Free Software, what and why.

[apathy maybe]

Below is a draft of an article. Please read and contribute (you will get your name on the bottom). (And I'll update it here as additions are either PMed or posted.)

What is 'Free Software' and why should we use it?
'Free Software' is a type of software that has been released under a licence that embodies a particular philosophy. The programmer continues to hold the copyright to the software, so it is not public domain. It can, however, be released either for a fee or for free. The 'free' in 'Free Software' means the same as the free in 'free speech', not the free in 'free beer', it is a matter of liberty not cost. It is software where you have the freedom to do what ever you want to the software. Except (in most cases) to redistribute binaries with out access to the source code.

The FSF defines the freedoms that define free software as:
0) The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.
This includes for things that the author may not approve of (such as creating or running weapons systems). The reason for this freedom is to prevent ideological, political or religious reasons getting in the way of producing software.
1) The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this.)
The reason for this freedom is so that you are not relent on the original author to update the software. Also if you are trying to get another program to work with the program it makes it easier.
2) The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour.
The concept of sharing is a big part of this freedom. Currently if you have a copy of a program that has a licence that says you aren't allowed to copy it, legally you aren't allowed to give a copy to a friend, colleague etc.
3) The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. (Access to the source code is a precondition for this.)
This ties in with freedom number 1. If you change the program to satisfy yourself, you can then allow others to use your modifications.

'Open Source' software is similar and is used quite often as a synonym for 'Free Software'. The two ideas are, however, different and are based on different philosophies. In this discussion it does not matter, which term is used because they are in practice the same (i.e. access to the source code is the same). (If you wish to know what the differences are visited www.gnu.org/philosophy/).

Firstly you may ask why don't the programmers release the work as public domain? This allows people to share the program and their improvements but it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make small changes, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. An example of this outside the computer area is that of Disney. They took Grimmes(sp?) stories and made them into movies, which were then copyrighted. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them (the right to do anything with the work); the middleman has stripped it away. This is also an argument against releasing work under too permissive licences such as that used by *BSD.

The advantages of Free Software are many and varied. For the average computer user, who has little or no programming experience, the idea that the source is freely available may not be such a big deal; for the programmer, however, it means a number of things. He can,
1) study code that others have written
(useful for those beginning in the art),
2) reuse code that others have written
(not re-inventing the wheel)
3) and freely distribute the derivations, without paying fees
(fame (and possibly fortune) awaits).
This means for the average user of computers a number of things as well, they
1) get better quality programmers
(studiers of past masters),
2) which results in better quality programs
3) and faster program making
(because the wheel doesn't have to be re-invented).

Something else that happens with source code that is freely available, faster bug fixes. If a software project is popular many programmers will look through the code (both studying and looking for bugs), this means that more bugs are found. And it also results when a user finds a bug in a faster fix, because more programmers can find the problem. If a user is also a programmer, it means that they can fix the problem rather then waiting for the group that produced the software to fix the bug.

Good quality software that is also Free Software is also advantageous to people and organisations (be they governments or companies or charities) that uses it. Because the source code is available, it can be maintained by anyone with the skills, this includes bug fixes, improvements and ports (moving the software to a different platform), software where the source is not freely available, or where there are restrictions on use, generally mean that an organisation using software is restricted to relying on the original provider of the software to fix bugs etc. Another advantage of the source code being freely available is that many people will create their own versions, customisations are possible to a far greater extent then when using proprietary software.

By supporting this free/open source software we enable both the poor in our own community and in other countries to access up to date technology. It also enables it to be continually developed. And if the government adopts it, it will also saves the taxpayers money.

There are ideological reasons to support Free Software as well.
If you are a communist, socialist or just on the left of politics, the philosophy of Free Software, that of sharing, should strike accord. The availability of the source promotes equality (in fact Free Software is taking off in the under-developed countries), and means that no one individual, company or government can control the software.
For those on the right similar arguments are put forward. Because no one organisation or person can control the software it prevents the build up of monopolies (such as the infamous maker of a buggy and virus prone OS). Also, this means that there is lots of competition with in the market to provide the best service to the consumer. Because if they are not happy, they can go else where, with no worries about changing software.

As well Free Software (and the entire copyleft phenomenon) circumnavigates the traditional government-granted monopoly on an idea for a period of time (copyright). One of the original reasons for copyright was the supposed encouragement of science and the arts. However, as shown with Free Software, if everyone can build on the work others have released science advances faster (advances in software are happening faster than it would have otherwise) and work does not have to be duplicated (as happened with the two teams sequencing the human genome).

