PmWiki | EAO / HowMightTheChristianPresentFLOSS

''How might the Christian present F/LOSS?''

Is there not a prior question? How might the Christian NOT present F/LOSS? Most important, I would suggest, is not to present F/LOSS as 'better than Microsoft' (or Mac or.....), because the argument is not about one or other operating system or software company. The argument is about principles and fundamental convictions.

Attempts to translate fundamental convictions of Christian faith into universal blueprints for society are generally unsuccessful, but there is every reason why we should adopt a clear stance with regard to F/LOSS which is based on our convictions and praxis. We ourselves require little convincing of our right to present a faith-based interpretation of how we should act in society, but it may also help to know that over recent years, since shortly before Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he and Jürgen Habermas have engaged in dialogue over the role of faith in the public sphere.(Joseph Ratzinger and Jürgen Habernas, The Dialectics of Secularization: Reason and Religion, Ft Collins, CO, Ignatius Press, 2004). Habermas, in a surprising turn from an earlier view that religion had to explain itself in secular terms if it was to be acceptable, has begun to argue that religious conviction has every right to express itself to the secular democratic state in its own terms and that furthermore a democracy cannot be guaranteed survival if it does not take into account religious belief and opinion.

Accordingly then, bearing in mind our priorities like the priority of God, concern for evangelisation and education, it would be appropriate to develop a clear fourfold argument for F/LOSS as a choice which is via the four 'E's:

1. Evangelical,

2. Educational,

3. Ethical

4. Economical

by contrast with proprietary software.

Note the order in which these arguments occur. The first two still require some work, since there has been little attempt by the Church to tackle software at this level; the remaining two less so in the sense that we can borrow from material already available from the FSF in the case of ethical arguments, adding a few of our own, and the economical argument is patently obvious. Herewith some pointers:

'''Evangelical'''

One question is whether we can put the words 'God' and 'software' together in any kind of meaningful sentence. The wider challenge is to develop a proactive theology concerning technology, as said earlier. The Church has given us a lead, especially since Vatican II and under the pontificate of the communicator Pope John Paul II, but it still regards technology (and 'software' is almost completely non-existent in theological reflection) as a condition to which we need to react.

Perhaps the best way, despite the comment about a reactive theology in general where technology is concerned, is to re-appraise Catholic Social Teaching for its application to issues raised by software. The dignity of the human person, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, preferential option for the poor can all come into play quite directly and without being forced into the argument when we come to a discussion of the 'culture of sharing' and when we begin to tackle some of the wider questions to do with F/LOSS. One of these wider questions, one of ownership and rights, is to do with intellectual property. Software began as open and free. When it came time to determine whether it might be patented or put under the mantle of intellectual property (IP) or copyright law, the latter path was chosen. There is a broad debate about IP today in the world community and the Vatican has representation in this debate. An example of a statement coming from such representation is as follows:

-> The Holy See, consistent with the traditions of Catholic social thought, underlines that there is a 'social mortgage' on all private property, namely, that the reason for the very existence of the institution of private property is to ensure that the basic needs of every man and woman are met and sustained. This "social mortgage" on private property must also be applied today to 'intellectual property' and to 'knowledge' (John Paul II, Message to the "Jubilee 2000 Debt Campaign" Group, September 23, 1999). The law of profit alone cannot be applied to that which is essential for the fight against hunger, disease and poverty. Hence, whenever there is a conflict between property rights, on the one hand, and fundamental human rights and concerns of the common good, on the other, property rights should be moderated by an appropriate authority, in order to achieve a just balance of rights.('IP and basic access to medicine,' Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010620_wto_en.html)

The wider F/LOSS community has developed several approaches to IP including Copyleft (The GNU Public Licence), Creative Commons and a range of other open licences.

There are examples available of efforts to develop a gospel-based understanding of these matters, be it at the broader level of understanding technology or the more specific issues of F/LOSS and Intellectual Property. 'Love to Share', a statement on the culture of sharing with regard to Intellectual Property, by the World Council of Churches, and promoted by WACC, the World Association for Christian Communication; 'Technology and Catholic Social Thought', Daniel R. Lynch, are two. They involve a critique of purely market approaches to an issue that affects many other aspects of human beings' lives today; confronting 'abundance' with concern for what is 'essential'; applying Scripture not just by bible-bashing the issues but offering, as an example, the original Jerusalem community as a model from which to draw certain principles (Acts 4:32-35); taking up a prophetic stance.

