 |
| Top » Why FLOSS |
FLOSS is an acronym for Free/Libre/Open-Source Software. It is an alternative term for Free Software. Free Software does not mean no charge - not like free beer, silly! More like free speech.xii. To address this misconception, the term Open Source was introduced.
Today Open Source and Free Software have branched out into two directions, both have the same end but advocates different means to achieve their end.
FLOSS addresses both without specifying which one.
So what are the issues, where did Free Software come from and what are they trying to do? How does this benefit our society and ultimately you and me? The following briefly address the above questions.
Updated: 2007-08-26
Basically, it is about the negative effects of intellectual property - the restrictions on ownership, the restrictions on who and how you can benefit from these properties. FLOSS does not reject all rights - it is not anarchy; they only reject specific controls placed on sold software products.
They see software as thoughts, as knowledge and the negative restrictions place on them as restrictions on the free use of this knowledge. Not everything can be patented: laws of nature, natural phenomena and abstract ideas are not. As such, mathematical formulas without practical merits cannot be patented. Software are percieved as mathematical formulas but with practical merits.
The following are some issues they are confronting:
|
|
Both goals are designed to benefit society. The issue here is in the case of software patents. Critics believe software patents have too much potential for abuse and any benefits it has is often outweigh by its negative effects on society.
Property rights fragmentation - the problem that eventually, everything becomes patented so that no one can benefit from it. That no one can create a new product without infringing on a multitude of patents ultimately stifling innovations.
Patents blocks entrance to the industry. Large firms have the resources to cross license their patented products so that they would not seek lawsuit against each other - like a nuclear cold war. New entrant may have no defencive patent portfolio - thus they are vulnerable.
Patents are economically inefficient. High research cost with no guarantees, cross-licensing, law-suits all adds to the costs of any products produced. Rent seekers such as Patent Trolls are examples of firms, which do not produce value to the end users but seeks patent infringement opportunities in others that do. Even large firms who cross license are vulnerable to these entities.
Unlike copyrights, patents are region specific. It creates unfair competitions. Under international agreements any software written is automatically covered by copyright, e.g. WTO's TRIPs Agreement. No such agreements exist for patent so US patents are only enforceable in US and EU patents are only enforceable in member countries. This frees firms outside enforceable regions to innovate.
An illustration of patent claims in European webshop - All of the numbered elements on this web page are patented.
The example of JPeg lawsuit - In 2002 Forgent Networks claimed ownership and enforcement rights on the JPEG technology through a patent that had been filed in 1986. The JPEG committee was of the opinion that they were invalidated by prior art. Nevertheless, Forgent managed to license to 30 companies among controversy and sued 31 other companies in 2004. Our surprising rescuer - Microsoft launched a major lawsuit against Forgent. As of today, the 20 year patent term has expired and no one else has made additional claim. Read more in wiki.
The example of LZW in GIF. Read more about LZW lawsuit in wiki.
Microsoft sued by i4i for infringing on technology owned by i4i used in Microsoft Word. Originally published by LuAnn LaSalle, The Canadian Press, 2011-04-17. Microsoft vs. i4i case at U.S. Supreme Court has big implications for patent law
Microsoft takes on the free worldpublished 2007-05-14 EDT from CNN Money <http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/28/100033867/> [Accessed 2007-05-28] Microsoft claims that free software like Linux, which runs a big chunk of corporate America, violates 235 of its patents. It wants royalties from distributors and users ...
| Digital Rights Management (DRM) refers to the technologies used by publishers and copyright owners to control access to and usage of digital data or hardware. The purpose of this technology was to increase financial reward for the copyright owner through the means of maximizing consumer surplus. |
Copyrighted materials are public domain after a statutorily-defined period of time. DRM systems are not time limited even after the copyrighted material became public domain.
Copyright laws allows the buyer to resale the copy of original copyrighted material (called first sale
.)
DRM technology prevents this even in the case of legitimate copies. Read more about first sale
, Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 109 in wiki.
DRM technology is inflexible. A change in the copyright by the owner cannot be propagated to the DRM device.
Breaking the DRM for your own use after you have purchase the right to access the material is illegal under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The equivalent legislation in Canada is Bill C60 but stalled for the time being.xvii. In Canada, private copying for personal use is permitted under the Copyright Act 1997, c. 24, s. 50..
this book cannot be read aloud.
Universal sells songs without DRMpublished 2007-08-10 GMT from BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6939807.stm>[Accessed 2007-08-11] ... It will allow the sale of thousands of albums and tracks available in MP3-form without the protection, known as digital rights management (DRM)...
Anger over DRM-free iTunes trackspublished 2007-06-01 GMT from BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6711215.stm> [Accessed 2007-06-01] ... News site Ars Technica was among the first to discover that downloaded tracks free of Fairplay have embedded within them the full name and account information, including e-mail address, of who bought them ...
DRM group vows to fight bloggerspublished 2007-05-04 GMT from BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6623331.stm> [Accessed 2007-05-14] ... Thousands of websites published the key, which had been uncovered in a bid to circumvent digital rights management (DRM) technology on HD-DVD discs....
