On Fedora's goal - is it to build an OS people can use, or to build a free as in gratis OS that people can use, or is it to build a free as in libre OS that people can use?
Hello all,
I've been around in the community for quite a bit, and while I'm not a kernel-dev or a team lead, I still like to think I belong to the community - helping where I can. Why I've stuck around over the years, other than because I've made friends in the community that I'd miss, is the philosophy of Fedora - the stance we take towards FOSS - which distinguishes us from any other Linux distribution.
Recently, since we moved on to Fedora.next, we've been working hard to make the OS as user friendly as we can - the OS must be easy to set up and use if we're to gain users, and gain market share in the process. But, what is the purpose of this drive to increase our market share? *Why* do we want more users? To beat other distributions in numbers? So that we can say we have more users than them?
As I've always understood it, the primary goal of the Fedora community is to spread awareness about FOSS, and the OS is a *tool* to accomplish this goal - the more we improve the OS, the more users we have, the more we can spread philosophy of FOSS.
Recently, though, I've begun to feel like the goal has just become to "gain more users", and the "in order to spread FOSS" part is slowly losing its importance. We've been discussing inclusion of non FOSS software, for example - in whatever capacity - repositories, meta-data links, the software itself - you will be aware that we've had a fesco ticket discussing policy changes too. (FESCo refused and asked the concerned parties to take it up with the Board)
The reason why we do not include non FOSS software seems to have changed from "because we want to only use FOSS - that is our mission" to "because including non FOSS software may risk RH, the company that backs us", somewhere along the line. While the latter is true, it distresses me to think that for some, this has now become the primary reason. The primary reason used to be "because we want our users to use FOSS as much as practically possible", and it is fortunate that this fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not be the the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software??
(I'm not being naive here, I do understand that it is really important that we don't expose RH to liability, but the point is, that as a member of the Fedora community, this cannot be the primary reason.)
This change seems to have happened because we've started taking Fedora being FOSS for granted. We just don't think, speak or write about it enough - we're too engrossed in making good products for users to the level that people actually consider changing policy just to make a product "easier to use". (I'm all for making Fedora easier to use. If you were on the planet today, you'd have seen my post about Appstream data for RPMFusion.)
As an isolated example, the workstation mission statement begins: "The Fedora Workstation working group aims to create a reliable, user -friendly and powerful operating system for laptops and PC hardware." The term FOSS does not figure here. This is our primary product aimed at end users.
The simplest solution is to restart actively speaking about FOSS, about actually working on increasing awareness - our primary goal. I've written this to the council discuss list and not another because the council is tasked with leading the community - and not only towards a good OS implementation wise, but also towards the primary goal of spreading FOSS, which to me, is what gives Fedora its identity in the first place. I hope this will stimulate a discussion about what we need to do to get the primary goal of the community back into focus.
At a non council level, some of us have been thinking about an essay contest, which decause very nicely coined "Why we FOSS". The idea is to have a competition to get people to write why they use Fedora and open source software - and to use these essays as a medium to spread awareness. It's just an idea and we're working on details, but it's a start. decause also suggested that the contest also be held as part of the university outreach program, to expose young minds to the philosophy.
In conclusion, the community seems to be forgetting that our goal is to spread FOSS and the OS is a tool to achieve this, and I would very much like the council to think about this and how this needs to be rectified.
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote: <snip>
The simplest solution is to restart actively speaking about FOSS, about actually working on increasing awareness - our primary goal. I've written this to the council discuss list and not another because the council is tasked with leading the community - and not only towards a good OS implementation wise, but also towards the primary goal of spreading FOSS, which to me, is what gives Fedora its identity in the first place. I hope this will stimulate a discussion about what we need to do to get the primary goal of the community back into focus.