A different approach, which can be tied to the 'evangelical', is from a human rights perspective. Instructive here is a paper delivered by GianMarco Schiesaro of VIS at the recent Quito Congress on F/LOSS and the democratisation of knowledge, and then followed up by a further paper delivered at the International Congress on the Preventive System and Human Rights in Rome, January 2009. I will deal with this in Chapter 6.

'''Educational'''

There is a key argument for F/LOSS in education which derives from the 'open source' aspect: one can teach students how to use a certain software program, but they are limited to pushing buttons if they have no access to the source code. Give students the source code and they can learn how a program works as well as having the possibility of adapting it.

There is a complementary and reciprocal relationship between F/LOSS and education. F/LOSS offers an environment (through access to source code) of unlimited experimentation and tinkering. It also makes possible collaboration and interaction with a community of programmers, developers and users of the same programs.

F/LOSS also means that if someone somewhere in the world has created a specific software tool to meet an educational goal, this same tool can be available elsewhere and can be built on. Because F/LOSS is not limited to one language, it is possible to translate the program, including its source code, into local languages.

But the educational argument goes wider than access to source code, as important as this is. Associated with the F/LOSS approach comes a renewed understanding of approaches to teaching and learning. Access to source code and to a community of users has brought a not-so-subtle change from a Descartian 'I think therefore I am' approach to a 'We participate therefore we are' one. F/LOSS is more than an instrument or set of instruments. It has become a community of praxis. While OSI considers F/LOSS to be a new marketing phenomenon, educationalists become aware that it is a new form of cognitive apprenticeship. New 'members' (of a F/LOSS program's email list for example) learn by opening up code, tinkering with it and perhaps expanding it or making it more robust. In effect a learning community evolves.

'''Ethical'''

To the fundamental FSF argument of liberty (and there have been distinctly Catholic efforts to develop this ethical argument under the Scriptural notion of 'eleutheros', cf. Marco Fioretti et al. in the website www.eleutheros.it ), we may add a range of broadly ethical issues which are especially pertinent to Religious life. They could come under the label of 'digital governance'.

(1) The conservation of digitally-born documentation in the Congregation becomes an ethical issue when we consider, for example, that the correspondence of its key historical figures is already available digitally – because it existed on paper and has been converted to this form. It is immediately apparent that today's extensive email exchanges are most likely not going to be similarly available unless people take appropriate steps. We could take expensive steps to ensure that they are, but two observations are required here: a change in mentality on the part of today's correspondents would be required even before any money was put to such a cause; in terms of a F/LOSS discussion though, an equally important observation is that no money is required! If people choose appropriate software by way of email clients, the conservation of email in open format (plain text!) outside of the client itself is a couple of clicks away. The process is far more complicated if someone chooses to use proprietary email clients. In such an instance, then, the choice of software becomes an ethical issue.

(2) There is a range of practical issues to do with the nature of digital exchange today vis-a-vis the assumptions behind Religious community structures. The processes normally foreseen by Canon Law and Religious discipline in the case of a dispute between a member and his superior are often skipped today because of the opportunities offered by digital exchange. A novice may be in immediate contact with his major superior by email, for example, bypassing a string of legitimate authorities along the way. Then there is 'flaming'. There is even a low-level issue at stake here – many people simply do not know the fundamentals of email etiquette. To write in upper-case is regarded as rude and aggressive (and is known as 'flaming'), even if done unintentionally. Hence there are questions pertaining to appropriate digital formation. It makes little sense to talk about 'learning the languages of the young' if one of their most basic languages today (let's call it 'digital') is a complete mystery to their educators.

(3) There is the question of security in the digital world today – security of one's own digital documentation (meaning documentation an individual creates himself) and security in a world where we leave digital traces everywhere. A mobile phone user may be physically tracked anywhere in the world.