While traditional economics is based on the idea of scarcity, in this digital world this idea is out of date. Any writing, music, movie or software can be copied effectively an unlimited amount of times. While the concept of copyright still holds true (though many wish it didn't), it is hard to enforce in many cases. This copyright enables a creator of a digital form to create an 'artificial scarcity', and provides legal protection to the creator. This concept of 'artificial scarcity' is defended by claiming that 'hard work went into developing this work and that this work needs to be rewarded'.


Thanks and ideas goto to many people (some of whom may not know that I 'borrowed' their ideas even).
The FSF <www.gnu.org/>
Benno (from Che-lives.com)
DaCuBaN (dito)
(some other people whom I haven’t put here yet, but I will)

Glossary

Binaries - these are programs. Under Windows/DOS they are also known as executables. They are called binaries because they are composed of 0&#39;s and 1&#39;s. They are composed of instructions that the computer understands. Also see Source Code

Bugs - these are problems with the program that cause it to do unexpected and undesirable things.

Commercial Software - this is software that is sold. It doesn&#39;t have to be Proprietary Software. Many companies make money selling Commercial Free Software. This is not a contradiction, because Free Software enables you to do as you will with it. However, the companies must provide access to the source code of the software if it is Free Software.

Compilers - these are programs that change human readable Source Code in to machine readable Binaries.

Data - this is basically every thing on your computer that isn&#39;t a program. Used in this article to mean human created or human initiated created data. This includes pictures, documents, save files etc.

Permissive Licence - a licence that enables a person or company to do a lot of things with what is being licensed (usually software). The licence for *BSD is an example of one of these.

Ports/Porting - computers have a wide variety of hardware and operating systems. Porting a program means enabling that software to run under a different system (be it a change in hardware or operating system).

Proprietary Software - this is software that is released under a licence that doesn&#39;t enable you to change the software, and in most cases to make copies. Proprietary Software is not always Commercial Software, such things as freeware (not to be confused with Free Software) are generally proprietary. You generally don&#39;t have access to the source code.

Security Holes - these are problems with the program that may enable malicious people or other programs to do things that are unwanted. These things include taking control of your computer, deleting data, or stealing data.

Source Code - this is the human readable version of programs. Computers cannot understand it directly, it must be converted to binaries by compilers. Often shorted to Source.

some other stuff
Software and computers are a major part of today’s life. The most common operating system and office suite on desktop systems are both made by a US company, Microsoft. Both cost a relativity large amount of money (in many cases half the cost of a new computer comes from the software). Up to date alternatives do, however, exist for both. Most are free or low cost. They generally run on a variety of systems, including older computers that otherwise would be considered useless (because they do not run the latest MS software).

This saves money both for software and the lack of needing to update the hardware every few years. The software is still up to date which enables a user to still be able to transfer files with others.

Much of the F/OS Software runs under a variety of OS’s, including Linux, Windows and Mac OS. This means that a department could be moved gradually towards Linux (or *BSD). The way this would happen is when the time came to upgrade software, the software would be Free Software rather then MS (or another proprietary company) software.

Examples of Free Software include; the GNU (GNU&#39;s Not Unix) software from the Free Software Foundation, this software replicates much of the software used in commercial Unixes, and in many cases has replaced it (because it is better); Linux, the operating system that many consider the poster child of Free Software; OpenOffice, a fully featured office suite (used to write this article); Mozilla (and it&#39;s derivatives), a browser (and mail client) has become the standard for many people in browsing (and started off the idea of &#39;Open Source&#39; as opposed to &#39;Free Software&#39; The GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program (yes it is from the FSF)), used to manipulate images (imagine that&#33; and Apache, the web-server used by over 60% of websites.

[apathy maybe]

As I said in the PM to you, I don&#39;t think we should merge the two, but by all means grab ideas.

The problem with the plant-computer analogy is that evolution happens in a tree structure, and branchs can&#39;t rejoin and accept genetic material from other places (they can but it isn&#39;t really rejoining like in software, it&#39;s complicated). Software can spread horizontally and vertically, in both directions (up & down).

But thanks for the tips on tech terms. What I might do is include a glossery at the bottom (along with the examples).

[gaf]

well freedom is the best way to understand wat gnu(and linux)is,but it is a difficult and long learning process (since you can controle everything,you just have to know how it works,from the boot ,root, i mean),i use now linux redhat, but stiil have difficulties to get out photoshop(for exemple)or lightwave a 3d programe i &#39;m using for years .i know gimp is a good photoshop like program,and blender a good 3d app but still it&#39;s a long way,i may used them but it will cost time just time.any way ,i have a web site made with apps from red hat .and this is the link[URL=http://spaceout3d.tk]3d station[/URL
not politic.

[apathy maybe]

I haven&#39;t been doing much on the article, but I will I promise.