At a non council level, some of us have been thinking about an essay contest, which decause very nicely coined "Why we FOSS". The idea is to have a competition to get people to write why they use Fedora and open source software - and to use these essays as a medium to spread awareness. It's just an idea and we're working on details, but it's a start. decause also suggested that the contest also be held as part of the university outreach program, to expose young minds to the philosophy.
I like those ideas.
In conclusion, the community seems to be forgetting that our goal is to spread FOSS and the OS is a tool to achieve this, and I would very much like the council to think about this and how this needs to be rectified.
So, speaking only for myself here.
I don't believe the community is forgetting that our goal is to spread FOSS. However, FOSS has become so prevalent in technology today that shouting "FOSS is better!" is often met with blank stares and replies of "Yes... we've known that for a long time." Ten years ago, that certainly wasn't the case. The success of Linux, Red Hat, Fedora, and Canonical (to name a few) has proven FOSS is a superior way to build technology. They have paved the way for Docker, and CoreOS, and all the shiny new things that are coming out today.
So yes, the OS is a tool to promote FOSS, but doing that promotion is no longer a simple act of turning on a light switch and illuminating the benefits the people might not be aware of. Today we have to fight against much harder problems than mere education. We have to fight apathy (which has always been present), we have to battle content consumption, we have to battle "it just works." If we don't tackle these tasks, we're limited to the niche of people that are willing to do without. That market is already saturated.
Much of the effort around making the OS better, easier, faster (maybe..), is targeted at these problems. How do we create a FOSS OS that is capable enough for every day use for _today's_ computing? The industry and public haven't stood still waiting for us to catch up. Taking our FOSS OS and making it usable with today's users is not easy. If the Workstation PRD fails to mention FOSS in it's mission, I don't think that's a slight or a change of direction. FOSS is such a huge assumption in our daily lives. I think it's an oversight while focusing on the actual difficult problems to solve.
Does that mean we need to include proprietary software? Personally, I don't think so. But I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that people are going to use it anyway. I don't think Fedora should include said software, but I also don't think we should go out of our way to prevent people from getting their tasks done and using their computers as they see fit. Education on FOSS is a wonderful thing, but screaming it at them when they're frustrated and can't accomplish something is going to quickly lead to a negative connotation of FOSS.
I do love your ideas though. I think we should write more about FOSS, and come up with innovative ways to continue educating people on it's benefits. More importantly, I think we need to educate people on contributing to it to accomplish some of these harder tasks. It's the only way we're going to actually sustain a FOSS OS in the long run. I look forward to seeing the output of these ideas and participating in my own way.
josh
On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 14:13 -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 12:26 PM, Ankur Sinha <sanjay.ankur@gmail.com
wrote:
<snip><snip>
I like those ideas.
Ah, that's good to hear :)
In conclusion, the community seems to be forgetting that our goal is to spread FOSS and the OS is a tool to achieve this, and I would very much like the council to think about this and how this needs to be rectified.
So, speaking only for myself here.
I don't believe the community is forgetting that our goal is to spread FOSS. However, FOSS has become so prevalent in technology today that shouting "FOSS is better!" is often met with blank stares and replies of "Yes... we've known that for a long time." Ten years ago, that certainly wasn't the case. The success of Linux, Red Hat, Fedora, and Canonical (to name a few) has proven FOSS is a superior way to build technology. They have paved the way for Docker, and CoreOS, and all the shiny new things that are coming out today.
So yes, the OS is a tool to promote FOSS, but doing that promotion is no longer a simple act of turning on a light switch and illuminating the benefits the people might not be aware of. Today we have to fight against much harder problems than mere education. We have to fight apathy (which has always been present), we have to battle content consumption, we have to battle "it just works." If we don't tackle these tasks, we're limited to the niche of people that are willing to do without. That market is already saturated.
