I’m going to do a workshop on free software here in Zürich at the Paulus Akademie this Friday. This is the same thing that got cancelled a few months ago. I wonder what I’m going to be talking about. This is for the “general public”... The title of the day translates roughly to “Big Business with Information” and the title of my workshop is “Microsoft and freedom if information – goals and background of the free software movement in Switzerland.” Personally I really think that free culture is the most important thing. Free software is only interesting because I’m good at coding (as opposed to singing, for example).
Thus I plan to talk about the following issues (but I’m not sure in which order I want to approach this):
As for how I want to run the workshop is by talking about these issues for maybe 20 minutes while I draw the key concepts and their relations on a black board (or a white one). Then we’ll have time to discuss my points. I would also like to bring some reading material along. Maybe five or six pages of material.
I should probalby talk about *free software* – what is it in legal terms, and what is it in practical terms? Some background:
1. “Der Urheber oder die Urheberin hat das ausschliessliche Recht zu bestimmen, ob, wann und wie das Werk verwendet wird. [...] insbesondere [...] Werkexemplare anzubieten, zu veräussern oder sonstwie zu verbreiten; [...] Der Urheber oder die Urheberin hat das ausschliessliche Recht zu bestimmen; a. ob, wann und wie das Werk geändert werden darf; b. ob, wann und wie das Werk zur Schaffung eines Werks zweiter Hand verwendet oder in ein Sammelwerk aufgenommen werden darf.” – Urheberrecht (URG) Artikel 10 und 11.
2. “When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights.” – The General Public License (GPL) by Richard Stallman
3. “Der Lizenzgeber gewährt Ihnen unter den Bestimmungen dieser Lizenz eine weltweite, lizenzgebührenfreie, nicht exklusive, für die Schutzdauer des Werks andauernde Befugniss für folgende Nutzungen: a. das Werk zu vervielfältigen, das Werk in ein oder mehrere Sammelwerke aufzunehmen und das Werk im Rahmen des Sammelwerks zu vervielfältigen; b. das Werk zu bearbeiten und das Werk zweiter Hand zu vervielfältigen; c. Vervielfältigungsstücke des Werks zu verbreiten, das Werk öffentlich vorzutragen, aufzuführen, vorzuführen oder es anderswo wahrnehmbar zu machen, sei es in analoger oder digitaler Form, einzeln oder in einem Sammelwerk; d. Bearbeitungen des Werks zu verbreiten, öffentlich vorzutragen, aufzuführen, vorzuführen oder es anderswo wahrnehmbar zu machen, sei es in analoger oder digitaler Form, einzeln oder in einem Sammelwerk; Die vorstehend unter lit. a bis d genannten Befugnisse können in jedem Medium und Format, ob nun bekannt oder in Zukunft entwickelt, ausgeübt werden. Diese Befugnisse beinhalten auch das Recht zu Änderungen, die technisch notwendig sind, um die Befugnisse in anderen Medien und Formaten auszuüben. Alle nicht explizit vom Lizenzgeber eingeräumten Rechte bleiben dem Lizenzgeber vorbehalten.” – Creative Commons/CH
If we’re going to talk about the *motivation* behind the developers of free software, we could use what a friend of mine has done in a lecture of his: Marcus Dapp put extracts of three documents on a page and let his students describe the basic values underlying the statements. The three documents were:
1. “As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?” – Open Letter to Hobbyists by Bill Gates
2. “I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such things are done for me against my will.” – GNU Manifesto by Richard Stallman
3. “I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones. This has been brewing since april, and is starting to get ready. I’d like any feedback on things people like/dislike in minix, as my OS resembles it somewhat (same physical layout of the file-system (due to practical reasons) among other things).” – What would you like to see most in minix? by Linus Torvalds
What would you like to see most in minix?
If we’re going to talk about *open standards*, I think I should bring along two documents:
1. “We suggest that the text of network mail, whether transmitted over the FTP telnet connection (via the MAIL command) or over a separate data connection (with the MLFL command), be governed by the syntax below: [...]” – Standardizing Network Mail Headers (RFC 561), long since superceded by other RFCs.
2. “OSS projects have been able to gain a foothold in many server applications because of the wide utility of highly commoditized, simple protocols. By extending these protocols and developing new protocols, we can deny OSS projects entry into the market. David Stutz makes a very good point: in competing with Microsoft’s level of desktop integration, ’commodity protocols actually become the means of integration’ for OSS projects. There is a large amount of IQ being expended in various IETF working groups which are quickly creating the architectural model for integration for these OSS projects.” – Halloween I by Vinod Valloppillil
Maybe we’ll touch upon the issue of *software patents*:
1. Price Waterhouse Coopers “has formally identified software patenting as a threat to the growth and success of ICT in Europe.” – The Register
2. Deutsche Bank notes that small and medium enterprises are “deterred by the costs of patenting themselves, but would have to navigate around software patent portfolios of large corporations.” – golem.de
#Copyright