As to learning new software, you take a person who has never touched a computer and put them in front of a Mac (on of the new ones), a Windows PC and a Linux (or other Unix) running Gnome and find out which is easier. It won&#39;t be Windows. (Which it would be, Gnome or Mac Os I can&#39;t answer.)
If you spend ten minutes showing someone how to use Gnome or Mac Os you will find that they can rapidly work out the rest for themselves.

I&#39;ve never used Photoshop much nor the Gimp. I find them both equally hard to use. Any software that is powerful is going to be harder to use then a more simple equivilent (but the reverse is not always true).

[VukBZ2005]

I&#39;m Using Mozilla, the GIMP, And Many other Sources of Free Software.
Long Live Linux&#33; QUACK&#33;

[apathy maybe]

Quark - beware the quantum duck.

Even if one doesn&#39;t use Linux (for whatever reason), Mozilla (or Firebird), OpenOffice, the Gimp etc are all great programs avaliable for download or off your nearest Magazine CD. There is no reason to use MS Office, very little to use MSIE basicly no reason to use Photoshop etc.

Many people use Photoshop and programs like it (i.e. expensive and mainly windoze centric) &#39;cause they can download cracks from the web. You shouldn&#39;t do that, besides that fact that you can get into lots of trouble, you aren&#39;t supporting projects which are as good or better.

[gaf]

ok ok i know just took me years to get tools under control.btw i try to mount my windoow vat disk into linux but i just can&#39;t get it right you may have tip for me,(i try it via command line but it just didn&#39;t work )i don&#39;t know if i must mnt him,or make dev ,or-t (just a beginers here).please.window is hda...etc
and i also know a lot of people who begon with dos and finish with linux ,so don&#39;t moralise comercial shit is shit ,gnu is good don&#39;t get arrogant,you will stay good.and mc os is same shit as window(may be better,but still fuckin bizness)

[Bolshevist]

post the command you are using, and what error message you get?

Anyways, Http://linuxforums.org is a good place to ask questions

[apathy maybe]

Bump ity bump ity bump ity bump

Hi ya all.

I would really like some editing of this thanks. (I have guaranteed publication in at least two places.)

[DaCuBaN]

Firstly you may ask why don&#39;t the programmers release the work as public domain? This allows people to share the program and their improvements but it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software

I would go on to explain the meaning of the term &#39;proprietary&#39; - in this sense it doesn&#39;t strictly follow the dictionary meaning, Perhaps using and analogy such as drug patenting?

Otherwise, I&#39;m really quite happy with it. Try to use more comparisons to &#39;hook&#39; the end user, rather than the tech. I suspect that at a few points the &#39;jargon&#39; may get a little too much for some.

I&#39;ll sit and proof read it with a coffee and ciggy just now, see if I can think of anything else. I must profess that my literary skills are quite limited, but you never know

[DaCuBaN]

In the first paragraph:

Except (in most cases) to redistribute binaries with out access to the source code

Perhaps expand on what a binary is? To a tech this would be somewhat condescending; I guess it depends on your target audience.

Your &#39;3 points&#39; for both the programmer and end-user might work a little better simply as a paragraph - this is only my preference of course. Perhaps...

We can study code that others have created: This is incredibly useful for beginners of the art of programming, as it allows them to see how other more experience contributors ply their craft. We can reuse the code: Why must we reinvent the wheel every time we set out on a new project? We can freely redistribute derivations.

For the average computer user, this means a number of things: They get better quality programmers, who are better versed in the works of their predecessors, and hence generally more competent, efficient and knowledgable. This, undeniably, results in a much higher level of stability and functionality and a drastic decrease in the amount of time required on any given project.

Other than that, the only thing I noticed was this:

the philosophy of Free Software, that of sharing, should strike a cord

What you intended to say was strike accord - meaning familiar to the concerned - a common misconception (or perhaps typo?)

My nit-picking aside, I do not disagree with any of the core principles of your argument, and in fact find your case quite compelling - but then you&#39;re preaching to the converted here

Good luck.

[apathy maybe]

Thanks DaCubaN, What I am going to do is include a glossery at the end. This way I can use jargon as much as I want, it introduces the people to the jargon. And makes it easier to write.

I am not trying to preach to the converted. What I am trying to do is write an artical that will convince people who are sitting on the fence to try out Free Software. Then I&#39;ll provide the examples. This way if a paper wants to publish it, they can provide a link to the online version if they don&#39;t want to publish it all.

[rahul]

do you know FSF -- free software eoundation

and gnu?

[apathy maybe]

Yes I do know of them. They are the people who started the whole Free Software idea. Thanks anyway.

[apathy maybe]

I&#39;ve finally changed a bit. More comming sooner or later.