While each of the above issues forms part of a broader digital education and praxis not specifically connected with F/LOSS as such, the reality is that adequate responses are found in this arena since the F/LOSS community in particular has set out to address questions relating to active, responsible (and safe) citizenship in the digital world. We ignore these efforts at our peril. At the very least there is cause for further study and revision of a document as basic as the Ratio (a document outlining processes for formation of members, which has its historical origins in the Jesuit document by that name) to ensure a balance between technophilia and technophobia in today's members. This I will take up in Chapter 5.

'''Economical'''

It is not true that all F/LOSS programs are free as in 'gratis'. Nor is it true that all programs which are free as in 'gratis' are F/LOSS. Acrobat Reader is not F/LOSS. The Opera browser is not F/LOSS. Red Hat is a Linux-based operating System which is F/LOSS but costs. The FSF argument, recall, is not that a program should not cost (or that a programmer or vendor has no right to ask for remuneration) but that the source code be included and accessible. At this point it is necessary to respond to the most frequently asked question of all when people first begin to contemplate F/LOSS. How can someone offer a program for free? How do they live? Surely there is some trick to this? This is no idle question – it is asked by real people in real places. I had no sooner written the above paragraph when someone sent me by email, the following item:

-> […]A teacher came to students and confiscated the Linux Live CDs. Next, she wrote an angry email to HeliOS's project founder, Ken Starks:

-> After confiscating the disks I called a confrence with the student and that is how I came to discover you and your organization. Mr. Starks, I am sure you strongly believe in what you are doing but I cannot either support your efforts or allow them to happen in my classroom. At this point, I am not sure what you are doing is legal. No software is free and spreading that misconception is harmful. These children look up to adults for guidance and discipline. I will research this as time allows and I want to assure you, if you are doing anything illegal, I will pursue charges as the law allows. Mr. Starks, I along with many others tried Linux during college and I assure you, the claims you make are grossly over-stated and hinge on falsehoods. I admire your attempts in getting computers in the hands of disadvantaged people but putting linux on these machines is holding our kids back.

-> This is a world where Windows runs on virtually every computer and putting on a carnival show for an operating system is not helping these children at all. I am sure if you contacted Microsoft, they would be more than happy to supply you with copies of an older version of Windows and that way, your computers would actually be of service to those receiving them.

We ought know that Mr Starks replied to this email. The temperature was running a bit high, so I will just give you the last part of his reply:

-> Now. You give that boy his disks back. Aaron is a brilliant kid and he's learned more using Linux than he ever did using Windows. Those disks and their distribution are perfectly legal and even if he was "disruptive", you cannot keep his property. I have placed a call to the AISD Superintendent and cc'd him a complete copy of your email. It looks like we will get to meet in his office when School starts again after the holiday. I am anxious to meet a person who is this uninformed and still holds a position of authority and learnedness over our children.

And you also ought know that Aaron got his disks back!

The question can be answered at several levels, and none of them have to do battle with one or other vendor and their products. For someone interested in the more academic answer, there are any number of studies of 'gift culture' inherent to many human cultures. Our hard-bitten economic world today (apart from being in deep trouble) is not the only approach to things. Human beings like to give, including freely. Christianity cannot claim altruism as its own invention. So yes, it is possible for there to be free as in no-cost software, simply because people, including our famous hackers, like to do that and give it away.

But the more practical answer is to point out that those who produce open source code, even if not motivated by altruism, make their money in other ways – software services, for example. And efficient source code is not limited to the programmer. Because the code is open, many ordinary users do look at it, do help to fix up bugs. The 'ordinary user' is as much a part of the good F/LOSS program as is the programmer, and the 'ordinary user' is often acting in his or her own interests – it may require very little effort to fix a bug and the user immediately benefits. He or she would rarely ask for recompense and is delighted to help the community 'out there'. Besides, those who know a little about the software industry know that little money is made out of the sale of software itself. The plastic-wrapped software of some years ago is almost non-existent today. It is usually downloaded (for free), tried, then paid for up to thirty days later. The real money is made not from the sale of the software but from services related to it, upgrades over time, and so forth.