Much of the effort around making the OS better, easier, faster (maybe..), is targeted at these problems. How do we create a FOSS OS that is capable enough for every day use for _today's_ computing? The industry and public haven't stood still waiting for us to catch up. Taking our FOSS OS and making it usable with today's users is not easy. If the Workstation PRD fails to mention FOSS in it's mission, I don't think that's a slight or a change of direction. FOSS is such a huge assumption in our daily lives. I think it's an oversight while focusing on the actual difficult problems to solve.
I understand this. I was just worried that we've begun to focus so much on solving these problems that we're slowly forgetting the main goal. This happens in culture - there are things everyone is assumed to know, and generation after generation, people don't speak about these things because everyone "just knows", until eventually, these things are forgotten completely. This is all that I'm concerned about, but I have received assurances that make me believe that we're not in such a situation yet :). I still think it is important for us to speak about FOSS more, and things like the essay contest should help us do so.
Does that mean we need to include proprietary software? Personally, I don't think so. But I'm also pragmatic enough to realize that people are going to use it anyway. I don't think Fedora should include said software, but I also don't think we should go out of our way to prevent people from getting their tasks done and using their computers as they see fit. Education on FOSS is a wonderful thing, but screaming it at them when they're frustrated and can't accomplish something is going to quickly lead to a negative connotation of FOSS.
I agree, and I'm completely on board with making things easier. Since the thread on the desktop list, for instance, I have:
- written appdata files for all packages in the third party repositories and submitted packages for their consideration - this wil make it easier for users to install packages from there - cleaned up questions that document these common tasks and placed some of these in the sidebar on the front page of Ask Fedora to help people find the required information quicker.
I'm always happy to help with "making things easier for users", but there is a line that I'd like not to be crossed, and I tend to get nervous when the significance of line itself comes into question.
I do love your ideas though. I think we should write more about FOSS, and come up with innovative ways to continue educating people on it's benefits. More importantly, I think we need to educate people on contributing to it to accomplish some of these harder tasks. It's the only way we're going to actually sustain a FOSS OS in the long run. I look forward to seeing the output of these ideas and participating in my own way.
That is great to hear. We'll keep working on it and keep the community in the loop.
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 17:26:58 +0100, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote:
Recently, since we moved on to Fedora.next, we've been working hard to make the OS as user friendly as we can - the OS must be easy to set up and use if we're to gain users, and gain market share in the process. But, what is the purpose of this drive to increase our market share? *Why* do we want more users? To beat other distributions in numbers? So that we can say we have more users than them?
I believe the reason is that contributors come from users and one way to get more contributors is to have more users.
The reason why we do not include non FOSS software seems to have changed from "because we want to only use FOSS - that is our mission" to "because including non FOSS software may risk RH, the company that backs us", somewhere along the line. While the latter is true, it distresses me to think that for some, this has now become the primary reason. The primary reason used to be "because we want our users to use FOSS as much as practically possible", and it is fortunate that this fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not be the the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software??
I think you are confusing non-FOSS software with software covered by patents or otherwise illegal (DMCA or export controlled) to distribute in the USA. Much of that software is free but Fedora can't distribute it.
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Bruno Wolff III bruno@wolff.to wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 17:26:58 +0100, Ankur Sinha sanjay.ankur@gmail.com wrote:
Recently, since we moved on to Fedora.next, we've been working hard to make the OS as user friendly as we can - the OS must be easy to set up and use if we're to gain users, and gain market share in the process. But, what is the purpose of this drive to increase our market share? *Why* do we want more users? To beat other distributions in numbers? So that we can say we have more users than them?
I believe the reason is that contributors come from users and one way to get more contributors is to have more users.
Not only that but in order to push FOSS and open standard you need to have some market share to have some weight. For instance Mozilla has some (could be better -- with more users) influence because of the large Firefox adaption.
The reason why we do not include non FOSS software seems to have changed from "because we want to only use FOSS - that is our mission" to "because including non FOSS software may risk RH, the company that backs us", somewhere along the line. While the latter is true, it distresses me to think that for some, this has now become the primary reason. The primary reason used to be "because we want our users to use FOSS as much as practically possible", and it is fortunate that this fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not be the the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software??
