Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea. There’s a short article with some good metaphors:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensourc...
Transparency: a car.
An open source license is like having the right to lift your car bonnet to view the engine. If you use software but can’t see what it’s doing behind the scenes, then it’s impossible to know what it’s doing with your data or even if it’s secure. By making code viewable by all, it’s much easier to spot and fix security flaws and bugs, which is why many security standards, such as password encryption, are open source.
Modification: a house
Open source is like buying a house and being free to decorate it however you want, to build extensions or demolish walls. Closed-source software strictly limits what you can do with it.
Accumulative: DNA:
Like a genome that keeps evolving, or the way academia builds upon prior knowledge, open source is a way of ‘standing on the shoulder of giants’, by building on what exists, rather than starting from scratch. This applies to everything from the code at the heart of software and powering websites to design elements, which can develop in an accumulative way, with anyone free to improve on the work of those previously.
Collaborative: a coop
Like a co-op, but without membership. While code authors may still own copyright on their code, by providing an open license, assets are kept public and the user community can offer improvements, fixes, language translations, design improvements, documentation and so on. Eric S Raymond describes open source development as “a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles”.
Democratic: a landslide
Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they don’t like the leader. Open source projects have core maintainers who have the final say over suggestions and contributions from the user community but if they aren’t responsive, people can ‘fork’ the software and build their own ‘branch’. The content management system Joomla, for instance, was forked from Mambo, after its corporate owners started charging developers big fees.
I suppose we’re missing the analogy between a cooking recipe and source code for the list to be complete :-)
-- Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org> Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal> Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>
Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! https://l.fsfe.org/nl
On 23/09/14 15:59, Hugo Roy wrote:
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea. There’s a short article with some good metaphors:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensourc...
[...]
Democratic: a landslide Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they don’t like the leader.
what is this for a democracy where I can just set up my own country if I do't like the leader, haha ?
I suppose we’re missing the analogy between a cooking recipe and source code for the list to be complete :-)
I also like an analogy between Open Standards and screws/screwdrivers: Industry decides for a standard for screws that is open to use and adopt. That makes it very easy for the customers because they only need a generic screwdriver to tighten all kinds of screws. And using the screw as a standard you can build all kind of innovation on top of it. The counterpart is specific screws used by the manufacturers to lock their hardware, so you cannot open it anymore because you are in need of a specific tool to open it. That is what we see more and more with these kindles and apples and so on.
Best, Erik
On 2014-09-24 at 12:29, Erik Albers wrote:
On 23/09/14 15:59, Hugo Roy wrote:
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea. There’s a short article with some good metaphors:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensourc...
[...]Democratic: a landslide Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they don’t like the leader.what is this for a democracy where I can just set up my own country if I do't like the leader, haha ?
Yeah, it’s more Anarchy with panarchy principles… but we call it Democratic because generally speaking people usually use it to speak about non-coercive systems. Actually “Anarchic” would better fit, but usually people like “Democratic”, even in its wrong meaning, and tend to dislike “Anarchic” or to understand it as “disorder” or “chaos”, because of lot of old counter-propaganda against anarchism (cf. /usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/secA1.html with `apt-get install anarchism' under Debian)
Hi,
Am 24.09.2014 15:19, schrieb Garreau, Alexandre:
On 2014-09-24 at 12:29, Erik Albers wrote:
On 23/09/14 15:59, Hugo Roy wrote:
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea. There’s a short article with some good metaphors:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensourc...
[...]Democratic: a landslide Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they don’t like the leader.what is this for a democracy where I can just set up my own country if I do't like the leader, haha ?
Yeah, it’s more Anarchy with panarchy principles… but we call it Democratic because generally speaking people usually use it to speak about non-coercive systems. Actually “Anarchic” would better fit, but usually people like “Democratic”, even in its wrong meaning, and tend to dislike “Anarchic” or to understand it as “disorder” or “chaos”, because of lot of old counter-propaganda against anarchism (cf. /usr/share/doc/anarchism/html/secA1.html with `apt-get install anarchism' under Debian)
I believe in anarchism as much as in communism. (To be clear: not at all). I'd vote strongly to let politics and religion out of metaphors for Free Software.
Bye Michael
Am 25.09.2014 08:29, schrieb Michael Kesper: ...
I believe in anarchism as much as in communism. (To be clear: not at all). I'd vote strongly to let politics and religion out of metaphors for Free Software.
I think Free Software *is* in itself a political principle. Certainly it seems to me to have parallels to libertarian thinking ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism ), which itself has parallels to anarchism.
