FLOSS for e-learning
From: Frederick Noronha (FN) (fred_at_bytesforall.org)
Date: 06/09/04
- Previous message: Frederick Noronha (FN): "[FSFE PR][EN] FSF Europe newsletter (fwd)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: 9 Jun 2004 18:35:01 GMT
International Institute for Educational Planning
http://portal.unesco.org/ci/ev.php?URL_ID=15841&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1086621897
Participants will be given a brief document introducing the forum, with
several suggested general background documents. The discussion and debate
will be summarized in a report that will be made available to all the
participants as documentation on the issues and concerns related to the
potential of FOSS for e-learning. To join the forum, you can send an e-mail
message to: virtual.university@iiep.unesco.org
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Free and Open Source Software for e-learning
Discussion forum
1-25 June 2004
Background Note
Introductory comments
This background document has been compiled to give a brief overview of Free
and Open Source Software. It is based largely upon information quoted
directly from a number of documents available on the web. The source and
link appear at the end of each section for further reference.
What is Free/Open Source Software? 1
"Briefly, OSS/FS programs are programs whose licenses give users the freedom
to run the program for any purpose, to study and modify the program, and to
redistribute copies of either the original or modified program (without
having to pay royalties to previous developers)." David Wheeler
1 Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) has become an international
phenomenon, moving from relative obscurity to being the latest buzzword in a
few short years. However, there is still a lack of understanding about what
really constitutes FOSS and the ramifications of this new concept. To better
explain this phenomenon, we will examine the philosophy and development
methods behind FOSS.
2 There are two major philosophies in the FOSS world: the Free Software
Foundation (FSF) philosophy and the Open Source Initiative (OSI) philosophy.
According to the FSF, free software is about protecting four user freedoms:
The freedom to run a program, for any purpose;
The freedom to study how a program works and adapt it to a person's
needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this;
The freedom to redistribute copies so that you can help your neighbor;
The freedom to improve a program and release your improvements to the
public, so that the whole community benefits. Access to the source code
is a precondition for this.
The OSI philosophy is somewhat different:
3 When programmers can read, redistribute, and modify the source code for a
piece of software, the software evolves. People improve it, people adapt it,
people fix bugs. And this can happen at a speed that, if one is used to the
slow pace of conventional software development, seems astonishing.
4 The OSI is focused on the technical values of making powerful, reliable
software, and is more business-friendly than the FSF. It is less focused on
the moral issues of Free Software and more on the practical advantages of
the FOSS distributed development method.
5 While the fundamental philosophy of the two movements are different, both
FSF and OSI share the same space and cooperate on practical grounds like
software development, efforts against proprietary software, software
patents, and the like. As Richard Stallman says, the Free Software Movement
and the Open Source Movement are two political parties in the same
community.
What is the history of FOSS? 2
6 Since the early days of computing, users have shared computer code. Many
important early programs, including many developed with government funding,
were freely passed around. In the 1950s and 1960s, proprietary software
consisted of limited applications that were almost entirely sold bundled
with computer hardware. Little packaged software was sold until the 1970s,
when IBM was challenged by private and government lawsuits to unbundle and
when minicomputers came into wide use.
7 IBM subsequently began to ship its new mainframes with operating systems
that did not distribute source code. In fact, administrators had to sign
non-disclosure agreements simply to get an executable copy. This decision
represents the birth of the modern commercial software industry. Microsoft
was founded in July 1975 as a company that for all intents and purposes
simply wrote and sold software. The arrival of the PC in the early 1980s and
its rapid widespread distribution onto desktops in the business world
reinforced the trend set by Microsoft.
8 In the mid-1980s a new, more formalized model for sharing software code
emerged. The MIT computer scientist Richard Stallman, concerned about limits
on his ability to access, modify, and improve software, started the free
software movement. This initiative led to the establishment of the Free
Software Foundation (FSF). FSF exclusively uses the term "free software" to
denote software that allows the user to run, copy, distribute, study, change
and improve it through access to the source code. The FSF sees copyright as
a means of imprisoning information and creating unequal access, usually
along the lines of wealth and poverty.
9 To replace traditional copyright, the FSF has developed a standard
copyright agreement, the GNU General Public License (GPL) for software
programs. Under the GPL the user obtains free access to the software code
and agrees that any redistribution of the code will also be freely
available, including any modifications the user makes to the code.
10 Free software gained momentum during the mid-1990s, with the emergence of
the Internet. Developers such as Linus Torvalds, the initial creator of
Linux, pioneered new organizational schemes that made it possible for
hundreds of volunteer programmers to participate in joint software
development over the Internet. Out of this broad participation arose the
open source movement, which includes software developed under the GPL as
well as other license agreements.
11 The GNU/Linux operating system would continue to grow steadily in
features and capabilities. In 1997 Linux exploded into the press limelight,
with International Data Corp (IDC) noting that GNU/Linux already owned 25
percent of the server market and was growing at an annual compound growth
rate of 25 percent.