There is no law or legal issue that prevents shipping non FOSS software. The license can be non free but still allow for redistribution.
The legal issue is about patents which also includes software released under FOSS licenses like for instance x264, ffmpeg etc.
On Sat, 2015-05-30 at 08:56 +0200, drago01 wrote:
On Sat, May 30, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Brun
<snip> > I believe the reason is that contributors come from users and one way to get > more contributors is to have more users.
Not only that but in order to push FOSS and open standard you need to have some market share to have some weight. For instance Mozilla has some (could be better -- with more users) influence because of the large Firefox adaption.
I completely understand this, but this entire thread is the result of my wondering whether this is as crystal clear to our user and contributor base as it is to you and me :)
The<snip> fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not
be the
the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software??
There is no law or legal issue that prevents shipping non FOSS software. The license can be non free but still allow for redistribution.
The legal issue is about patents which also includes software released under FOSS licenses like for instance x264, ffmpeg etc.
I admit I generally put them under the same category "Not for Fedora" but I will be more specific in the future.
Please excuse these inaccuracies - I've tried to learn and understand all of this by myself and there will be quite a few mistakes in what I write. I do hope the overall spirit of my initial email remains intact, though.
On Fri, 2015-05-29 at 20:32 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 17:26:58 +0100,
<snip>
I believe the reason is that contributors come from users and one way to get more contributors is to have more users.
See, you're just highlighting the issue when you say this. *Why* do we want more contributors? To do *what*?
All these: - gain users - gain contributors - make a great OS - and everything else that Fedora contributors think the goal of the community is
are *sub* goals that are needed to drive the primary aim of the community - to spread FOSS. These are all means to an end, and the a large part of the community is not aware of this end any more. Isn't this worrisome - especially to the council?
The reason why we do not include non FOSS software seems to have changed from "because we want to only use FOSS - that is our mission" to "because including non FOSS software may risk RH, the company that backs us", somewhere along the line. While the latter is true, it distresses me to think that for some, this has now become the primary reason. The primary reason used to be "because we want our users to use FOSS as much as practically possible", and it is fortunate that this fit in perfectly with protecting RH. Surely, RH Legal should not be the the set of people stopping us from including non FOSS software??
I think you are confusing non-FOSS software with software covered by patents or otherwise illegal (DMCA or export controlled) to distribute in the USA. Much of that software is free but Fedora can't distribute it.
This is a detail, and does not change the overall goal of my e-mail in any way. However, I'm glad you bring it up. It highlights how we're failing at our goal of educating not just our users, but the community itself. If you played a word association game with the community, and asked what came to their heads when you say "patents", a majority will say something on the lines of "the devil" - they think patents/intellectual property rights and FOSS are incompatible - but you see, this is not true either. When a developer releases software and uses a FOSS license, he is, in fact, *exercising* his IPR - his IPR is now protected. GPL compatible licenses, for example, then ensure this.
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html
"To protect your rights, we need to prevent others from denying you these rights or asking you to surrender the rights. Therefore, you have certain responsibilities if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it: responsibilities to respect the freedom of others.
For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must pass on to the recipients the same freedoms that you received. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights."
The person that patented his work is also exercising his IPR, but in a different way. The difference, again, is in the philosophy - and again this is my personal understanding of the subject - we believe that keeping everything open and providing access to code and so on promotes a free exchange that accelerates innovation.
But, how many in the community know this? Every package maintainer has to check the license of his package, and see if it is what we call a "good license" - but the same question comes up - *why*? Why is all this being done at all?
It is only a matter of time when people forget the point completely - it seems to have started already. It's like studying physics throughout school, and never once in your life seeing something drop and going - "Oh look! Gravity!" What is the point?
council-discuss@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Ankur Sinha -
Bruno Wolff III -
drago01 -
Josh Boyer