In the not too far away day, when we will have programs or even machines which are indistinguishable from humans, software will also have strong impacts on religious thinking.
Cheers, Theo
On 2014-09-28 at 12:36, theo.schmidt@wilhelmtux.ch wrote:
Am 25.09.2014 08:29, schrieb Michael Kesper: ...
I believe in anarchism as much as in communism. (To be clear: not at all). I'd vote strongly to let politics and religion out of metaphors for Free Software.
I think Free Software *is* in itself a political principle. Certainly it seems to me to have parallels to libertarian thinking ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism ), which itself has parallels to anarchism.
Well, Libertarianism is constructed taking over anarchist ideas and turning them back to justify capitalism. They’re two opposed philosophies, yet anarchism have more in common with libertarianism than with Nazism (aka. “national-socialism”).
Yet if you see it from an anarchist point of view, you will find a lot of common points with free software philosophy, and think the rest is worthless, but you will think the same about libertarianism if you believe more in libertarianism, the same for Nazism if you’re a neonazi.
As I said, Freedom is based on will, and is by definition what you want, it’s an universal value and everybody would definitely agree on it. Where we diverge is on “What/How/Why is Freedom”. Free Software is a lot more easily close to freedom than way complex/complete politic philosophies, thus everybody agree on it, from anarchists to fascists, including socialists/authoritarian-communists and liberalists/libertarianists, it’s completely normal.
One common thing I see between quite all hackers I know is the strong will of not linking free software with one particular ideology to promote it. And it’s right, because it would link its success on one thoughts structure, drastically reducing its chances of success.
For example, here in France (well, also in the rest of Europe, I think) we see since some years a rise of extreme-right/national-socialism and fascists/xenophobes ideas, and they’re rising more and more votes (here that’s because the fascist are the only people who still vote, all the other people are disenchanted of politics), so having them support strongly free software is a good thing, because at least even when they will be there at power we could still fight for free software.
And even if they don’t win, everybody is copying *all* their ideas, so that even if they loose the people at power will be with fascists ideas *comprising the support of free software upon all Nation*, isn’t that great?
So I vote for keeping “Democratic” in this comparison, even if I think it’s a confuse and meaningless term, because doing so people could indifferently interpret it as “Populism”, “National-*”, “Panarchy”, “Anarchism”, or everything else meeting their political thought, so that everybody will keep supporting Free Software.
In the not too far away day, when we will have programs or even machines which are indistinguishable from humans, software will also have strong impacts on religious thinking.
At each Science progress we have :p And yet we have religions… don’t dream too much: religion is a really sticky thing, you can’t get rid of it so easily just demonstrating it’s absurd, because it’s not based on rational thought. Even showing them all demonstrations, scientific possibilities and reasoning of the world, they could still find something absurd to say which would be conceptually based on nothing else but itself and be able to shout “victory!” even when they loose.
PS: the worst part is I’m being serious, it’s not even a troll: having free software not linked with any thought is great, because since we all think it’s actually following our ideas, we would all agree that at the end, since free software would be winning and it’d be actually following our political ideas, our political thought would win, since it’s true.
On 24/09/2014 12:29, Erik Albers wrote:
On 23/09/14 15:59, Hugo Roy wrote:
I suppose we’re missing the analogy between a cooking recipe and source code for the list to be complete :-)
I also like an analogy between Open Standards and screws/screwdrivers: Industry decides for a standard for screws that is open to use and adopt. That makes it very easy for the customers because they only need a generic screwdriver to tighten all kinds of screws. And using the screw as a standard you can build all kind of innovation on top of it. The counterpart is specific screws used by the manufacturers to lock their hardware, so you cannot open it anymore because you are in need of a specific tool to open it.
A tool that's preferably very, very expensive. And that you can only buy from said hardware manufacturer. Because other companies aren't allowed to build it let alone sell it to you, thanks to patents. Yeah I'm starting to like this analogy, too :)
Nico
Hello.
I read the thread, and I disagree with all opinions expressed.
Software is information, and has zero marginal cost in replication and spreading. Any "metaphor" with physical goods is weak; people will soon find the weak points of the metaphor, and disregard free software. I quote the last posts here, to show a different point of view, not because I've anything against people I quote.
Erik Albers:
I also like an analogy between Open Standards and screws/screwdrivers:
This is good about file formats. We need to be interoperable, and we need to reject technical choices designed to lock-in people. It is unrelated with free software, although I'm now convinced we need to win the file-format battle before we even fight the FS one with any chance of success. (FWIW I changed my mind over the years, I argued vehemently against this point of view when I was younger).