12 While GNU/Linux grew, the viral nature of the GPL, as well as the rigour
of the FSF's position, gave rise in the mid-1990s to an alternative
institution for "free" software, the Open Source Initiative (OSI). The OSI
emphasized economic competitiveness and aimed its message directly at the
mainstream corporate world. The argument was that the open-source process
emphasized high reliability, low cost, and better features. Most
importantly, a business or Government using FOSS could avoid becoming locked
into using software produced by a controlling monopolist. Open-source users
would gain autonomy through control of their information systems, which were
increasingly the core asset of almost any business.
13 The brief history of software, from its open-source roots to proprietary
models and, now the journey back to open source, has appeared to take place
mainly in the United States. However, the situation seems to be rapidly
changing, and FOSS activities in developing countries may become
increasingly visible in the near future.
14 FOSS is very common, but non-expert computers users may not be very
familiar with it because it has not yet made significant inroads onto the
personal computer desktop in the form of an operating system or office
applications, such as word processors or spreadsheets. Even so, many users
are not aware that they may be regularly using FOSS software and data
formats simply by browsing the Internet and using email, the two most common
household uses of computer technology that would be unworkable without FOSS.
15 The growth and, in some cases, prevalence of FOSS in important IT sectors
is remarkable. The opensource Web server software Apache, which sends Web
pages to the computer of someone accessing a site, has dominated its market
segment since 1996 and now holds at least twice the market share of its
nearest competitor, Microsoft. A survey published in June 2003 on market
share for active Web servers shows similar numbers, with Apache at 65.3 per
cent.
16 By the end of the 1990s the FOSS process had proved its viability as a
means for building complex software packages that could compete successfully
with proprietary products, and in an increasing number of IT market
segments, from low-end embedded processing applications to grid-based
supercomputing. Companies as diverse as GNU/Linux distributor Red Hat and
traditional IT giant IBM have learned how to generate sustained profits by
providing services using various kinds of FOSS. It is now clear that there
are at least two discrete models for organizing the production of software.
Both appear to be sustainable. Today Governments, businesses and almost
anyone who uses software can make choices, and will need to make choices,
between and among products generated through both processes of building
software.
Is FOSS really free? 3
17 There are two senses in which free software is free: it has zero direct
cost to the user, and it provides the freedom to modify the software.
Stallman emphasizes the latter usage. Free software, he explains, is "free
as in 'free speech,' not as in 'free beer." This distinction is important
for two reasons. First, free software is not at all the same as "freeware,"
which is zero-price software with closed source code that is often provided
as a trial product. Second, it is highly misleading to view the main
economic attribute of free software as its price. As is well known, the
total cost of installing a software program includes many other costs; even
with proprietary software, the price of the software is usually only a
modest portion of the total user cost. Large economic benefits arise from
the freedom to modify the source code.
What are the benefits of FOSS? 4
18 Benefits derived vary depending on the constituency addressed
(government, consumer, education, or business), the size of both the user
and developer communities, and whether the needs focus on public use or
business profit.
19 The openness of the OSS model emphasizes the concepts of access (more
transparency of the process and the product), community (leveraging local
and global resources), choice (more competition), and collaboration (sharing
ideas with peer organizations). Each in its own right should benefit users.
Increasing Choice and Competition
20 The software industry's significant consolidation has reduced the number
of options available to users. With the emergence of OSS on the ICT
landscape, new projects are emerging to meet a diversity of needs, some
having global applicability, while others addressing much smaller
communities of interest. These solutions as ICT alternatives should increase
the diversity of choice and level of competition when ICT options are
considered. These dynamics should also increase the focus of the ICT
discussion on organization needs.
Aligning Open Source with Open Standards Objectives
21 While open source software does not imply an adherence to open standards,
open source developers seem more aligned with open standards goals than some
proprietary providers. This bias should increase interoperability and
information sharing among various technology constituencies and benefit
users by increasing the control of its ownership.
Positioning Software as a Public Good
22 OSS is freely available, with access to the programming source code as
one component. OSS can be viewed as a public good created by citizens
contributing their work in an open and collaborative fashion. Participation
in a global community can help broaden the opportunity to share and adapt
OSS ideas among developing countries. As a public good, OSS can promote
local ICT capacity development by focusing on community needs that can drive
the creation of local research and development efforts.
Increasing Technological Self Reliance
23 While resource constraints can present significant barriers in pursuing
ICT initiatives, most countries want to increase their participation in the
knowledge economy, and to do so in a self-reliant manner. Developing
countries are primarily reliant on technology from a select set of external
suppliers. Notably, US based firms generated 56% of the revenues and 96% of
the profits from the global IT industry.
24 Technology self reliance can be defined as 1) reducing dependence on
external technology providers, 2) developing skills internally to address
local needs, and 3) leveraging locally developed skills to pursue revenue
generating opportunities both internally and abroad.