It is the case, however, that most F/LOSS is either gratis or low cost, hence the argument that F/LOSS is an economical choice is clear enough for an institution. How much money could be saved for other purposes if people did not have to upgrade (at cost) annually and could purchase (at no or little cost) software to efficiently achieve almost any purpose which is software related? This economic/al argument then moves into the ethical arena when it comes to our work with poor young people who cannot afford access to costly software, or when it becomes a discussion about pirated software. We may want to argue that 'piracy' is a legitimate exercise in some instances, that the word is a deliberately negative one, that piracy is actually supported by major companies as a way of commencing the 'lock-in' path so that the 'thief' either through desire or by being eventually caught, has little choice but to continue using that software. But we would then need to also argue that the system is somehow rotten (sinful structures at work). F/LOSS then becomes an ethical response as well as an economical one. What practical actions can be taken?

Any issue of depth requires reflection. Just as communities are encouraged to reflect on other issues which impinge on their life and mission, reflection on the kinds of issues raised in this chapter is to be encouraged. Currently there are few models of such reflection available. One is offered here.

''The community reflects''

1. Identifying our experience: Which aspects of our digital engagement (beginning perhaps from the most obvious level of the member who uses a PC or laptop) have had significant impact on the life of the community? If we are an international community, is there likely to be a diversity of response to this question, and what does that tell us?

2. Reflecting on our experience: If we begin to critically analyse our experience, are there events, changes in society (in general, but also in the Congregation), in the Church, which point to the impact the digital era has had in our regard? How has the life style of the society we live in been affected?

3. Throwing light on our experience: are there charismatic elements (icons of the Congregation, sayings, typical actions of the Founder…) which speak to us about some of the elements we have discovered thus far? Is there a 'digital divide' in our own experience, or in the Congregation? Is there some element of the Spirit here?

4. Considering alternatives: The digital world offers us both challenges and possibilities. What sort of digital involvement (at any level) does our charism and mission ask of us?

5. Choosing a horizon: People who remain just users, almost like objects of digital forces around them, have no particular horizons. People who are active subjects act better with clear horizons, even if these are distant ones. What kind of horizons (e.g. biblical, charismatic) could help us to think ethically, responsibly in terms of our mission where this area is concerned? An example of such a horizon might be for a community involved in education: in what ways are our perceptions, behaviors, values, and norms being shaped through our interactions with technology, and what are the implications when we consider technology in education from a social-cultural perspective of learning? Furthermore, what are the implications for education in the development of citizenship?

6. Action programme: Are we at a point where our involvement, our participation and our digital activity needs some planning? What sort of strategies do we need? How can we create opportunities to make our intentions real?

''Policy''

There are a number of areas of intervention which might make up a policy on F/LOSS

'''Software procurement''': since the choice of software may be critical in a number of instances (conservation reasons, for example) software should be procured which offers the possibility of open formats [for text, presentations, images, sound, video...]

'''Awareness-raising and information'''

'''Formation'''

'''Education and evangelisation'''

'''Mission and Development offices'''

'''Administration'''

'''Archival requirements'''

'''Collaboration''' ....

Each area of intervention needs its own achievable goals and targets. For example, it would be an achievable target to create 100% awareness of F/LOSS amongst the members of a Province. It would not be an achievable one to create 100% usage.

Criteria should be offered for making software choices. Members will have their own ideas about (and can be further informed about) how a particular F/LOSS choice responds to:

- reliability - performance - scalability - security - total cost of ownership (TCO), often overlooked in religious communities and their work. This includes acquisition, purchase (not the same thing – it costs money to drive or take a bus to a computer store, and then it costs money to purchase the item or it costs to download from the Internet if one considers payment to be online in the first place....), licences, administration, training and support, upgrading, maintenance. - Strategy formulation. Once a target is considered to be achievable, how will it be achieved? An example might read thus:

The community will implement F/LOSS where analysis has shown it to be the appropriate option. The primary criteria for selecting software options will include evangelical motivations as well as economic or efficiency ones.

''Other activities which respond to broader horizons''

What follows is simply an unordered list, mostly in question form. All of these issues were raised at the Congress on F/LOSS and the Democratisation of Knowledge in Quito, October 2008.

