Flyer

Here's the first draft of material we could put on a flyer. It comes from http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FLOSS_Concept_Booklet and is licenced under the GFDL. Please read over it and correct or change things because some things seem a bit exaggerated.

What is free software?

Free software is software that anyone is free to use, copy, improve, examine or distribute, either free of cost or for a price. More precisely, it refers to four fundamental freedoms, which users of the software should have:

  1. Users should be able to run the software for any purpose.
  2. Users should be able to closely examine and study the software and should be able to freely modify and improve it to suit their needs better.
  3. Users should be able to give copies of the software to other people for whom the software will be useful.
  4. Users should be able to improve the software and freely distribute their improvements to the broader public so that they, as a whole, benefit.

There is nothing new or special about this. This is how software used to be developed in the early days. But then, big companies came in, and started changing rules of the game. They saw software as a means of making money rather than as a means of making life easier. Free software is software that is released under a Copyleft licence, a licence which grants the end user these four freedoms listed above.

As a user, why would I want to examine and modify my software?

What is important is not that you modify or view the software's source code, but that you cannot be prevented from doing so or having it done and are not dependent on a particular person or entity to do it. As technology evolves, hardware, software and users' requirements change. And software, being a tool to make life easier, too has to be subject to easy and quick modification. So, even if you personally cannot change or modify the software, you can be sure that you are not subject to monopoly power of the person from whom you purchased the software. That apart, it is necessary to be able to examine the software, to see if it has malicious features. For example, to check whether the program is spying on you. One version of Windows was designed to report to Microsoft all the software on your hard disk ****** <- can someone verify this? *********. But Microsoft is not alone: the KaZaA music sharing software is designed so that KaZaA's business partner can rent out the use of your computer to their clients. You need to be able to examine and modify your software to be able to protect yourself against such mistreatment. There are other reasons such as being able to fix bugs, and modify programs to your needs. These will be explained a little later.

Doesn't "free" mean that I do not have to pay for the software?

No. The word "free" has two meanings in the English language.

  1. The "free" in "free beer", which refers to zero cost.
  2. The "free" in "free speech", which refers to freedom.

The free in free software refers to the freedoms that we've talked about above that people have. There's nothing in the definition of free software that says that you cannot sell it to someone for a price. Indeed, there are companies whose entire business model is centred around collecting, compiling and selling free software. However, since someone to whom free software is licensed is free to sell or give it away in turn, you can almost always easily find it openly (and legally) downloadable on the Internet. When you hear of "free software", think of liberty, freedom, and "free enterprise".

Well, what's not "free" about other kinds of software?

Most non-free software in the world today is not sold, it is licensed. From complex operating systems to tiny games or screen savers, the end users of the software have a license to use it under conditions laid out in an End User Licence Agreement. This agreement lists out the conditions under which the user can use the software – often restrictions are imposed on the use to which the software can be put. In almost all cases, users are explicitly prohibited from "taking the software apart" to study how it works, cannot modify or improve it, are only allowed to make a single copy of the software (for backup purposes) and are strictly prohibited from giving copies to other people.

What do you mean by "Copyleft"? What's wrong with copyright? How is this different?

The Copyleft is a general method for making a program free software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to be free software as well. The simplest way to make a program free is to put it in the public domain, uncopyrighted. This allows people to share the program and their improvements, if they are so minded. But it also allows uncooperative people to convert the program into proprietary software. They can make changes, many or few, and distribute the result as a proprietary product. People who receive the program in that modified form do not have the freedom that the original author gave them; the middleman has stripped it away. Also the developers of free software will be forced to compete with improved versions of their own software. Copyleft says that anyone who redistributes the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further copy and change it. Copyleft guarantees that every user has freedom, and ensures that somebody does not remove the freedom from free software. To copyleft a program, first state that it is copyrighted; then add distribution terms in the form of a license document – they comprise a legal instrument that gives everyone the rights to use, modify, and redistribute the program's code or any program derived from it but only if the distribution terms are unchanged. Thus, the code and the freedoms become legally inseparable. According to the Free Software Foundation, "Proprietary software developers use copyright to take away the users' freedom; we use copyright to guarantee their freedom. That's why we reverse the name, changing 'copyright' into 'copyleft'."

Is this copyleft against the law?

No. Copyleft relies on the concept of license in law of copyright. Legally, a license is a contract between the licensor and the licensee and legally, parties have the freedom of contract – meaning that they can enter into contracts with each other after mutual agreement on the terms. Unless the terms incorporate elements that are illegal, parties can agree on any terms that they wish. When we say that something is copylefted, we refer to a particular feature in a legally binding license agreement between the parties. While copyleft may be a novel concept, it certainly is not illegal.

