diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html | 656 |
1 files changed, 656 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..13e6649 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/ICT-for-prosperity.html @@ -0,0 +1,656 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>Shaping Collaborative ICT Development and Initiatives for +Global Prosperity - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/ICT-for-prosperity.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> + +<h2>Shaping Collaborative ICT Development and Initiatives for Global +Prosperity</h2> + +<p> +by <strong>Robert J. Chassell</strong> +</p> + +<p> +[From a presentation given at the <!-- <br /> +<a href="http://www.globalknowledge.org.my/"> broken link, 1apr11 --> +Second Global Knowledge Conference<br /> +in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, on 7 March 2000.] +</p> +<!-- <p> +[For a more extended discussion, see my<br /> +<a href="http://www.teak.cc/Access-speech.html"> +Free Software: Access and Empowerment</a>. +</p> --> + +<p> +The title of this presentation is ‘Shaping +Collaborative ICT Development and Initiatives for Global +Prosperity’ and the themes of this conference are +‘access’, ‘empowerment’ and +‘governance’. +</p> +<p> +What I want to do today is take one specific technology and talk about +the way we have shaped that technology to make it accessible and +empowering, how we have placed it in an economic and institutional +framework that encourages people to work collaboratively, and how to +use the technology for better governance. +</p> +<p> +The technology is software. The shaping has to do with copyright +licensing terms — its legal and institutional framework. +</p> +<p> +As a founder of the Free Software Foundation, I have been working for +16 years with the legal and institutional framework in which we use +and develop software. GNU/Linux, a complete software system, is +the outcome of these efforts. +</p> +<p> +ICT, the information and communications technologies, are +made up of hardware and software components. I am speaking here only +of software. However, I hope we can extend our experience from this +to other technologies. +</p> +<p> +When I speak of software, I am speaking both about the programs that +run the computer, that is to say, the operating system, +and about applications, such as electronic mail and other +communications, spreadsheets, electronic commerce, writing tools, +sending and receiving FAXes, Web site creation, engineering, research, +mathematical computations, modeling, image manipulation, and +networking. +</p> +<p> +Over the last few years, the prices of computer and telecommunications +hardware have dropped to the point that many more people are using +them. Indeed, our conference organizers estimate that as many as one +out of every thirty people in the world have computer-based, online +telecommunications access. +</p> +<p> +While one out of thirty is still a small portion of the world's +population, this technology is popular, growing, and becoming more +important in our daily lives. In addition, we expect that +computer and telecommunications prices will continue to drop for at +least another generation, so many who currently lack resources will +eventually benefit. +</p> +<p> +As with any technology, software can be employed well or badly. +</p> +<p> +At the moment we see both. On the bad side, we see machines that +crash unnecessarily, email messages that waste their recipients money, +systems that are vulnerable to simple viruses, and programs that do +only part of what you want. +</p> +<p> +The key to good use of software is to ensure freedom. In software, +this leads to collaboration, lower prices, reliability, efficiency, +security, and fewer barriers to entry and use. +</p> +<p> +For a good use of software technology, people must have the legal +right to copy, study, modify, and redistribute it. All else flows +from this. +</p> +<p> +GNU/Linux software gives people these rights. Programmers benefit, +and more importantly, people who are not programmers benefit. +</p> +<p> +For example, people in an area with lousy or no telephone service can +use a rugged package called UUCP for communications. I recently read of +an Oxfam group that did this. +</p> +<p> +People with older machines, even with the very old 80386 chips, can +run efficient programs that do as much as programs that require a +modern Pentium chip and expensive memory. And they can use these +machines as servers for Web pages and as routers — for +communications' infrastructure. +</p> +<p> +People with just one computer can attach one or two additional +terminals to it, and provide two or three seats in place of one, for +very little extra cost. I have done this: a friend visited and we +both wanted to work on my computer at the same time. Email, Web +browsing, writing, remote system administration: we did all these at +the same time. +</p> +<p> +A community group, or business, can set up its own mailing lists or +news groups, private or public. The groupware is there. Two or more +people can work on the same document at the same time, even if they +are in different countries. The last time I did that, I was working +with a fellow on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. +</p> +<p> +What script do you want to write in? Hindi, Chinese, Thai? All these +are possible, and in the same window as English or Cyrillic. +</p> +<p> +Individuals or groups can set up their own Web sites. A publisher can +typeset his own books. An accountant can analyze a budget. Blind +people can listen to text