* If technology and software are to some extent 'missing links' in Catholic Social Teaching, then study and research is required. Our Faculties and Departments in the communications area may be equipped to help with this. * Actions must follow convictions – we need policies, statements of institutional ethics which include this area. * F/LOSS can be a learning environment which enculturates into a practice. What more can we do as a community of educators to cultivate communities of practice where F/LOSS is concerned, along with learning networks which foster civic engagement, and which ensure open access and accessibility? * What implications are there for a 'presence' phenomenon now widespread in most provinces – the province and/or local community website? (cf also GC26 Guideline 16) * What can we do to help our presence, activity online to be more of a coherent self-aware force for good on behalf of the young and the poor, and in what ways can F/LOSS be part of such a strategy? * If F/LOSS has many good reasons to commend it, it is also true that it is not as widely used as it could be, and this may well be because of lack of awareness, lack of qualified teachers and trainers for tools and concepts, lack of quality educational materials dealing with F/LOSS and its use. What implications are there here for a particular Province? For that matter for all provinces given that material can be readily shared? * 'If you are in the network you can share and over time increase your chances in life' (Castells) – surely this is motivation for concrete action on behalf of the young who are in situations of either being 'locked out' or 'switched off'.

''WHAT actions can the individual take?''

A 'Master, what must I do?' question still remains. What concrete steps can an individual take to demonstrate that he is a F/LOSS user?

The real Master's answer to the original question is not entirely inappropriate here! 'Go sell....'. Not that one needs to apply that literally. Understood another way, and by way of a radical step, one could simply cease to use proprietary software and replace it with software that, for the most part, will not cost anything. This latter fact is a bonus, not the central motive (recall the motivations: evangelical, educational, ethical and then economical).

Old habits die slowly, and one can hardly expect all users to take radical steps immediately. Education is a gradual process.

The simplest set of steps is as follows:

1. Replace an existing browser, email client and word processor with true F/LOSS items (the 'true' is there to remind the user, again, that the real issue is not cost, but openness). Examples of true F/LOSS replacements – there is always a range of likely replacements – could be Firefox as a browser, Thunderbird as an email client and OpenOffice (with its Writer component) for word processing. This step alone ensures that 99% of the ordinary user's tasks are being achieved with F/LOSS.

2. Ensure that word processing is not carried out (even with the 'Writer' choice) in the traditional type-format approach, but with a view to structure. Even MS Word will allow the user to adopt styles instead of piece-by-piece formatting. OpenOffice makes this even simpler. The use of styles ensures that text is well-structured (logical structure of title, sub-title, heading levels, paragraphs and so forth) which means easy conversion to various media outputs, an 'open' standard in practice.

3. Where a proprietary software item is still in use, seek to save files in as open a format as that software allows. MS Word allows one to save as .rtf instead of .doc, for example. In most cases, rich text format (rtf), which can be read outside of MSWord by other word processors and indeed by a simple text editor, will suffice.

4. Tasks not covered by the above software (for example working with images) will mostly have have F/LOSS equivalents. Many of these are compatible with the Windows operating system.

A further step, more difficult still because of habits already formed, is to take care with the language one uses about software and its results. Constant reference to word-processing as 'Word' only helps a global monopoly in this field! The same applies to 'Power Point'. The alternative choice is to describe the results for what they are – word processing documents or presentations. If the 'presentation' is the result of one or other software then it is appropriate to add the qualifier – Power Point presentation, or Impress presentation and so forth.

One can always choose a Linux operating system, at least as part of a dual-boot option. And since Linux is less-demanding in terms of processing power and gentler on hardware, old hardware rendered obsolete because of processing power issues can be recycled.

''Extending the argument''

This chapter has argued that Free and Open Source Software involves a vision of knowledge that would be of benefit to all. The first reaction of the ordinary user to the existence of F/LOSS, if it happens to be a positive reaction and one of interest, tends to be that it will be of economic advantage, since it may cost nothing or very little. I have argued that within the broader vision of the whole human being in all his or her dimensions, the economics of F/LOSS are the least important reason for adopting this approach, attractive as that may be. Certainly the chief promoters of the Free Software Movement are adamant that human freedom is the chief motive. I have argued, instead, that we take a just as forthright Christian stance on this and put the Gospel (with its understanding of human freedom) at the head of the list. I have followed this with an educational motive, since I belong to an organisation that is also heavily committed to the education of young people in almost every nation on earth. Ethics and economics then complete the picture.

The remaining chapters are not necessarily focused on Free and Open Source Software, but take these four motivations and expand them in view of a commitment to education and evangelisation of the young in a world and in cultures now inseparable from the digital.

Chapter 4 (:nl:)