FUD
FUD
Undoubtedly the larger story is Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. FUD. But not the FUD we have usually known. This is a much different beast.
FEAR:
The fear is multitude.
First there is a very real fear about being tied in to proprietary software. We hear it time and time again in whispered confessions. Numerous organizations constrained by funding and technical challenges have accepted corporate sponsorship from proprietary software vendors. They're not sure what this means long term and more notably they are especially fearful of (in particular) Microsoft's increasing presence in government, amongst multi-laterals and funding bodies. What strings might be attached? What are we giving up? How do we work more closely with the open source movement? We here these questions often.
As an example one aboriginal leader outlines what he feels to be a truly frightening experience with a proprietary software vendor around translation issues. Aboriginal groups are rightfully protective about their language and culture. He doesn't like the IP provisions around the use of "his" language in this software and engages Evan in a detailed conversation on how the open source software development process works.
Then there is the fear that the government is not listening. From my seat in the plenary session it appears as if the rapporteur from the free software/open source session delivers her report almost entirely to the bureaucrats from Industry Canada sitting in the second row of the audience. Her conclusion from the session is unequivocal: "the debate over software choices IS very very political." Its the only session to conclude in such a manner.
UNCERTAINTY:
Inevitably the question arises: what is the difference between free software and open source. Nevertheless in the session in which it arises Evan handles the question deftly such that the Free Software and Creative Commons advocate are nodding their heads in vigorous agreement.
All the panelists agree this is an unnecessary and counter-productive debate given the strength and resources of those who oppose both free software and open source (A journalist asks me why Evan constantly uses the term "logiciel libre" in his remarks. I respond that (1) we're in Canada and Evan's is originally from Montreal ;-) and (2) in french logiciel libre means both free software and open source. English can lack subtlety).
One of the panelists who is part of the Free Software movement in Quebec uses the terms "dynamite" our opposition and "war". He is criticized by some audience members for his violent choice of language. He is unapologetic and forceful. "We are in a battle. A very real battle. It is a battle for survival and anyone who doesn't think so..." he shrugs.
DOUBT:
Firstly, there is the usual doubt: at the booth and even in the panel presentation NGO representatives express their concerns about the difficulty in moving to a free software/open source environment. They doubt that they will be able to find the service support or that their colleagues and staff might find the transition to difficult to undertake. As a result a policy recommendation makes it into the civil society communique calling upon government to support initiatives between bringing the FOSS movement and larger civil society.
But the doubt is also on the part of senior Canadian government officials. Its obvious that Canadian civil society is not happy with how FOSS policy was diluted and marginalized at WSIS. One senior bureaucrat asks Evan quite sincerely "Do you think open source software is going to be back on the agenda at Tunis?". The question alone is revealing. Nevertheless the senior policy officials from the Canadian government appear solicitous and genuinely welcome Evan's input on open standards.
posted by scottl @ 6:42 AM
0 comments