Nicolas Jean adds to the "specific screws" idea:
A tool that's preferably very, very expensive. And that you can only buy from said hardware manufacturer. Because other companies aren't allowed to build it let alone sell it to you, thanks to patents.
Now, I wouldn't ever bring patents in a discussion about freedom, especially patents about mechanical stuff. I'm personally convinced that patents are nowadays detrimental to society in every field. but most people think patents are the holy solution to save the poor and smart inventor against big companies. Besides, people is happy nowadays to have a very good tool even if it is unfixable because of special screws. Who tried to fix stuff nowadays? Me and you: statistically nobody.
Let's talk about freedom and rights. Whether patents are good or bad is another topic that can only be introduced later. And people will *not* agree about patents even after they agreed on user's protection.
I mean, if we look at ways to explain free software to the unaware, we should avoid talking about patents. Patents are a good and hot topic to discuss with informed people, not the ones that need "metaphors" to get the basic concepts.
Paul van der Vlis:
But I like: "Proprietary software is like patented seed".
This works for you, because both ideas sound very bad to you. For too many people, patents on seeds are the proper compensation for the ones who make research for the benefit of mankind. I see no similarity between seeds and software, I'm sorry.
If we need a metaphor to explain free software to people, we need to remain in the field of information, of knowledge that can be spread at no cost.
I usually refer to the market of lawyers and physicians, teaching in general, fiscal consulting and architectural work. Each with its own differences and limitations, they are information-based markets.
Information is available to everyone, but still I go to lawyers and physicians rather than studying a completely new subject matter for months/years. And the result I get back can be reused. Just like our clients come to us instead of coding by themselves, and we don't put any restrictions on what we deliver. And they even *pay* us for free information, like we pay teachers and lawyers.
That said, software is so "technological", so "black box", so "illegal to copy", so "intellectual property" and so "magic" in the end, that most of my audience refuses to see that it is the *only* information that is so constrained by a perverse market tradition -- a tradition that was born especially because software was for an elite, not for everybody.
With this social environment, I wouldn't make comparisons with any physical good, because such similarities just don't apply. Calling information "products" helps spreading false views, and comparing with real products brings to ideas like "the software industry" and "intellectual property".
That said, I'm happy we have different views, and I'm ok with any disagreement I might get back, whatever strong. Being different is our biggest strength, not only our biggest weakness.
thanks for this discussion, and for reading so far /alessandro
Hi Alessandro,
Am 30.09.2014 23:37, schrieb Alessandro Rubini:
Hello.
I read the thread, and I disagree with all opinions expressed.
Software is information, and has zero marginal cost in replication and spreading. Any "metaphor" with physical goods is weak; people will soon find the weak points of the metaphor, and disregard free software.
You gave me quite something to think about! :)
Bye Michael
On 10/02/2014 12:29 PM, Michael Kesper wrote:
Hi Alessandro,
Am 30.09.2014 23:37, schrieb Alessandro Rubini:
Software is information, and has zero marginal cost in replication and spreading. Any "metaphor" with physical goods is weak; people will soon find the weak points of the metaphor, and disregard free software.
Guido mentioned in his mail[1] a recipe (for cooking I imagine). I think this is a good example as you have nearly as small costs for a data medium (USB, CD or alike) as you have for a recipe book. If you transfer this to software you will find out that software costs money as well. At least someone (if not you) has to pay the bill to store the software created and the energy consumption. Even if you use a LiveCD and storage like github storing the data costs money and this might be more then most people might think.
You might interfere here and say in times of cloud storage you won't have to pay for a few gigabyte of data you store. That might be true and you won't have to pay with money but in the end you pay, the one or other way. But I think that's a different topic.
Even though a metaphor is never perfect it gives a picture of what you want to say and most often even non-technical people can get an idea of your message behind that. For some people a screw driver is closer related to there daily work or free time activities then a (cooking) recipe so it might be worse to find a metaphor suitable for the audience you are talking to.
That are just my two cents.
Best Regards, Thomas
[1] http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2014-October/010296.html
me:
Any "metaphor" with physical goods is weak;
Thomas Doczkal:
Guido mentioned in his mail[1] a recipe (for cooking I imagine).
Yes. And, in some environments, it is good. I use it myself (as I said in the other thread, side B of my business card is a bugged recipe). But a recipe is information, it is not a physical good. It is *used* to produce a service and a benefit, but it pure information. Like musical scores.
