Wikipedia licensed under GPL

I just notice that the online encyclopedia Wikipedia is licensed under the General Public License (GPL). This is the same license used for Free Software (free as in freedom, libre). This license made a schism in Free/Open Source Software movement. Both Free license (GPL) and the Open Source license (the most known is the BSD license) permit modification and distribution, BUT the GPL required that every re-distribution be published under the same license.

For example, if you want to take a part of code from a GPL licensed program to include it in closed-source software, you will need to publish it under the GPL license and make it open. That's the reason that the GPL license is called "viral license" (Weber, 2005: 53).

In sum, if you take citation from Wikipedia, you should make your paper available under the GPL license.

Weber, Steven. 2005. The Success of Open Source. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Open Source Economic Model

One may wonder why would someone invest time and money into software that is going to be given away. Profitability of the Open Source model always has been a major source of questions. In a recent study, about 38% of the programmers involve in open source were paid for collaborating in those projects (Lakhani and Wolf, 2007: 9). Who's paying those developers to build new software? Ubuntu server host thousands of gigabytes of data that all the users can access freely. All this has a cost, and someone need to pay for it.

The open source economic model can be divided in two aspects: why does company pay for developing open source software, and how corporation like Canonical, the corporation behind the Ubuntu project, intend to profits on building such a project.

First of all, to understand why a company would invest in open source development, we need to take the point of view of the client. With proprietary software, large enterprises are paying large amount of money for licenses, so they get involve in open source project for their own benefits. Software only have a marginal cost for distribution, so all the money made through the selling is profit once the development has been paid for. Large companies, exploiting thousands of workstation are paying a large share for the development of a product. And they can't influence the final product.

That's the reason that many of them, instead of paying for license, are paying developers to help improve Open Source project. The final product of Open Source project doesn't have a licensing cost, so all they have to do is to pay for the developer. Moreover, having their own developer on the project give them the opportunity to influence and control the final product through their participation, a power that they would not have through proprietary software.

Often many corporations have developers involved in a project. In those cases, we can affirm that open source development is mutually funded. Since most corporation involved aren't selling the software, but using it to improve their productivity, there is no reason not to cooperate (Moreira de Sa Coutinho, 2006).

The second reason a corporation will get involve in funding of open source projects is the derived service they intend to sell. For example, Canonical Corporation have been funding the Ubuntu project since the beginning and has yet to see profitability, but they expect to meet it soon (Shankland 2008). How? By selling support service to corporation. As Krishnamurthy put it:

"Enterprises are willing to pay for accountability. When they have a problem, they do not want to send a message to mailing list and wait for support that may or may not be of the highest quality. They have no interest in sifting through technical FAQs to find the answer. Therefore, there is money to be made in services such as support for installation, answering technical questions and training employees to use the product."(2007: 283)

Enterprises are also willing to pay for long-term agreements with distributors to ensure that their products get updated regularly. This is what Canonical Corporation is exploiting. Selling desktop software isn't an option anymore, as Mark Shuttleworth, the founder of Ubuntu and Canonical note it:

"I don't think it will possible to make a lot of money, or maybe any money, selling the desktop. We're not going to try to make money selling the desktop. We force ourselves to look to services-oriented business models. I remain confident this is the right business model for the industry. Linux is the forcing function that (means) the broader software industry will shift in business models away from licensing the bits and to services." (Cited in Shankland 2008)

So far, this has been a viable economic model that is growing and getting more and more success. Open source software is not only for hobbyist anymore and business can be build around those models.

Krishnamurthy, Sandeep. 2007. An Analysis of Open Soure Business Models. In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, ed. Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam, and Karim R. Lakhani, 267-278. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Lakhani, Karim R., and Robert G. Wolf. 2007. Why Hackers Do What They Do: Understanding Motivation and Effort in Free/Open Source Software Projects. In Perspectives on Free and Open Source Software, ed. Joseph Feller, Brian Fitzgerald, Scott A. Hissam, and Karim R. Lakhani, 3-21. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The MIT Press.

Moreira de Sa Coutinho, Joao. 2006. Le logiciel libre (1) Aboutissement du Capitalisme. March 4. http://www.domainepublic.org/capitalisme.html.

Shankland, Stephen. 2008. Ubuntu 8.10 due Thursday. Profits? Not so fast. Business Tech - CNET News. October 27. http://news.cnet.com/8301-1001_3-10075890-92.html.

The making of closed source software

The history of free and open source software isn't one where closes source software were liberated and became free and open. Actually, it is quite the opposite. There was a time, when there's was no distinction between hardware and software, between users and programmers that hobbyists shared freely their knowledge. No one wanted to reinvented the wheels each time they used a computer. so they collaborated and share their lines of code.