read out loud to them by the computer. +</p> +<p> +You can enjoy choosing among several graphic user interfaces, a fancy +one, another that looks and behaves rather like Microsoft Windows, or +a third, that is simple and practical. +</p> +<p> +Except for the blind person's speech generation, which requires audio +that I never installed in my machine, every application I have just +mentioned runs on my home computer. And people I know have installed +audio and listen to it. +</p> +<p> +All these applications came on a CD-ROM that was, as it happens, given +me at no charge. I have also paid for CDs with a different version of +the software — sometimes it is more convenient just to buy. And +if you have a fast Internet connection, you can readily download the +software, paying only your connection costs. +</p> +<p> +This wealth of software is available and can be used anywhere in the +world. +</p> +<p> +To return to the question of how this technology was shaped: the key, +as I said, is freedom, the legal right to copy, study, modify, and +redistribute the software. +</p> +<p> +The specific legal tool we used to create these freedoms and the +resulting benefits is a specially drafted copyright license, the GNU +General Public License. +</p> +<p> +This license gives you more rights than plain copyright does, and more +rights than many other kinds of software license. In essence, it +forbids you to forbid. It permits you to do everything else. +</p> +<p> +Let me go through this list of rights: copy, study, modify, and +redistribute. +</p> + +<p> +First, the right to copy. +</p> +<p> +Not many people own a factory that would enable them to copy a car. +Indeed, to copy a car is so difficult that we use a different word, we +speak of ‘manufacturing’ a car. And there are not many +car manufacturers in the world. Far fewer than one in thirty people +own or have ready access to a car factory. +</p> +<p> +But everyone with a computer owns a software factory, a device for +manufacturing software, that is to say, for making new copies. +Because copying software is so easy, we don't use the word +‘manufacturing’; we usually do not even think of it as a +kind of manufacturing, but it is. +</p> +<p> +The right to copy software is the right to use your own means of +production (if you will pardon my use of an expression that has gone +out of fashion). Millions of people, a few percent of the world's +population, own this means of production. +</p> +<p> +Naturally, there have been efforts to take away your rights to use +your own property as a factory that you own. +</p> + +<p> +Second, the right to study. This right is of little direct interest to +people who are not programmers. It is like the right of a lawyer to +read legal text books. Unless you are a lawyer, you probably wish to +avoid such books. +</p> +<p> +However, this right to study has several implications, both for those +who program and for everyone else. +</p> +<p> +The right to study means that people in places like Mexico, or India, +or Malaysia can study the same code that people in Europe or the +United States use. It means that these people are not kept from +learning how others succeeded. +</p> +<p> +Bear in mind that many programmers work under restrictions that forbid +them from seeing others' code. Rather than sit on the shoulders of +those who went before, which is the best way to see ahead and to +advance, they are thrown into the mud. The right to study is the +right to look ahead, to advance, by sitting on the shoulders of +giants. +</p> +<p> +Moreover, the right to study means that the software itself must be made +available in a manner that humans can read. +</p> +<p> +Software comes in two forms, one readable only by computers and the +other readable by people. The form that a computer can read is what +the computer runs. This form is called a binary or executable. The +form that a human can read is called source code. It is what a human +programmer creates, and is translated by another computer program into +the binary or executable form. +</p> + +<p> +The next right, the right to modify, is the right to fix a problem or +enhance a program. For most people, this means your right or your +organization's right to hire someone to do the job for you, in +much the same way you hire an auto mechanic to fix your car or a +carpenter to extend your home. +</p> +<p> +Modification is helpful. Application developers cannot think of all +the ways others will use their software. Developers cannot foresee the +new burdens that will be put on their code. They cannot anticipate +all the local conditions, whether someone in Malaysia will use a +program first written in Finland. +</p> +<p> +Finally, of these legal rights, comes the right to redistribute. +</p> +<p> +This means that you, who own a computer, a software factory, have the +right to make copies of a program and redistribute it. You can charge +for these copies, or give them away. Others may do the same. +</p> +<p> +Of course, several existing, large software manufacturers want to +forbid you from using your own property. They cannot win in a free +market, so they attack in other ways. In the United States, for +example, we see newly proposed laws to take away your freedom. +</p> +<p> +The right to redistribute, so long as it is defended and upheld, means +that software is sold in a competitive, free market. This has several +consequences. Low price is a consequence. This helps consumers. +</p> +<p> +But first and foremost, these legal and economic rights lead to +collaboration, one of themes of this conference. +</p> +<p> +This outcome