Reducing Vendor Lock-In
25 The software industry has seen a reduction in the number of market
participants and an increased reliance by those firms to promote product
upgrade cycles to maintain their business franchises. While the software
industry will continue to innovate, some product categories are reaching
maturity and users should not be driven to pay for new features and product
versions that have minimal impact on their needs. Using OSS can reduce the
reliance on single suppliers and minimize proprietary technology lock-in
that drives unwarranted upgrade cycles and vendor biased licensing
provisions.
Increasing Transparency
26 A significant difference between the open source and the proprietary
model is the transparency of the development process. With OSS, the source
code that is used to build programs is open and accessible to everyone.
While this access will have varied levels of utilization, it can 1) provide
the opportunity to broaden the sense of ownership, 2) increase trust between
developers and users, and 3) increase a project's focus. With broader
participation in the development process, all parties can work toward common
goals and changes are introduced for the good of the community.
Minimizing Security Risk
27 Data security is an important concern for governments, particularly in
the wake of worldwide computer viruses and increased potential for
cyber-terrorism. Among the benefits of OSS security, versus proprietary
software, is the potential for fewer bugs in OSS and when identified, they
can be quickly fixed. Introducing OSS can increase diversity into technology
infrastructures that can reduce the risks associated with computing
environments supported by a high concentration of homogeneous solutions.
What are the disadvantages of FOSS? 5
28 No single software can be unambiguously "better" than all others. Like
any tool, software has certain characteristics of usability, reliability,
flexibility, robustness and cost. There is no single optimal balance between
these characteristics, and much depends on the distinctive needs of a
particular user. All things being equal, however, software with fewer
serious bugs and a lower total cost of ownership is generally preferable on
simple economic grounds.
Nevertheless, there are areas where FOSS needs improvement.
Interoperability with proprietary systems
29 FOSS systems, especially on the desktop, are not completely compatible
with proprietary systems. For organizations that have already invested
massive amounts of capital into proprietary applications and data storage
formats, attempting to integrate FOSS solutions can prove to be
prohibitively expensive. Changing proprietary standards, which is often
aimed at preventing the integration of alternate solutions, exacerbates this
problem. In time, as organizations shift from proprietary to open standards,
this problem should be reduced.
Documentation and "polish"
30 Established FOSS lacks the extensive documentation and user-friendliness
found in commercial software. The primary focus of early FOSS developers was
functionality. Creating a program that worked well was far more important
than ease of use.
31 Besides the dearth of high-quality documentation, there are also user
interface issues with FOSS Graphical User Interfaces (GUI). Because the GUI
element in most FOSS systems is not a single element but a collection of
different projects glued together, the behaviour of the GUI elements differ
greatly. Command-to-save data differ from one program to another, quite
unlike proprietary desktop operating systems such as the Mac OS X or
Microsoft Windows. Cutting and pasting between different programs can be
wildly inconsistent or even impossible. While there is significant ongoing
work to unify the desktop, the desktop is -likely to remain inconsistent for
some time to come.
References
Dravis, P. 2003. Open Source Software: Perspectives for Development.
Retrieved 18 May 2004 from
http://www.infodev.org/symp2003/publications/OpenSourceSoftware.pdf
Hahn, R. 2002. Government Policy towards Open Source Software. Retrieved 18
May 2004 from http://www.aei.brookings.org/publications/abstract.php?pid=296
Sayo, P.; Wong, K. 2004 Free/Open Source Software: A General Introduction.
Retrieved 18 May 2004 from
http://www.iosn.net/downloads/foss_primer_print_covers.pdf
UNCTAD E-Commerce and Development Report. 2003. Chapter 4: Free and
open-source software: Implications for ICT policy. Retrieved 18 May 2004
from http://r0.unctad.org/ecommerce/docs/edr03_en/ecdr03ch4.htm
--
---------------------------------------------------------
Frederick Noronha * Freelance Journalist * Goa, India
f r e d @ b y t e s f o r a l l . o r g
Ph 832.2409490 / 832.2409783 Cell 9822 122436
784 Near Lourdes Convent, Sonarbhat, Saligao 403511 Goa
---------------------------------------------------------
.oPYo. o ooooo .oo 8 8
8 `8 8 8 .P 8 8 8
o8YooP' o o o8P .oPYo. .oPYo. o8oo .oPYo. oPYo. .P 8 8 8
8 `b 8 8 8 8oooo8 Yb.. 8 8 8 8 `' oPooo8 8 8
8 8 8 8 8 8. 'Yb. 8 8 8 8 .P 8 8 8
8oooP' `YooP8 8 `Yooo' `YooP' 8 `YooP' 8 .P 8 8 8
:......::....8 ::..::.....::.....::..:::::.....:..::::..:::::.....
::::::::::ooP'.:::[Studying the relevance of IT for the millions]:
::::::::::...:::::::::::::::::::::::: http://www.bytesforall.org :
##########################################################################
# Send submissions for comp.os.linux.announce to: cola@stump.algebra.com #
# PLEASE remember a short description of the software and the LOCATION. #
# This group is archived at http://stump.algebra.com/~cola/ #
##########################################################################
- Previous message: Frederick Noronha (FN): "[FSFE PR][EN] FSF Europe newsletter (fwd)"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