This early history of computing came to an abrupt end when Bill Gates from Micro-soft send an open letter to the Homebrew Computer Club.

AN OPEN LETTER TO HOBBYISTS

By William Henry Gates III

To me, the most critical thing in the hobby market right now is the lack of good software courses, books and software itself. Without good software and an owner who understands programming, a hobby computer is wasted. Will quality software be written for the hobby market?

Almost a year ago, Paul Allen and myself, expecting the hobby market to expand, hired Monte Davidoff and developed Altair BASIC. Though the initial work took only two months, the three of us have spent most of the last year documenting, improving and adding features to BASIC. Now we have 4K, 8K, EXTENDED, ROM and DISK BASIC. The value of the computer time we have used exceeds $40,000.

The feedback we have gotten from the hundreds of people who say they are using BASIC has all been positive. Two surprising things are apparent, however, 1) Most of these "users" never bought BASIC (less than 10% of all Altair owners have bought BASIC), and 2) The amount of royalties we have received from sales to hobbyists makes the time spent on Altair BASIC worth less than $2 an hour.

Why is this? As the majority of hobbyists must be aware, most of you steal your software. Hardware must be paid for, but software is something to share. Who cares if the people who worked on it get paid?

Is this fair? One thing you don't do by stealing software is get back at MITS for some problem you may have had. MITS doesn't make money selling software. The royalty paid to us, the manual, the tape and the overhead make it a break-even operation. One thing you do do is prevent good software from being written. Who can afford to do professional work for nothing? What hobbyist can put 3-man years into programming, finding all bugs, documenting his product and distribute for free? The fact is, no one besides us has invested a lot of money in hobby software. We have written 6800 BASIC, and are writing 8080 APL and 6800 APL, but there is very little incentive to make this software available to hobbyists. Most directly, the thing you do is theft.

What about the guys who re-sell Altair BASIC, aren't they making money on hobby software? Yes, but those who have been reported to us may lose in the end. They are the ones who give hobbyists a bad name, and should be kicked out of any club meeting they show up at.

I would appreciate letters from any one who wants to pay up, or has a suggestion or comment. Just write me at 1180 Alvarado SE, #114, Albuquerque, New Mexico, 87108. Nothing would please me more than being able to hire ten programmers and deluge the hobby market with good software.

Bill Gates

General Partner, Micro-Soft

This letter is a major schism in the discursive formation of copyright (to embrace some Foucault's notion). This letter bring a fundamental change in the discursive field where hardware and software aren't one anymore, and if you pay for the former, you have to pay for the later too. Programmers and users aren't one either. The first one is working and the later use the product, therefore he needs to pay for it. Those notion seems like self-going today, but they are made out, and the root can be trace back to this very letter, where Bill Gates accused hobbyists of stealing software.

DigiBarn Newsletters: Bill Gates' Open Letter to Hobbyists in Homebrew Club Newsletter Vol 2, Issue 1 (Feb 3, 1976). http://www.digibarn.com/collections/newsletters/homebrew/V2_01/gatesletter.html.

Foucault, Michel. 1969. L'archéologie Du Savoir. Bibliothèque des sciences humaines. Paris: Gallimard.

Gates, Bill. 1976. An Open Letter to Hobbyists. Homebrew Computer Club newsletter 2, no. 1 (February 3): 2.

FACIL: actively promoting Open Source in Québec

I found a not-for-profit organization actively promoting free software in Québec: FACIL. They filed a motion against the government for not considering open source software for their workstation. They state that the migration to open source software would produce significant saving for the government and will also help Québec IT sectors to develop. Currently the government is sending millions to multinational corporation (mainly Microsoft) for products license. Those contracts are attributed without any invitation to tender, which is not in accordance to the regulation. FACIL intend to force the government into a more open and transparent procedure for contract attribution.

This is a really interesting case of F/OSS community actively contesting closed source monopoly. I did join up as a member, it cost 20$ and it helps to finance the lawsuit against the government.

You can read all about it here:

Montreal, August 28th 2008 - FACIL, a non-profit association, which promotes the collective appropriation of Free Software, contests the Quebec government purchasing methods for software used within public administrations. FACIL has filed a motion before the Quebec Superior Court in order to bring an end to these methods which the association believes not to be in the best interest of the Quebec government, but more importantly, not in accordance with the regulation for supply contracts, construction contracts and service contracts of government departments and public bodies (R.Q. c. A-6.01, r.0.03).

In Quebec, access to public markets is the rule while contracts attribution without invitation to tender is the exception. A public market should be transparent, fair and most importantly, open to all. The solutions as well as the propositions must be evaluated objectively on known and accepted criteria. Furthermore, the regulation implies that public markets have to enhance the local economic development as well as the Quebec technologies.