is contrary to many people's expectations. Few expect +that in a competitive, free market, every producer will become more +collaborative and that there will be no visible or felt competition +among competing businessmen. +</p> +<p> +The more competitive a market, the more cooperation you see. +This apparently counter-intuitive implication is both observed and +inferred. +</p> +<p> +This is because people are not harmed by doing what they want to do. +People like to help their neighbors. +</p> +<p> +Consider a small farmer, one among a million. My friend George, back +in the United States, is one such. +</p> +<p> +His harvest is so small, that there is nothing he can do to effect the +world price. His neighbor is in a similar situation. +</p> +<p> +Consequently, if George helps his neighbor, his neighbor benefits, and +George himself loses nothing on the price he receives for his harvest. +</p> +<p> +Since George will not hurt himself, he has every other reason to help +his neighbor. Not only is George kindly, he also recognizes that when +he helps his neighbor, his neighbor is likely to return the favor. +</p> +<p> +This is what you see in a competitive free market: cooperation. +</p> +<p> +Visible competition indicates that the market is not fully free and +competitive. Visible competition means that at most you have a +semi-free market. +</p> +<p> +Moreover, and this benefits people who are not programmers, if +software is sold in a free market, competition among vendors will lead +to a lower price. +</p> +<p> +Put another way, the price of software is determined primarily by +legal considerations: by the degree to which customers enjoy freedom. +If customers are forbidden to buy a product except at a high price, +and that prohibition is successfully enforced, the product will be +expensive. This is what occurs with much proprietary software today. +</p> +<p> +On the other hand, if software is sold in a free market, competition +among vendors will lead to a lower price. +</p> +<p> +Indeed, in some circumstances the cost will be so low that companies +or other organizations will give away CD-ROMs containing the software; +others will make copies for their friends; and yet others will provide +downloads over the Internet at no charge. +</p> +<p> +This means that software itself, a necessary supporting part of a +business or community project, will be both inexpensive and legal. +</p> +<p> +Think of this from the point of view of a small business or community +supported group. The organization can use restricted-distribution, +proprietary software, and either pay a lot of money it does not have, +or break the law and steal it. +</p> +<p> +On the other hand, free software is inexpensive and legal. It is more +accessible. It is also customizable in ways that restricted software +often is not. This is empowering. +</p> +<p> +We shape the development of this technology, we create collaboration, +through the use of a legal tool, a license, that gives you more rights +than you would have otherwise, that forbids you to forbid, that in +this case, gives you the right to copy, study, modify, and +redistribute the software. +</p> +<p> +Because of the freedoms associated with it, this software is called +‘free software.’ +</p> +<p> +While I am speaking of this phrase, let me clear up a verbal issue +that sometimes confuses English speakers. +</p> +<p> +The low price of free software leads some English speakers to think +that the word ‘free’ in the phrase ‘free +software’ means they can obtain it without cost. This is not +the definition, which is about +<a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">freedom</a>, but +it is an easy misunderstanding. After all, I have been talking of +frugal use of resources, software that is inexpensive. +</p> +<p> +The English word ‘free’ has several meanings. As a +Mexican friend of mine — and leader, by the way, of a major free +software project — once said to me, +</p> +<blockquote><p> +English is broken; it does not distinguish between ‘free +beer’ and ‘free speech’. +</p></blockquote> +<p> +Spanish, on the other hand, distinguishes between ‘gratis’ +and ‘libre’. Free software is ‘libre’ +software. +</p> +<p> +Likewise, the language of our hosts, Bahasa Melayu, distinguishes +between ‘pecuma’ and ‘kebebasa’. Free +software is ‘kebebasa’ software. +</p> +<p> +Incidentally, Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens invented the phrase +‘open source’ a few years ago as a synonym ‘free +software’. They wanted to work around the dislike many +companies have of free markets. The phrase is popular; Eric and Bruce +succeeded in their purpose. +</p> +<p> +However, I prefer the term ‘free software’ since it better +conveys the goal of freedom; the proposition that every man and woman, +even a person who lives in a third world country, has the right to do +first rate work, and must not be forbidden from doing so. +</p> +<p> +I mentioned that a business or community can use software that is +inexpensive and legal. +</p> +<p> +Now let me turn to the software industry itself. +</p> +<p> +Because competition in a competitive market forces down the price of +free software, no one enters the software industry to sell software as +such. Instead, and this is often not understood, a business enters +the industry to make money in other ways. +</p> +<p> +Companies and people in the ‘software industry’ do not +sell software itself, but services associated with software or +hardware or other solutions. +</p> +<p> +This is what happens in the medical and legal professions. Both +medical knowledge and law are