Even though a metaphor is never perfect it gives a picture of what you want to say and most often even non-technical people can get an idea of your message behind that.
Yes. But sometimes they are *only* good for non-technical people.
Recipes and music scores (i.e. recipes for food and recipes for music) are usually not good examples to bring to the attention of people who use software daily, because they know the respective complexity differs by several magnitudes. They usually agree recipes and scores might be free -- which they more or less are, because no policeman will break into your home if you play your favorite hit on your own piano). But they usually get reinforced in the idea that software should not, because it costs man-years. I here them saying: "If you claim it's *only* like recipes, then I know it's different and it's exactly the difference that voids your own argument".
Actually, people skilled in the art can "easily" (for some meaning of the word) replicate a recipe or a song. That's because the work of art is completely perceived at each individual run, and thus it is quickly replicated: you can build on that knowledge and go further. The same happens with novels and most other copyrighted works.
I think this is a good example as you have nearly as small costs for a data medium (USB, CD or alike) as you have for a recipe book.
Recipes don't travel on books -- not only on books. Most of mine follow peer-to-peer: friends and relatives, and I'm sure this applies to most people. Thus your problem with storage and the cloud doesn't apply.
For some people a screw driver is closer related to there daily work
Yes. Then talk about interoperable file formats using screwdrivers as your example. Explain how "pdf" files can be read by many tools, not only the one our public sector advertizes (btw, I usually acknowledge that the company who designed the format explicitly allowed competing implementation of readers and writers).
The problem of access to information is wider than free software; we can spread awareness without bringing in the obscure "software" world.
You might interfere here and say in times of cloud storage [...] But I think that's a different topic.
It is. And a very important one. I'm sometimes disappointed at how we are still discussing about dynamic linking of GPL code, and the C API and inline functions in headers ("we" is not this list, it's FS people at large). The world has changed, those paradigms cover a very little fraction of today's reality. I know the same issues about freedom apply (and even more), but to explain them we need new arguments (which I can't offer, I'm sorry: this is a cry for help).
(Yes, I'm aware this list is public and I'm all for sensitive topics to be discussed in private circles, gpg-encrypted if possible).
That are just my two cents.
Best Regards, Thomas
Thanks Thomas.
/alessandro, a little too verbose these days
Hello,
On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 03:59:46PM +0200, Hugo Roy wrote:
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea. There’s a short article with some good metaphors:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensourc...
Modification: a house
I also like the plumbing analogy used in the GNU anniversary video: http://www.gnu.org/fry/happy-birthday-to-gnu.en.html
Guido
Am 24.09.2014 22:24, schrieb Guido Arnold: ...
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensourc...
I am surprised that an organisation called "Ethical Consumer" which rates companies and products ehtically, itself uses what appears to be Microsoft system (*.aspx) and links to Google and Facebook without telling visitors. Can ethicalconsumer.org be considered an ethical or even an impartial website?
Cheers, Theo
That seems worth pointing out to them. I don't know the organisation. I just saw the article.
Am 23.09.2014 15:59, schrieb Hugo Roy:
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea. There’s a short article with some good metaphors:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensourc...
Transparency: a car. An open source license is like having the right to lift your car bonnet to view the engine. If you use software but can’t see what it’s doing behind the scenes, then it’s impossible to know what it’s doing with your data or even if it’s secure. By making code viewable by all, it’s much easier to spot and fix security flaws and bugs, which is why many security standards, such as password encryption, are open source.
Not a very good metaphor, mixing up things. Transparency is good for "fiddling", hacking something (engine tuning could be the metaphor). We all know now (heartbleed, latest bash bug) definitely nobody should believe just making something visible would be enough for making it secure. It's a necessary precondition for being able to check code by third parties, but not a sufficient one.
Bye Michael
A free software application is like a 'life form' being released into an (artificial virtual) ecosystem of (non-rivalrous digital) resources. The code is its 'DNA' which may be adapted (or mutated) so that it better functions in its environment. If a variation functions well, it will reproduce (more copies, more users, ...). The mutators ('genetic enginers' - software developers) can use strands of DNA from other variations (forks), or even other species (other unrelated libre software applications), to enhance the organism which reproduces further to fill its niche. The GNU GPL v 3 et seq. ensures that the evolution of other species in this ecosystem is not restricted. Here the analogy ends. There is no GNU GPL v 3 equivalent for the real earthly world of finite rivalrous resources. Where will we take real life with our ability to genetically modify it (including ours)? Is there a need for restrictions? (another thread for some other forum I suppose) . On 23 Sep 2014 15:59, "Hugo Roy" hugo@fsfe.org wrote:
Hi,
Metaphors when done right can be powerful to convey an idea. There’s a short article with some good metaphors:
http://www.ethicalconsumer.org/ethicalreports/internetreport/whatisopensourc...
