Sweden 


I'm here in beautiful Stockholm for the Linux/Open Source Forum 2005 , where I'm keynoting, representing OpenOffice.org and CollabNet. The interesting thing about FOSS in Sweden is that some of the usual arguments that work so well in poorer countries fall flat here. Like cost. Like anti-colonialism. Rather, what I think will work better is the argument of better software for more people and responsibility: to one's customers, to citizens, to the future.

That last part is fairly important. Yes, FOSS makes for better software, as it is predicated on a meritocracy, not a spec sheet, so that whatever counts as meritorious work gets noted, not just work that satisfies abstract specs. Of course, things are always more complex than that, and it's a poor company that really follows its own specs so closely. But the general thrust is nevertheless true: that open source and equivalent collaborative techniques make for better works, if only because one is working with a larger crowd, just as in academia. And just as in academia, one can also ignore that crowd.

But it's the future that counts. And here FOSS working with open standards makes a real difference. With proprietary software involved in the production of intellectual property using proprietary formats, not open, the longevity of the work depends on the fragile persistence of the company. Think that's enough? It's like printing scrip that reads, "Pay to the order of..., Guaranteed by Plastico Compnay," and then what happens when the Plastico melts? The scrip is good for burning and little else. Maybe it will regain shadow value as a collectible, but that's it.

Already, documents, files, created decades ago on software no longer supported is unreadable. I recently went through files from my first year as a grad student; they were written in WP 4.2, on an old, old machine. if I had not had OOo.... Well, imagine that we advance ten, twenty, thirty years into the future. What about all those files? What can read them? Work with them? It won't just be an individual's problem, but a governmental problem; a social problem.

Enter open standards and open source. Open standards work by engaging the international community to agree on a standard that will last unto perpetuity; they are also necessarily open for inspection and implementation (see Perens' description ). Because the effort is international and designed to last, it future proofs files or intellectual property. And how does open source feature in this? Open source, for instance, makes no guarantee on the longevity of any product's identity. But it does do something more interesting: it puts a hold on decisions made for purely market reasons and provides a better mechanism for incorporating minority views. Furthermore, the logic of open source enjoins a kind of developmental momentum that transcends any particular project manager, vice president or spec writer.

It is thus, I want to argue tomorrow, the responsibility of governments to use FOSS and open standards. 

I'm here in beautiful Stockholm for the Linux/Open Source Forum 2005 , where I'm keynoting, representing OpenOffice.org and CollabNet. The interesting thing about FOSS in Sweden is that some of the usual arguments that work so well in poorer countries fall flat here. Like cost. Like anti-colonialism. Rather, what I think will work better is the argument of better software for more people and responsibility: to one's customers, to citizens, to the future.

That last part is fairly important. Yes, FOSS makes for better software, as it is predicated on a meritocracy, not a spec sheet, so that whatever counts as meritorious work gets noted, not just work that satisfies abstract specs. Of course, things are always more complex than that, and it's a poor company that really follows its own specs so closely. But the general thrust is nevertheless true: that open source and equivalent collaborative techniques make for better works, if only because one is working with a larger crowd, just as in academia. And just as in academia, one can also ignore that crowd.

But it's the future that counts. And here FOSS working with open standards makes a real difference. With proprietary software involved in the production of intellectual property using proprietary formats, not open, the longevity of the work depends on the fragile persistence of the company. Think that's enough? It's like printing scrip that reads, "Pay to the order of..., Guaranteed by Plastico Compnay," and then what happens when the Plastico melts? The scrip is good for burning and little else. Maybe it will regain shadow value as a collectible, but that's it.

Already, documents, files, created decades ago on software no longer supported is unreadable. I recently went through files from my first year as a grad student; they were written in WP 4.2, on an old, old machine. if I had not had OOo.... Well, imagine that we advance ten, twenty, thirty years into the future. What about all those files? What can read them? Work with them? It won't just be an individual's problem, but a governmental problem; a social problem.

Enter open standards and open source. Open standards work by engaging the international community to agree on a standard that will last unto perpetuity; they are also necessarily open for inspection and implementation (see Perens' description). Because the effort is international and designed to last, it future proofs files or intellectual property. And how does open source feature in this? Open source, for instance, makes no guarantee on the longevity of any product's identity. But it does do something more interesting: it puts a hold on decisions made for purely market reasons and provides a better mechanism for incorporating minority views. Furthermore, the logic of open source enjoins a kind of developmental momentum that transcends any particular project manager, vice president or spec writer.

It is thus, I want to argue tomorrow, the responsibility of governments to use FOSS and open standards.  

Posted: Mon - October 10, 2005 at 10:36 PM          

©