freely redistributable. Physicians and +lawyers sell their services to solve problems. +</p> +<p> +What services do I mean? Most directly, help in using a computer, or, +to take more specific examples, help in setting up a packet radio +network where there is no telephone, or help in creating and nurturing +a warehouse data base. +</p> +<p> +Less directly, and increasingly, hardware companies that sell +telephones or desalinization plants, add software to their products to +make them more attractive to buyers. +</p> +<p> +Incidentally, programmers themselves write software for four main +reasons: first, because they are hired to solve a problem, just as a +lawyer is hired to draw up a contract. Second, as part of another +project. Third, because it enhances their reputation. And fourth, +because they want to. +</p> +<p> +I have spoken about shaping this technology for collaboration. The +key is freedom, and creating the legal framework that supports +freedom. +</p> +<p> +Now let me talk about initiatives that lead to prosperity. +</p> +<p> +One issue with development is resources, or rather, the lack thereof. +</p> +<p> +As I said earlier, free software reduces barriers to entry, both in +the software industry itself and in other industries and activities. +</p> +<p> +Free software, and the culture and ways people tend to think when they +collaborate, reduces operational costs. +</p> +<p> +Let me take an example that comes directly from this conference. +First I should tell you that I have correspondents all over the world. +They are not all in rich countries. They or their supporting +institutions are not always rich. +</p> +<p> +The first messages about this conference that I received took up more +than four and a half times the resources needed to convey the +information. The messages were sent in a bloated form. +</p> +<p> +Next time you budget for a project, consider paying four and a half +times its cost. Then consider whether you would fund it. +</p> +<p> +Next time you pay at a restaurant, take out four and a half times the +money… +</p> +<p> +For me the resource use was not an issue because I don't pay by the +minute for telecommunications, as many do. But I know that my +correspondents around the world prefer that I take care in my +communications that I do not waste their money or that of their +supporting institutions. +</p> +<p> +A notable feature of free software is that many applications run well +on older, less capable machines, as I mentioned earlier. For example, +a couple of months ago I ran a window manager, graphical Web browser, +and an image manipulation program on my sister's old 486 machine. +These worked fine. +</p> +<p> +Text editors, electronic mail, and spreadsheets require even fewer +resources. +</p> +<p> +This frugality means that people can use older equipment that has been +tossed out by first world companies. Such equipment is inexpensive and +often donated. The computers need to be transported. Sometimes +you need to start a local project to refurbish the hardware and load +it with inexpensive, customized, free software. These machines +cost the end user less than new machines. +</p> +<p> +At the same time, manufacturers are building modern, low end +computers that do as much as the older ones, and are not too +expensive. +</p> +<p> +There is no need to acquire expensive, new hardware to run your +software. +</p> +<p> +In conclusion — +</p> +<p> +I was asked to speak on +</p> +<p> +‘Shaping Collaborative ICT Development and +Initiatives for Global Prosperity’ +</p> +<p> +Over the past 16 years, I have worked with people who shaped software +through a legal tool that gives you many freedoms: the freedoms to +copy, study, modify, and redistribute the software. +</p> +<p> +This tool shapes software technology to make it more accessible and +more empowering; it encourages people to work collaboratively, +and provides a technology for better governance. +</p> +<p> +This legal tool means that companies in the ICT industry compete not +to sell software itself, but to sell services associated with it, or +to sell hardware, or other solutions. +</p> +<p> +This legal framework means that companies will provide more reliable +and efficient services. +</p> +<p> +Freedom, ensured by a proper license, means that people who use +computers and telecommunications as tools can enter their industry +more easily. +</p> +<p> +It means that all users can reduce their entry and operational costs. +It means that people in poorer countries are not shipping off their +money to a rich country, but are keeping their money in the local +economy. +</p> +<p> +Moreover, as I said above, restricted-distribution software licenses +often force people to choose between violating the law and paying +money they may not have. +</p> +<p> +As a matter of good governance, a country should not force people who +are trying to do a decent job into making such decisions. Too often +an otherwise law-abiding person who lacks resources will choose to +violate the law. +</p> +<p> +Instead, a country should arrange matters such that acting in a +law abiding manner is without doubt the best action, for legal, +moral, and practical reasons. People always hope their neighbors +will be law abiding and honest; free software encourages that. +</p> +<p> +Free software empowers people who previously were kept out. +</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 2007, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2013 Free +Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2014/04/12 12:39:57 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |