source code of the software is open and if
    everyone potentially interested in the code is free to contribute to the
    development. As a means to an end, software is best developed if it is
    free. The so-called Linus' Law, after the Linux-hacker Linus Torvalds, is
    often cited in this context: "Given enough eyeballs all bugs are
    shallow". The global society of hackers has through the internet
    harnessed its pool of skills and interests in a distributed working model
    that has produced software at a pace that has defied all economic theory
    and continues to baffle computer scientists.  Software as a tool makes
    best progress when it is free. Therefore it wants to be free; its goal as
    a tool is to be free.

    Information technology  as  a means  is,  of  course, used  towards  some
    ends.  The use and development of technology is embedded in practises and
    cultures. It is obvious that technology in general and information
    technology in particular are not culturally neutral: a given type of
    technology use and development always favours or disfavours different
    types of social arrangements. In the case of FLOSS, the position of the
    Free Software movement is formulated through considering the ends to
    which software contributes. From this viewpoint, the question to be asked
    about different models of using and developing software is what kind of
    society does this or that model promote. Like Richard M. Stallman, the
    founder of the Free Software movement, has emphasised, the goal of the
    Free Software movement is to create a society based on co-operation,
    equality and sharing, therefore software is instrumental only if it is
    free.  Software can be a means to the end of a co-operative and ethically
    sound society only if it is free in the sense of free speech; even
    openness of the source code is not enough. This third level of viewing
    software through its social and political goals can be expressed in the
    slogan "Information ought to be free".  The social commitment to
    supporting and creating a society that is not a jungle but a co-operative
    whole implies an ethical commitment to the freedom of information.

    This third level  of argument  can be  augmented. Following Aristotle,
    we may see the goals towards which we are striving as finalities, as
    goals-in-themselves that do not require any further motivation.
    Finalities do not require motivation, they are the motivation that give
    shape to the tools, practises and social arrangements that embody the
    finalities. It is this level of commitment that often means taking extra
    effort.  In this sense the (ethical) commitment to certain finalities can
    also be quite different from having fun, or from the technical
    considerations that have to do with the properties of software seen
    purely as a tool. For instance, democracy is often seen as a finality.
    Even though democracy might be inefficient and costly, the extra effort
    is worth taking, because of the ethical and social goods that democracy
    includes. Democracy is worth it for its own sake.  This level of
    motivation applies also to FLOSS, even though it can not be easily
    captured in a phrase. Maybe the verb "x" describing this fourth level of
    finalities in the phrase "Information 'x' be free" would have to combine
    the senses of the verbs "can", "wants to", "ought to" and "will".

    It is  also through  this fourth  level of  argumentation that  we reach
    one of the crucial questions that the so-called developed countries face
    when it comes to the use of FLOSS in developmental co-operation.  The
    global trend towards an "information society" gives an increasing role to
    information, knowledge and other immaterial assets in production.
    Therefore the economy is also seeking ways of controlling, identifying
    and using immaterial assets. This happens largely through the concept of
    intellectual property. In economic terms, the notion of intellectual
    property and the connected immaterial property rights are a way of
    regulating free markets, setting up limited monopolies in the name of
    economic incentive for innovation and creativity. This
    mega-company-driven trend towards an increasingly tight "intellectual
    property" regime conflicts squarely with all the above verbs. If
    information is made into property, it can not, will not and should not be
    free.

    Taken to its  extreme, the  notion that information  or knowledge  is
    owned and that its use should be controlled by the "owners" becomes
    absurd. An infant either has to be taught that information is owned or
    otherwise remains ignorant of the fact. In both cases information freely
    shared is the basis on which the ownership of information can be based.
    The absurdity can be seen in the following scenario: if all information
    is proprietary, then the information that information is proprietary is
    proprietary, too, and I can choose to stay ignorant of that information.
    As with material property, intellectual property relies on the goodwill
    of non-proprietary social functions and arrangements. Therefore its
    beneficiality is not a given.

    Through this perspective it is obvious that a very strict regime of
    intellectual property will lead to increased fragmentation and the
    unbalanced division of wealth in the world. It would not be too extreme
    to claim that certain forms and applications of so-called intellectual
    property rights are a way of protecting the "firstness" of the "first"
    world against the interests of the other worlds. At its worst, the
    concept of intellectual property works in ways that are analogous to the
    colonialising effects that the concept of material property has had in
    the previous centuries. It has always been known that "intellectual
    property laws" can be a hindrance to economic development. This was the
    reason why the United States decided not to recognise European copyrights
    and patents in the 19th century.  It is very likely that following a
    tight regime of intellectual property rights will be an obstacle to the
    economic development of the developing countries today, too. Therefore it
    is essential that the legislative system and the policies of the "first"
    world will allow for intellectual and software freedom.

    When it comes  to information technology,  the task is  to create a
    balanced environment for innovation, both social and technological. It is
    a well-known fact that things like software patents and the idea of
    "trusted computing" seriously threaten the possibility of FLOSS
    development. Therefore it is extremely troubling to see how a strong
    big-industry lobby is pushing the legislation and its interpretation in
    the "first" world towards an increasingly biased and restrictive
    direction.  Software patents have already become a burden on FLOSS
    development and the innovation of small and medium-sized software
    companies in the US, and currently the EU is thinking about having a
    software patent legislation of its own.  Software patents are a good
    example of "intellectual property rights" that are not only harmful to
    FLOSS in the "first" world but also to the use of FLOSS in developmental
    co-operation.  A healthy global information society needs a political and
    legal environment that gives possibilities to both independent FLOSS type
    development and proprietary software development.  Shutting one or the
    other out will only aggravate the existing digital divides.

    From the point of view  of finalities the question is:  "What is
    information technology for?" Answering this "why" question can give
    sustainable form to the "how" questions. For instance, economic and
    cultural "whys" may give different weights to different factors.
    Globalisation as a narrowly defined economic trend and the creation of a
    particular type of information society push towards a strict intellectual
    property regime.  This, however, does not mean that intellectual property
    as a concept or as a practice systematically favours equality, democracy
    or development - quite the contrary. Intellectual property rights might,
    in principle, protect the livelihood of indigenous populations and local
    cultural endeavours, but in practice they next to never do. This is
    because established organisations, institutions and companies have an
    upper hand when it comes to interpreting the concept and enforcing the
    laws that codify it.  "First" world countries like Finland can therefore
    advance the creation of a global sustainable information society by
    giving enough weight to social and ethical issues in the legislative
    framework that partly creates the international information environment.
    Especially so because there are also strong economic arguments that speak
    in favour of free markets and against the restrictions in terms of
    "intellectual property".

    The use of  FLOSS is  motivated through concepts  like freedom,
    independence and swantantra.  These concepts have at the same time their
    economic, technical and cultural meanings.  Freedom and independence in
    all of these senses are finalities, goals in themselves and in that sense
    very well in line with the ideals of a global sustainable information
    society. Making grand ideals like this happen is, of course, always a
    complicated thing. However, to be fair, FLOSS is not a dream, but a
    rapidly growing reality that has several success stories in its track
    record. As noted above, FLOSS is no one thing, either.  There are
    different sets of philosophical underpinnings, different models of
    development, different technological options and so on. There is no
    reason to downplay the internal variation of FLOSS or the different
    options in building an information society. The proof of the pudding is
    in the eating, and the proof of the bridge is in the crossing. Let us
    attend to the details.

                                             Introduction

    During the  last couple  of years  the  use of  Free/Libre Open  Source
    Software (FLOSS) has gathered momentum, which has surprised its
    proponents and opponents alike.  Looking at the figures, it would not be
    an exaggeration to say that the Internet is powered by FLOSS.1 (See.
    David Wheeler - Why OSS/FS?)

    Given such a huge  spread in the use  of FLOSS and its  very significant
    economic impact, the questions arising from the perspective of
    development aid and sustainable development are: Does FLOSS offer
    developing countries any significant alternative in addressing crucial
    problems, such as the alleviation of poverty, the democratization of
    society, the reduction of illiteracy, conflict reduction, access to
    knowledge, dealing with natural calamities and other emergencies, etc.?
    Does FLOSS have the potential to help bridge the digital divide?

    In our  view, the  answers to  most of  the above  questions is  a
    definite YES, but without attributing some magic wand status to any
    technology, especially Information and Communications Technologies (ICT),
    including FLOSS.

    The solutions to the problems facing developing countries are very
    complex, and ICT and FLOSS can at best provide a helping hand to humans
    determined to solve those problems. Lacking the political will and social
    forces necessary to solve problems, any technology is just another tool
    which may throw us into *techno-optimism*, that is, the belief that
    *future economic prosperity is dependent upon the rapid development of
    national electronic infrastructures* without actually meaningfully
    solving the burning problems facing the developing world.

    Commenting on the role and impact of Bangalore, capital of the Indian
    state of Karnataka, and that country's foremost hi-tech centre, noted
    economist and Nobel laureate Dr. Amartya Sen2 said: *New centres of
    excellence such as Bangalore can prosper and flourish.  Yet even 100
    Bangalores would not solve India*s poverty and deep-seated inequality.
    For this to happen, many more people must participate in growth. This
    will be difficult to achieve across the barriers of illiteracy, ill
    health and inequalities in social and economic opportunities.* (from The
    Oxfam Education Report Chapter 1)3

    Already at this stage, we  should note that the present  study is not an
    economics-based one.  The team responsible for it lack expertise in
    economics, and is not making any significant claims regarding the impact
    of ICT on economies.  Having said that, we can still refer to a number of
    studies and views which actually show that there is no direct link
    between computers and productivity. For instance, World Bank economist
    Charles Kenny, in his well argumented paper at a WIDER conference on New
    Economy in May 2002,4 believes that the **Solow paradox*5 * widespread
    evidence of computer use, little evidence of (widespread) productivity
    growth * continues, at least in modified form.*

    Warning against techno-optimism  and pinning too  many hopes  on the
    Internet and ICT, Kenny notes: *The Internet is a powerful technology
    that will have a long-term impact on the quality of life in developing
    countries* and *Having said that, our record in predicting the dynamic
    impact of technologies on development in the past has been very weak.  To
    take three communications-related examples, the railway was predicted to
    spark the dictatorship of the proletariat, the telegraph was predicted to
    engender world peace and the television to revolutionize education.
    Broadly, it appears that even while the role of technology in economic
    growth cannot be questioned, the dynamic impact of a particular, invented
    technology is never very large. It looks increasingly as if the impact of
    the computer on US productivity will be a good example of this. The
    impact has been limited so far, and might not increase in the future.*
    (Charles Kenny: The Internet and Economic Growth in Least Developed
    Countries.  A Case of Managing Expectations?)6.

    At the same time, however, we can note  that ICT, or rather thelack of
    it, does significantly impede access to information and knowledge for a
    vast majority of developing countries, especially their academic and
    educational institutions, students, government officials, economic and
    financial institutions, businesses, etc.

    The main objective of this report has been to analyse the significance
    and relevance of FLOSS for developing countries.i In doing so, we have
    tried to take a brief look at the the overall use of ICT and FLOSS,
    especially at some of its most significant and popular software, such as
    GNU/Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Open Office etc, as well as its possible
    impact on the societies, lives, and economies of the people of those
    countries.

    As noted earlier, our  focus in this study  is more on  the wider impact
    of ICT and FLOSS on societies than on economics. That is why we have
    tried to look at a number of issues which hinder a more widespread use of
    ICT in general and FLOSS in particular in most of the developing world.
    Keeping in mind a host of social, political and economic factors,
    especially the overall huge cost of employing ICT (compounded in most
    cases by hard currency shortages), we contend that FLOSS offers an
    affordable and useful alternative to proprietary software for all the
    concerned parties in those countries: governments, public institutions,
    education, NGOs and the private sector.

    Another objective has been to  evaluate projects which utilise  FLOSS
    technologies and to see whether they have any significant impact on the
    democratization of countries, increased access to knowledge, enhancing
    the quality of education, andaiding sustainable development. We have
    tried to achieve that objective by going beyond the purely technical
    merits and use of FLOSS and look instead at the very nature of FLOSS (its
    philosophy of freedom, openness, community activation and collaborative
    nature) as well as make a link between FLOSS and any developmental effort
    dependant upon humans determined to solve problems.

    We let the reader determine  if we have succeeded in  achieving those
    objectives. We can only reiterate that FLOSS and developing countries
    make a great partnership.

    Helsinki, 28th February 2003