From February to June 2008, FACIL has noticed sales of proprietary software for more than 25 million dollars. These purchases were made for products offered by large multinational enterprises, with no regard to suppliers in Quebec. These purchases hurt the Free Software suppliers throughout Quebec and are an obstacle to the development of Quebec IT enterprises. FACIL contests these methods as the association believes they are illegal and unacceptable.

A strategic Free Software utilization in public administration could create thousands of jobs as well as a significant decrease in software licensing costs. However, Quebec's public administration refuses to even consider and evaluate these options.

While most of the developed countries have started, a few years back, migrating their technological infrastructures to Free Software, Quebec's public administration is far behind. In France, hundreds of thousands of desktops used by civil servants have been migrated. In the Netherlands, the public administration, one of the most modern in the world, has made open formats mandatory within the public administration, as well as a set of mesures to consider Free Software alongside proprietary software, and where possible to prefer Free Software.

But here in Quebec, despite numerous initiatives, the public administration refuses to communicate and to cooperate. FACIL has decided to bring the matter to court in order for the public market law to be respected.

More of Zotero

I've talked about Zotero before, but I can't stress enough on how this is really a good open source alternative to Endnote, you all should be considering it. Here are 10 reasons why you should switch:

1) Easy-To-Use Means Easy-To-Support
Users overwhelmingly report that Zotero is easy to use and intuitive. After watching a five-minute introductory video on Zotero, many users have more than enough knowledge to accomplish basic research tasks.

2) Save Money With Free Open Source Software
Say goodbye to expensive escalating licensing fees. Adopt Zotero and pay nothing. Not only can you use Zotero for free, but all the documentation at Zotero.org is yours to reuse and repurpose. The support community at Zotero.org provides an experienced responsive community to support the software and assist you in your efforts.

3) Hundreds of Institutions Recommend Zotero to Their Faculty and Students
Zotero is already recommended by more than a hundred institutions from around the world, including MIT, Stanford, and Yale. Zotero’s track record of success at these leading institutions underscores its ease of use and elegance as a research management tool.

4) A Single Research Management Solution For Every User, Everywhere
Whether your users run Windows, MacOS or Linux, Zotero is available to them. By syncing their data with the Zotero server, users can move between computers at home and at school with ease, even if the operating systems are different. Users don’t even need their own computers, because they can run Zotero off a small flash drive, which they can purchase for only a few dollars. With Zotero’s web interface, users can browse their collections online, even with mobile devices. Simply put, Zotero is wherever your users are.

5) Did We Mention It’s Award Winning?
Zotero was selected as the best reference management tool at CiteFest 2008 by Northwestern University’s Library and Academic Technologies group. That’s right, better than other, more costly, software alternatives. Zotero is among the “Best Free Software” available, as voted by PC Magazine in both 2007 and 2008. Zotero was also named Best Instructional Software of 2007 by the Information Technology and Politics Section of the American Political Science Association.

6) An Opportunity For Your Institution to Leave Its Mark
Zotero’s open and extensible nature means that, beyond offering a powerful resource to your students at a no cost, Zotero also offers a potential avenue for your institution to make lasting contributions to the open-source community. For example, the University of Michigan’s School of Information recently won funding from the Institute for Museum and Library Services to launch a new million-dollar information literacy game, Bibliobouts, on top of Zotero. Similarly, Concordia University’s digital history lab was granted funds from the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada to develop Vertov, a video annotation tool for Zotero. Both instances demonstrate how institutions can make Zotero more than a piece of software used on their campus; it can also provide a means to contribute and make your mark on the scholarly cyberinfrastructure.

7) Your Users’ Data is Theirs, Now and Forever
Everything your users do with Zotero is theirs in perpetuity. As a project developed by scholars with a commitment to openness and with a focus on the end-user, Zotero makes no claim of ownership or control over any of your users’ work with Zotero, and invites users to share and collaborate without fear of their work being co-opted.

8 ) Give Your Users Something They Can Take With Them
Licensed research management platforms may provide your users with functional services, but, chances are, your software license ends when your students graduate. Shouldn’t your users have access to their research after graduation? Zotero is free to everyone; that means your students will always have access to their collections.

9) Adherence to Open Standards Offers Flexibility
Zotero is committed to data portability and interoperability through adherence to existing open standards. Software makers which employ site-licensing fees have a vested interest in locking users into their own proprietary formats. Zotero makes it as easy as possible to migrate data to and from other applications.

10) Give Your Users The Freedom To Work In Their Native Language
Zotero runs in more than thirty languages, so chances are good that most of the languages spoken on your campus are available. This sort of linguistic agnosticism means that Zotero runs smoothly for people all around the world. Any languages not already supported can easily be added through the BabelZilla project.

taken from this blog post on Zotero website.