EMI takes locks off music trackspublished 2007-04-02 GMT from BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6516189.stm> [Accessed 2007-04-02] ... EMI takes locks off music tracks for selected accounts...
Apple seeks online music shake-uppublished 2007-02-07 GMT from BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6337275.stm> [Accessed 2007-02-07] ... Steve Jobs of Apple Computer called record companies to begin selling songs online without copy protection software...
Gates: Digital locks too complexpublished 2006-12-15 GMT from BBC News <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6182657.stm> [Accessed 2006-12-15]... Bill Gates of Microsoft expressed concern over copy protection for digital music and video too complex for consumers...
Interested readers, please checkout the reference section in this page for additional materials.
Once upon a time, software was only a compliment to what their hardware vendor sells. During this time, programmers and developers shared their software freely and frequently and everyone was happy.
But this all changed when hardware became more generic and software became more advanced. Vendors started making money from selling only the software. In order to retain a competitive advantage over their rivals, they started protecting their products through trade secrets and licensing agreements.
One day, our beloved hero Richard Stallman got frustrated with hacking a broken printer without the source code. Next thing we knew, he launched the GNU project to ensure software freedom for all.
In 1983, he introduced the term Free Software. It advocates the freedom to use software, providing an alternative through licensing and lifting what proprietary software restricts. Now, end users have the choice of Free Software or Proprietary Software.
For software published under the various GNU GPL licenses, users can study the source code, adapt it to their needs, and redistribute it - modified or unmodified. The catch is - they must pass this freedom onward; like a recursive algorithm. Hence the GNU name (GNU is Not Unix.)
More than twenty years later, Richard Stallman is older but not wiser - he is still at it. Thanks to him and his supporters, Free Software today is a growing international phenomenon.
The solution was to provide an alternative - an alternative to propriety software, an alternative to patent restrictions, an alternative to copyright restrictions.
Basically, when a individual or a firm creates a product, it is suggested that the product be distributed under a license that gave the consumer the following freedoms:
Note: To make this license work, it stipulates an obligation - the consumer when distributing the software, modified or not must pass on these freedoms.
License for free (no-charge) software. Wrong! Free as in Freedom not price. FLOSS is not opposed to commerce.
These alternatives take away copyrights. Wrong again. Creators automatically receive copyright as soon as they put pen to paper. Copyleft is an alternative for those content producers who wish to share their work.
It's a license to distribute any software! Couldn't be more wrong. These GPL licenses only apply to work published with the owner's approval. Users can only distribute GPL licensed software. Propriety software remained in its own corner.
Credit for original work is gone. Plagiarism is not the mission, not the by-product. Legitimate programmers, developers will only add their name to the modifier list, not changing the author name.
Inventors are not rewarded for their hard work. First to market creates brand recognition, there are numerous ways to be strategically successful in the market place.
Sure, competitors can make minuscule modification to your products and resell it. But you or other competitors can do the same to them because of the license stipulation. Most times, consumers will see through the little value competitors brings and most consumer do have loyalties to a brand as long as they are not overly charged.
The FSF offers only a few licenses. It is a simple, clear, elegant system. For more about their licenses, checkout www.gnu.org/licenses.
The Open Source Initiatives (OSI) offers the GNU GPL and LGPL along their own set of licenses. It's a little complicated but the variety allows different producers to tailor their needs. The cost is of course consumer confusion.
However, the incentive to be flexible cannot be dismissed as it lets wary producers to venture into unknown territories. For more about their licenses, checkout www.opensource.org/licenses.
This section is speculative. Although FLOSS has been around for over twenty years, its pace of adoption has been slow. However, it is gathering momentum - slowly moving towards critical mass in the industry.
Two types of benefits will results from FLOSS - an intangible and a tangible difference.
FLOSS is a more efficient economic model for the software industry.
Most legal cost will decrease (although the new GNU GPL type of license obligation will require enforcement.)
Firms will no longer have a monopoly in the industry for long with the new licenses. When firms make economic profits, it creates opportunities for new entrant into the industry. New entrants in the industry compete for the same market thus bringing price down, which brings economic profit down. Bringing the industry closer to the perfect competition model.
Although the reward for innovation will decrease, the cost of innovation will also decreased. Firms will still seek economic profits however short the duration may be - as long as the return is there. It would be interesting to see if the short duration may spur even more innovations.
Pace of innovation will increase because
increased competition in the industry;
reliability will improve through user involvement;
Most of all free interchange of ideas will result in even better ideas.
Without competition, the computer industry will become stagnant because monopolist are only interested in protecting market share. FLOSS frees everyone to innovate and it represents the best way for the industry to create competition. FLOSS is itself an innovation!
In the long run, the only sustainable way of improving the standard of living for everyone is innovation. This is how you and me benefits.
|
The long term world-wide social benefits, increased competitions and innovations in the market place sounds great but is there more immediate benefit for the individuals? Altruism aside, FLOSS has to bring real value to the table or it will always face obscurity and as a technology becomes irrelevant. Consider these facts : |
The slow but ever growing community of dedicated users is a testimony to these facts. Everyday, new projects and new improvements are initiated and implemented; everyday free software becomes just a little better.
Explore the world of Free Software and find out why there are so many passionate users in the community.