Transparency: a car. An open source license is like having the right to lift your car bonnet to view the engine. If you use software but can’t see what it’s doing behind the scenes, then it’s impossible to know what it’s doing with your data or even if it’s secure. By making code viewable by all, it’s much easier to spot and fix security flaws and bugs, which is why many security standards, such as password encryption, are open source. Modification: a house Open source is like buying a house and being free to decorate it however you want, to build extensions or demolish walls. Closed-source software strictly limits what you can do with it. Accumulative: DNA: Like a genome that keeps evolving, or the way academia builds upon prior knowledge, open source is a way of ‘standing on the shoulder of giants’, by building on what exists, rather than starting from scratch. This applies to everything from the code at the heart of software and powering websites to design elements, which can develop in an accumulative way, with anyone free to improve on the work of those previously. Collaborative: a coop Like a co-op, but without membership. While code authors may still own copyright on their code, by providing an open license, assets are kept public and the user community can offer improvements, fixes, language translations, design improvements, documentation and so on. Eric S Raymond describes open source development as “a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles”. Democratic: a landslide Like a democracy where anyone can set up their own country if they don’t like the leader. Open source projects have core maintainers who have the final say over suggestions and contributions from the user community but if they aren’t responsive, people can ‘fork’ the software and build their own ‘branch’. The content management system Joomla, for instance, was forked from Mambo, after its corporate owners started charging developers big fees.I suppose we’re missing the analogy between a cooking recipe and source code for the list to be complete :-)
-- Hugo Roy, Free Software Foundation Europe, <www.fsfe.org> Deputy Coordinator, FSFE Legal Team, <www.fsfe.org/legal> Coordinator, FSFE French Team, <www.fsfe.org/fr>
Get our monthly newsletter, sign up! https://l.fsfe.org/nl
Discussion mailing list Discussion@fsfeurope.org https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
Ahoy hoy Hugo et al.,
Modification: a house Open source is like buying a house and being free to decorate it however you want, to build extensions or demolish walls. Closed-source software strictly limits what you can do with it.
One of the best metaphors I've heard so far regarding modification (i.e. derivative work) comes from my dear mother, who is quite into gardening and roses. So.
Modification: Flowers for your garden
Free Software is like buying flowers for your garden. If the seed of those flowers spreads and you get more flowers, you can give those seeds or flowers away if you want to. Proprietary software is like signing an agreement that you will never ever use or give away those seeds or flowers.
And accordings to my mother, in the gardening community, such an idea would be considered madness and an insult to the craft. ;)
Kind regards, Simon
op 30-09-14 17:22, lfodh@fsfe.org schreef:
Modification: Flowers for your garden
Free Software is like buying flowers for your garden. If the seed of those flowers spreads and you get more flowers, you can give those seeds or flowers away if you want to. Proprietary software is like signing an agreement that you will never ever use or give away those seeds or flowers.
And accordings to my mother, in the gardening community, such an idea would be considered madness and an insult to the craft. ;)
There are many patents on plants and seeds, see: http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/ http://seedfreedom.in/learn/who-owns-the-seed/
But I like: "Proprietary software is like patented seed".
With regards, Paul van der Vlis
On 30/09/2014 18:31, Paul van der Vlis wrote:
op 30-09-14 17:22, lfodh@fsfe.org schreef:
Modification: Flowers for your garden
Free Software is like buying flowers for your garden. If the seed of those flowers spreads and you get more flowers, you can give those seeds or flowers away if you want to. Proprietary software is like signing an agreement that you will never ever use or give away those seeds or flowers.
And accordings to my mother, in the gardening community, such an idea would be considered madness and an insult to the craft. ;)
There are many patents on plants and seeds, see: http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/ http://seedfreedom.in/learn/who-owns-the-seed/
But I like: "Proprietary software is like patented seed".
+1 !
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Dear Fellows,
Free Software is like what I am to my employer.
She can use and study me, share me (temporary contract with another employer) and "improve" me by using sticks and carrots.
Best Regards,
- -- André Ockers Fellow, Free Software Foundation Europe
ao@fsfe.org GnuPG Key: F5FE3668