What kinds of people make free software?

Many people who write free software are volunteers, they may have an unrelated day time job. These people spend their free time developing free software. Commercial organizations that benefit from free software distribution or that provide free software support also develop free software by investing portions of their profit. Example of such organizations are Redhat and SUSE. There are many non-profit organizations that raise funds to develop free software, through donations from free software users. The Free Software Foundation is one such organization. Other examples are SPI, Gnome Foundation, Mozilla Foundation, and the like. Some free software packages are developed by universities. The Festival text to speech engine, Octave - the Matlab clone are examples of software developed by universities. Many commercial organizations also contribute to the development of free software, because these organizations benefit from the existing free software code base. For example IBM maintains the port of the Linux kernel to the PowerPC, because it needs a OS for its processor.

But I still don't understand why anyone would want to give away their work for free? What's in it for them!?

For love or for money!!! Yes, people do make money by releasing software created by them as free software. Corporate bodies like MySQL, RedHat, Mandrake, to name a few, make money because they release software created by them as free software. And they do find that they are able to make more money than they ever would have made if they kept the software as non-free. There are many reasons why people write free software. Many people would like to live in freedom. They contribute to free software so that they can continue to live in freedom. Some people write free software just for the fun of it. They love programming and hence use their programming skills to do something useful. They may want the functionality of a program that doesn't exist, so they create one themselves and then share it because it may be useful to others. Also this way the creator can reap the benefits of other people's improvements and suggestions.

I'm still not convinced. Surely a big computer company knows best when it comes to designing software? Why would I want to use software designed by an amateur?

Well, most popular free software programs are NOT created by amateurs. The free software development process is open and transparent. If you want to include your code into a free software project, it will be scrutinised by several people. Amateurish and or badly written code will be rejected outright. "Big companies" are free to develop free software too. And they do develop free software. For example IBM develops free software, Redhat develops free software. If there is a group of people who would like to have a particular piece of software written, they can bring together funds, hire a programming company, get the software written by professionals and then release it as free software. There is no reason why free software has to be written by amateurs. What we use depends on what we want. For computer users, software that can do the things they want done is a necessity. If such software does not exist, then they cannot do the particular kind of work. How well the work can be done, and how quickly, depends on the quality of the software available. It is, therefore, desirable to have software that enables the users to do the work with least effort and to get the best possible output. These qualities of the software generally improve with time. But more important than all these is the quality of freedom that the software has. If the software is restricted, and the company that makes it withholds all information about how the software is created and in what format the files are created, then the users become dependent on the company, and subject to exploitation. Because these are much more important in the larger context, it is important to use free software rather than proprietary software. Often programmers from big companies are stuck behind several layers of burocracy and are not generally in close contact with the users as in the case of free software. Thus, free software developers are often more aware of the needs of the users and their complaints about the existing versions. In any case, an examination of many free software applications show that today they are as good as or better than equivalent proprietary applications, or are catching up fast. And a large fraction of free software developers are professionals.

But what about bugs? Surely free software is more likely to be virus prone?

The question involves two different types of computer related problems - Bugs and Viruses. Bugs are unintentional errors in programs. With free software when you find a bug in the program, you have the freedom to exercise freedom two, the freedom to help yourself and correct the program. If you are not a programmer you are free to hire any programmer and correct the program. You are not under the mercy of any single organization. By submitting the bug fixes to the maintainer of the package the software package becomes better and better. Virus is a malicious program that infects other programs by embedding a copy of itself in them. **********could someone look at this I'm not sure about it********* When these programs are executed the embedded virus is executed too, thus propagating the infection. Viruses are prevalent in systems that lack proper security. The GNU/Linux operating system is based on POSIX standards, and was designed from ground up with proper security and hence shows high immunity to viruses. This has nothing much to do with free software itself.

Since the source code is available, won't it be easy for someone to find out a security loop hole and exploit it?

Yes. But before the source gets to the hands of people who *exploit* loopholes, it passes through hands of people who *develop* free software. And they usually fix such loopholes. And with free software, exploitation of a loophole is very, very, very quickly reported and fixed, often within hours. Look at it this way, since the source is available, it would be easy for someone to find out a security loop hole, and make a patch for it, even before its exploited!

Have any established organizations actually used free software to their advantage?

InterfaceWiki: SfdFlyer (last edited 2008-12-17 07:54:26 by AlliWitheford)