Re: [seul-edu] Software Freedom Season

[Randy Edwards <redwards@golgotha.net>]

    This has been an interesting thread (I don't know where the original 
thread came from:-), but let's try to wrap this back to education.

    In schools that I deal with I only talk about "open source" as a 
development concept and as a way of teaching programming.  My focus is on free 
software, with the primary meaning of "free" being that of "freedom" and 
"flexibility."

    I've found many schools and businesses aren't interested in source code -- 
period.  They know they're never going to recompile things and they equate 
"custom programming" with "expensive."  It doesn't really matter if this is 
correct or not, but that's the way they feel.

    I pitch Linux solutions as having "business-friendly" and 
"school-friendly" license agreements.  I point out that they don't have to 
agree to a license "agreement" which allows for software audits and for 
privacy violations.  I point out that their administrators don't have to waste 
time by counting software licenses and turning into software police.  I point 
out how if they need another computer they can just buy it and they can 
legally copy the software.  I point out how they can use the exact same 
software at home as they do for work.  I point out that they have multiple 
software vendors to choose from.  Yada, yada, yada.  The point I'm driving 
home is freedom and flexiblity.

    Only afterwards do I mention that they also have the source code and can 
do some custom programming if they want.  If they're interested in that idea, 
I explain the Koha <http://www.koha.org> system, how it was first developed, 
and how now other libraries are contributing some money for custom programming 
that will in turn benefit everyone using Koha.  (Other examples of this idea 
would be great; the Koha example works well for education but doesn't hit the 
mark for businesses.)

    I agree with the point in this thread that the term "open source" hasn't 
done what it was supposed to do.  Yes, it has hidden the "free" idea of 
software for businesses, but the term has been corrupted by Microsoft, the 
APL, and all sorts of other non-free licenses/ideas.  To me, hitting people 
with the term "free software" and focusing on freedom (not strictly focusing 
on cost) is the way to go.

-- 
"If the current stylistic distinctions between open-source and commercial
software persist,  an open-software  revolution could lead to yet another
divide between haves and have-nots: those with the skills and connections
to make  use of free  software,  and those  who must pay high  prices for
increasingly dated commercial offerings."          -- Scientific American