Re: [Fsuk-manchester] "Selling" Free software to the masses

[Simon Ward]

On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 12:43:24AM +0000, Luke Taylor wrote:
> I am putting together some literature to give out to the students at
> Manchester University promoting free software (and free culture). I
> have looked around and haven't found any good resources for "selling"
> free software to non-geeks. Does anybody have any good ideas or points
> to make to enthuse somebody who may not even know what source code is?
> The finer points in the GPL versus BSD debate may need to be dropped
> for example and probably the whole four freedoms thing.

The four freedoms are vital, they define what free software is.  You
don’t have to explain it as “the four freedoms” and recite them word for
word, but you will need to mention them all or the whole point of free
software is lost.

The GPL could be mentioned as a common and pivotal licence in the free
software movement, but you don’t need to, and I wouldn’t.  The GPL vs
BSD[*] stuff doesn’t need to be mentioned at all.

[*] If you must talk about BSD, be sure to be clear about the
distinction between the original and revised licence (hint: one is not
free).  See Confusing Words to Avoid[1] and The BSD License Problem[2].

[1]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
[2]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

> I have written a quickie and would be very interested in feedback from
> the geeks:

> Software
>
> The problem
>
> If you are a brilliant scientist and build upon the ideas of Einstein
> you will be applauded. If you do the same thing in software you will
> be taken to court. Patents and intellectual ownership of techniques in
> software make cutting edge research necessitate the services of a
> lawyer.

The problem is with patents on algorithms, and is something that affects
other areas than software.  It can be seen to affect software more
because of the pace at which software changes.

> If you own a windows PC or a Mac then it is illegal for you to study
> how your computer does what it does.

I’m not sure that this is illegal, at least for “interoperability” by
reverse engineering operations.  This doesn’t necessarily mean you can
reverse engineer source code.  Maybe you just need to explicitly mention
software instead of the computer.

> The solution
>
> “Free software”, often called open source software

People will argue with me here, but talking about “open source software”
on the same level as free software only dilutes it.  If you must mention
the term, you should also mention its problems.[3][4]

If you are introducing the concept to people, it’s probably better not
to mention “open source” at all.

If it’s likely that people will already know about “open source” then
you might want to mention it, but with the caveat that you should
indicate the difference.

You’re trying to “sell” to non-geeks, so explaining this could be too
much detail.  We’re back to “it’s probably better not to mention ‘open
source’ at all.”  If some do know about open source software, they’ll
make the connection sooner or later.

[3]: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html#Open
[4]: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html

> is software that respects the users' freedoms. Free software grants
> the freedom to study, innovate and redistribute software however the
> users see fit.

Don’t forget the freedom to use the software in any way.

“Innovate” for modifying (improve, develop?) sounds like something a CTO
might say, but I’ll let you off.  I’ve synergised my quilt and sofa to
generate a top-of-the-range comfortable position, so I’m happy. :)

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall

signature.asc
Description: Digital signature