PmWiki | EAO / F-LOSSHasTwoDistinctMovementsBehindIt

''F/LOSS has two distinct movements behind it''

GC26 was grappling with a concept that has the background explained above but it must be said that other than repeating the words of Fr Chávez from his 2005 Letter, few members at the Chapter could have adequately explained exactly what F/LOSS was. Some explanation could be useful here.

Two acronyms, both representing English phrases, have come together in the single acronym F/LOSS. They are FSF and OSI, which stand for Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative respectively. They represent two quite distinct social movements and are strongly tied to the generally accepted but at times divergent views of their respective 'founders': Richard Stallman, in the case of the FSF, and Eric Raymond, in the case of the OSI. We have met both names in these pages already!

Since both acronyms stand for English phrases, and given that the first, FSF, uses the word 'free', it has become commonplace to explain upfront, because of the ambiguity of the word 'free' in English, that 'free' means 'free as in freedom' rather than 'no cost', hence the /L in the resulting combined acronym F/LOSS. The 'L' stands for 'Libre', chosen because it can be understood in English (though not an English word) as a reference to liberty and is readily understood as such in at least French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. The entire acronym, then, can be spelt out as 'Free/Libre Open Source Software'.

What is common to both movements is a profound interest in code, but here it is crucial to explain what both movements mean by 'code'. A failure to appreciate the distinction between source code and machine, or object code would mean a failure to appreciate the importance of the entire combined movement. [Note that while in the mind of the everyday user, F/LOSS is a single approach, the fact that the two constitutive movements indicated above are so different makes it in fact inaccurate to speak of a single movement – but for the sake of a useful shorthand we will refer henceforth to F/LOSS as a movement in generic terms].

'''Code:''' to move, for example, an item of data from one program to another, one could write the instructions in English (or any other language for that matter), but for a microprocessor to interpret the instructions they need to be turned into machine code. Low level machine code is lots of digits (0s and 1s) and is difficult to write directly, as well as being almost impossible for humans to understand. So high level abstract languages (C++, Java, Basic are several examples) were developed with a clear syntax, built around simplified English keywords. By convention the keywords are English. Theoretically they could be Chinese or any other language.

Statements, loops, conditionals, and a number of punctuation marks and symbols make up the 'abstract language'. These are usually written in plain text files and are referred to as 'source code'. Comments are often included (e.g. REM in Basic indicates a remark to follow that will not be interpreted and hence will not be seen outside the source code text) and other information is often added about authorship, versions etc. Hence a source code file contains, in humanly readable language, essential and valuable information about a program.

This code is then 'compiled' or turned into machine code for the microprocessor. This is the object code or executable. Most users are familiar with a file that ends with an .exe extension. At this point the original source code is stripped away and the product may be sold simply in its machine code form. It is technically possible to reverse-engineer machine code back into source code, but this is complex and time-consuming, and mostly illegal! Software sold as executable code without the source code is called proprietary software. The Microsoft (MS) licence tells us that the software is licensed, not sold. The owner remains MS. Very few users are conscious of this, that hey have bought a licence, in fact, not the software, or at least not the source code. MS restricts knowledge about its source code as Coca Cola restricts its formula for the beverage.

FSF and OSM both maintain that source code should be made available at all times but for fundamentally different reasons:

Software can be analysed for its USE functions (the ability and freedom to perform a task with the software), PRESCRIPTIVE functions (restrictions, usually built into the architecture of the software), and EXTERNAL functions (e.g. playing music on a word processor - outside the scope of the software). Proprietary software is sold on the basis of its use functions. Prescriptive functions may be built in, usually quietly. DRM or Digital Rights Management (which may have other names like Trusted Computing) employs prescriptive functions where, for example, Adobe Acrobat restricts possibilities of copying, altering an e-book. DRM exists so that the user is unable to perform actions that break copyright or at least the intentions of an author that material not be copied. Another prescriptive function example, one which directly affects privacy concerns, is the building in of monitoring elements which report back to the manufacturer or even to an employer, enabling surveillance of the user's activity with the software.

This immediately begins to demonstrate wider implications behind software code. Software code actually crystallizes a number of issues in wider society: the legitimacy of technocratic society, public policy in its regard, privacy concerns, to name just three. The academic study of software (as more than a simple tool but a cultural artifact of importance in today's society) regards software code as on some kind of a par with law, since software code plays a part in regulating human behaviour in society. There are those who say that the democratic accountability of code is a key issue for the 21st century.

With the above understandings we can now appreciate the difference between the two movements behind F/LOSS:

'''FSF:''' The Free Software Foundation maintains an ethical approach with a broadly Kantian philosophical background. 'Freedom' becomes a categorical imperative, the movement speaks of the 'laws' of freedom, nominating four: 0. The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0). 1. The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to one's needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. 2. The freedom to redistribute copies so one can help one's neighbour (freedom 2). 3. The freedom to improve the program, and release improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

The strange numbering of these freedoms is a convention deriving from computer programming where 0 is a digit.

FSF supports an ethic of sharing all code with others. 'I consider Free Software a human right and thus a moral norm', says Stallman. His is a contributory theory of knowledge. ''Code, freedom, power, progress, community, rights'' are the key words in Stallman's discourse, developed over a period of twenty years. Code is useful, at least potentially, to every user, even though many a user would not be the least bit interested in seeing or manipulating the source code. The FSF sees it as a public good that is socially constructed and should be shared. Code is produced in a social network. 'Rights' are spoken of frequently - not so much the absolute natural rights of an author but the natural rights of the public. 'Community' is central - being an active member of the civic community and helping one's neighbour are considered important. 'Freedom' has a purpose in this discourse, so people can cooperate in community. Free is a matter of liberty, not price. Any kind of 'black box' approach by software is seen as hindering progress. Prescription and copyright are acts of power, and power in this discourse is viewed negatively.

We do not have to agree with all the above, but we do need to recognise that this is the discourse which motivates the FSF and hence is behind much, though not all, F/LOSS activity.

'''OSI:''' The Open Source Initiative claims no moral high ground and in fact repudiates any claim to being an ethically based movement. It is about technical efficiency, and the discourse is typically neo-liberal; better engineering and economic results are the reason for the OSI. Its founder speaks of the Delphi effect: a way of structuring a group communication process so the result is effective in allowing groups of individuals to deal with a complex problem. ''Code, market, freedom, efficiency, property, individual'' are the key terms in this discourse. If one were looking for a philosophical background it would probably be Lockean and positivist. The profit motive is seen as the greatest source of technological efficiency. Ego-satisfaction rather than altruism is involved (there is no discussion of doing something for one's neighbour as in the FSF). This is about rational choice theory where the individual owner, developer, is a key element. The discourse is about best practice and is generally regarded as being apolitical in nature.

Again we do not need to accept the OSI arguments for F/LOSS but we do need to appreciate that much F/LOSS activity is based on such arguments. It must also be clear by now how essentially different are the two approaches described, while agreeing practically on a single issue: that source code should be available to the user.

How might the Christian present FLOSS?(:nl:)