Loading Events

« All Events

  • This event has passed.

What has FLOSS done for us?!

07/09/2011 @ 7:30 pm - 11:00 pm

Or, to paraphrase a certain famous quote:

“What has the GPL ever done for us?”

After the recent highly focused talk to the group by Dr Richard Stallman (FSF) highlighting some aspects of our freedoms and the compromises compromising those freedoms, this meeting is a chance to discuss what we think… And also to see what all this means for the world of software and IT and people in general.

On the night, there was just far too much thoughtfulness to take in, all in one gulp, for just one night!

Like it or not, anyone who uses, develops, or otherwise depends upon ‘high tech’, we are all embroiled in a fiendish game and contest. The current news listed here gives just a very small sample:

And that’s just a very small selection for the last few days!

And then there is that little something that most people seem to blindly accept without any appreciation of the consequences:

So… Free/Libre is a lot more than just the GPL. Is there really only Dr Richard Stallman shouting for our freedoms?

What do you all think?

 

All at our discussion meeting at:

Fellows Morton and Clayton
54 Canal Street
Nottingham, NG1 7EH
Telephone: 0115 9506795

To find us,  go through to the back of the pub and we’re up the spiral staircase in the restaurant. Just ask one of the friendly bar staff for NLUG if lost.

Food is also served through into the evening.

 

Wednesday 07/09/2011:

  • 7:30pm: Meet
  • 8:00pm: Talk
  • 9:00pm: General discussions

Cuddly Gnus, Penguins, and All welcome!

 

Cheers,
Martin

 

See:

FLOSS
GPLv3
Copyleft

Details

Date:
07/09/2011
Time:
7:30 pm - 11:00 pm
Event Category:

Venue

Fellows Morton and Clayton
54 Canal Street
Nottingham, NG1 7EH United Kingdom
+ Google Map
Phone:
0115 9506795

5 comments to What has FLOSS done for us?!

  • martin

    Looking around the web for “Software Freedom” news, there’s lots about the upcoming “Software Freedom Day”, but the main splash seems to be only from the FSF and Dr Richard Stallman. Are we all going to become unstuck when he eventually retires from the scene?

    Here’s a few more links that give a good reading for where we are in the FLOSS world:

    Two sets of observations for how corporations approach ‘Open Source’:
    The Long Road To (Software) Freedom;
    Models of corporate open source;

    This article gives a good summary of the rise and fall of how FLOSS and Linux appear in the public eye:
    Software Freedom Perspective: 2006-2011;

    This briefly highlights perhaps the foremost concern for an entrepreneur going the FLOSS route. Note the comment about business being the business of restricting supply:
    The Entrepreneur’s Dilemma

    And perhaps the best of the articles is this summary about Dr Richard Stallman:
    Free software guru sanctifies Brussels bruiser

    That last article sums up nicely some of what we saw for ourselves.

    So how does, and how can, all that fit together?…

    For discussion!

    Cheers,
    Martin

  • martin

    There was much good discussion and some good strong opinion!

    Firstly, there was the view that as a figure-head and ‘ambassador’ for the Free/Libre Open Source Software ‘movement’, rms (Dr Richard Stallman) was a “very bad example” and “far too extreme and political” to be readily accepted by anyone unaware of the subject and history. Unfortunately, a very few from his recent talk found him to be too abrupt and brusque, such that they felt him to be rude. However, he has also got to be admired for his attempt at what he sees to be the ‘pure’ way to go for software and hardware freedoms.

    As for his message and his talk, all but the most die-hard users of proprietary systems were impressed for the energy and clarity of message of his talk. For all questions given to him, he had clear if sometimes harsh and uncompromising answers, or he would immediately admit if there wasn’t an answer. He takes a very academic and direct approach to argument and discussion that can be disconcerting to those unaccustomed to the enthusiastic exploration of ideas.

    As to whether his views are possible and workable…

    Comments during our discussion in this follow-on meeting included:

    Freely given away games do not pay and FLOSS games are never finished or polished or adequately maintained by the gamers;

    FLOSS development of “megabucks” BIG games involving actors and special effects is just not possible;

    Also, game engines that have been freely released for general use tend to remain minimally modified, and continue to be used only in their original roles;

    Some big examples of FLOSS undoubtedly do work well, but how can more widespread/general take-up be realised or funded, promoted, encouraged?

    Can FLOSS projects be funded/sponsored in a similar way to that of academic research via grants?…

    I think we agreed that the ‘purity’ espoused by rms is good and needed, even if there were also reservations that a ‘real world’ compromise was sometimes more practical.

    We ran out of time to discuss far enough for how “Free/Libre” can be applied to the arts.

    One aspect that struck me is that the ideas and ideals behind FLOSS run parallel to the (philosophical) academic ideals of the freedom of knowledge for all for the good of all, but also that some aspects can easily get entangled with various political ideologies. Indeed, some aspects of the ideas/ideals can appear to be radically extreme in political terms. Or should it be that, it is the business and political practices restricting people’s freedoms that should be seen as being extreme?

    All who had the book “Free Software, Free Society” by rms agreed that it made for a very good read. Highly recommended to anyone who cares about freedoms.

    rms is always in a nervous rush. So much so I’m not sure he sleeps during his lecture tours and travels. He is already elsewhere around the world promoting his message, and follows a punishingly hectic schedule. I just hope he doesn’t burn himself out!

    Is there enough honesty and enough of a sense of community in the world to allow FLOSS to financially be viable? Perhaps so, considering some (very) successful examples where artists or developers have made their work freely available and left themselves at the mercy of freely given donations or honesty payment. But perhaps not always…

    Are most people unaware, so few know to care?

    Further comment here or on the maillist welcomed!

    Cheers,
    Martin

  • martin

    “El Reg” has picked up on a bit of recent media news on the ‘morals’ of software:

    Memo to open source moralists: Put a sock in it

    The main point of the article appears to hinge on the contrast of the quote … North Carolina pastor Don Parris argues that “proprietary software limits my ability to help my neighbor, one of the cornerstones of the Christian faith.”… against certain highly profitable software companies having donated a little of their accrued wealth to charity.

    One apt comment:

    What the hell have you been smoking?

    If it wasn’t for the Stallman, we wouldn’t have GNU, we wouldn’t have free software and we wouldn’t have the free software movement that we have. Linux distributions literally would not exist.

    Richard Stallman can be a bit of an arse at times, but he is the idealist that we need to keep pushing at the proprietary evil that racks our industry. You might not like Richard Stallman’s viewpoint, but for every Stallman there is a Ballmer, Jobs and Ellison at the diametrically opposite end of the spectrum.

    We need a special double Fail icon for the Ultimate Fail this article is.

    All a philosophical question of viewpoint? Or a clash of power and freedoms?

    Cheers,
    Martin

  • martin

    A good comment here nicely summarises some of the ‘business models’ around FLOSS:

    Open source software could be considered a “public” good, since a person’s usage of the source code does not restrict others’ ability to use it. Also, the benefits from OSS are nonexcludable; I cannot withhold any person from copying, modifying or studying the software by design. Since others can benefit from my source code without paying the cost, we get the free rider problem: many people will use Linux OS’s without taking part in the costs associated with creating and managing such a project. This makes earning money on the basis of the OS itself an uphill task.

    There are a number of typical ways in which to solve this. One of them is to allocate these goods to government. This is obviously out of hand, and even then, it involves forcing people to pay for an unsolicited good. Another is to offer other products (e.g. services and support), then make revenue from these. not from the software itself: this is the most common model for OSS. Then another is to offer “entrepeneurial solutions”: for example, an agreement to improve X functionality for Z price (think Disney and Wine), or turning the OSS community into valuable R&D for the company (like RedHat). I agree with none of these anyway… but they are the usual ways where the OSS “business model” performs.

    Bottom line: you’re right. As a “public” good, OSS cannot provide profits in itself, due to the inefficiencies and externalities involved. BUT: it can serve as 1) a useful cost-minimizing tool for other business (e.g. Linux in Hollywood), 2) a secure deployment for other businesses (Amazon/Google), or 3) as a platform for generating support services (Redhat, Canonical, Mandriva, and many others) — even other products (Mac OS X from FreeBSD/Mach). So while there is no business “in” open source, there is a lot of business “around” open source.

    I would also describe FLOSS as effective for promoting openly innovation for new ideas and methods and developments.

    Also note how such as IBM and Google and many network suppliers and operators have very successfully built their business upon the versatility, freedom, and the rapid development of FLOSS infrastructure.

    Cheers,
    Martin

  • Martin L

    An interesting blog comment:

    The generosity strategy

    … Their software is their core asset. Without it they have nothing. Why would they give it away?…

    … Operating the business strategy at that level creates a framework for all their decision-making.

    They can open source their core assets because it strengthens the collective power of the WordPress toolset as a platform for free speech. In addition, it gives them a sensible model for working with developers who want to contribute code to the platform. They can operate with a small staff, prioritize product over profit, and play fast-follower to the break-neck pace of innovation that most of the rest of the top players in the business may be forced to play.

    What’s the result of the generous nature of their business?

    75M blogs, about half of which are hosted by them, and many of those pay them a monthly hosting fee. 341M monthly users across the network. 20,000 software plugins built by a huge network of developers working on the platform… many of whom make money being professional service providers and premium template designers for WordPress.

    Now, they have a lot of powerful forces challenging their existence. …

    … by embracing a strategy of giving and a deep-seated commitment to enabling others to speak their minds on the global stage, WordPress has something more valuable than robust revenue streams. They have a network of customers who need them to succeed in the world.

    That network of people is more valuable than any software or hardware distribution platform.

Leave a Reply