The Future of Free Software in K-12 Learning
Environments
by
Daniel Carter
Candidate Number: D XXXX XXX
International Baccalaureate
Extended Essay
in
Information Technology in a Global Society (ITGS)
Submitted July, 2002
Word Count: 3889
[i]Abstract
This paper is concerned with the role of free software in education. Since
this is a relatively broad topic, the research has been limited to free
software’s role in Kindergarten to Year 12 (K-12) curricula. Thus, the
question posed is ‘What must happen if free software is to continue advancing
its role in the curricula of K-12 schools?’
Beginning with a brief synopsis of the free software movement, this
paper moves onto a real world case involving proprietary vendors, followed
by a brief discussion of the advantages that make free software an ideal
choice for K-12 education. Despite the advantages, most K-12 schools
have neither embraced free software nor fully considered the ethical implications
that arise from the use of software in educational environments. The
key reasons for this are examined possible solutions identified. Threat
of corporate power to the free software movement is considered, along
with the ethical problem of ‘hoarding’ that it arose from. Finally, the
future development of the Schoolforge coalition is discussed and conclusions
drawn.
The free software community needs to convince school personnel that
free software is ideal for use in education, both practically and from
an ethical standpoint, but in doing so, must carefully consider where
and how its future advocacy efforts should be concentrated. More educators
need to understand the issues involved with the use of software and, to
a large extent, this problem rests with the free software community.
That community’s basic principle - the right to essential freedoms - should
be the foundation of its efforts in assisting schools to replace existing
infrastructure in an appropriate manner.
Word count: 268 words
[ii]The Future
of Free Software in K-12 Learning Environments
|
Contents |
i ii iii 1 1 2 4 5 10 10 12 18 |
|
It would be rather selfish of me if, after finishing
this essay, I forgot to personally acknowledge all the people who were
influential in its creation. I would like to acknowledge Tim Sprod, without
whom I would not be writing an I.B. Extended Essay, and Pat Boyd, my supervisor,
for helping me refine various aspects of it. |
Here’s to free software!
Daniel Carter
July, 2002
[1]Introduction
Free software, commonly referred to as Open Source Software (OSS), 1 is an increasingly popular software
development and distribution methodology. In this context, free software
constitutes the freedom “...to modify the software for private use... to
redistribute... with or without modifications... commercially or noncommercially.” 2 Used in many organisations and
home computer systems world-wide, free software has attracted an international
community of individuals who work together to extend the influence of free
software and other open resources in education. “What must happen if
free software is to continue advancing its role in the curricula of K-12
schools?” is the question that is considered in this paper. While substantial
inroads have been made towards accomplishing this goal, many challenges
remain, both at tertiary and K-12 levels. In this context, ‘curricula’
includes any computer software that a K-12 student may directly use in
an educational context at school, such as operating systems, productivity
software and development software. For the purposes of this essay, an exhaustive
study of all such categories would prove ineffectual, however, several
specific examples are included.
Background
From 1955, IBM operators gathered to “discuss hardware fixes, software
problems, and solutions, with IBM’s encouragement.” 3 Operators shared ideas and code
freely until the late 1970s, when many companies saw potential profit in
software sales. Thus, the hacker 4
(essentially, an enthusiastic programmer) ethic gave way to a corporate
ethic, and before long, the hacker community would begin to disintegrate
in the tide of a rapid commercial uptake of proprietary software development
and distribution methodology. Richard Stallman, a hacker at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (MIT) Artificial Intelligence lab, was morally
opposed to this change, seeing intrinsic worth in free software, akin to
other freedoms such as freedom of speech. This compelled him to quit his
job at MIT, freeing himself from the [2]restrictions of his job.
He started coding the GNU (GNU’s Not UNIX! 5
[see Figure 1]) System, which he determined should become a
completely Free UNIX-like operating system that anyone could choose to
use over proprietary software. 6
While the GNU kernel, HURD, has taken longer to complete than Stallman
originally intended, the GNU project is commonly combined with Linux, another
free kernel. 7 Free software, 8 overcoming numerous obstacles, has
gained recognition as a methodology which rivals and, in many respects,
surpasses the performance of its proprietary counterparts. Nonetheless,
there is much left for the free software community to accomplish, such
as furthering the use of free software in education.
The issue of freedom
Historically, free software is of greater cultural than economic
value. Peter Wayner explains, “The word “free” has a much more complicated
and nuanced meaning [than that of a zero cost avenue] within the free software
movement. In fact, many people who give away their software don’t even
like the word “free” and prefer to use “open” to describe the process of
sharing.” 9 The roots of proprietary
software reside in the late 1970s, when the cost of computing power was
sufficiently low to warrant paying for the software. 10 Companies began to restrict access
to their source code so they could sell their binaries 11 for profit. Free software advocates,
on the other hand, see source code as so valuable in its own right that
such a trade-off is not reasonable at all. For some, this belief is embedded
in strong philosophical values, while for others, access to the source
code is an issue of saving money or having fun (see Figure 2). In K-12
education especially, cost is an [3] extremely important issue. More
schools, however, need to reassess their position on how they choose their
software. Should they choose according to the level of freedom the software
provides, or according to which software is most commonly used in the
workplace? Like monetary cost, which is an issue of practicality, this
is an important question to consider.
Is there a practical way to define freedom? In the words of Wayner,
(discussing ‘breaches’ in ‘Microsoft’s armour’) “The third breach will
be young kids. They have no previous allegiances and are eager to learn
new computer technology. Microsoft may ask “Where do you want to go today?”
but they don’t want to talk with someone whose answer is “The guts of your
OS.” The best and brightest 13-year-olds are already the biggest fans
of free software.” 12 In
a model world, this would be reason enough for a school to use free software,
since if the ‘best and brightest 13-year-olds’ want the freedom to edit
the source code, they probably have a good reason. Unfortunately, in this
imperfect world, despite the great educational opportunity that results from
sharing source code, the logistical problems associated with drastically changing
a school’s infrastructure have hindered free software’s penetration. In
many cases, such infrastructure covers large administrative areas, adding
to the complication.
It can be argued that in the long run, moving to free software has
the potential to save a vast amount of time. One particular case in point
is the Portland Public Schools district, with some 25,000 computers.
In March, 2002, Microsoft demanded that the district inventory all of
its computers software within sixty days. As a result of this “virtually
impossible” task, several schools in the Oregon/Washington asked, “whether
we want to continue with the Microsoft [4]platform.” 13 Schools should also consider
whether free or proprietary licenses encourage innovation and creativity
more. Ultimately, it is the role of school personnel to resolve such issues,
but they must also be alerted to the fact that they exist and be supported
by the free software community. Schools that move to free software can
take advantage of packages such as K12LTSP, a free terminal server 14 Linux distribution 15 that allows a school to make use
of ageing hardware and reduce administrative requirements by placing essential
services on a single server. Within nine months, K12LTSP was distributed
to 5,000 schools, and has proven immensely popular. 16 Given the potential savings in administration
time and money, due to K12LTSP’s design, this figure should rise in the
future.
Communicating the advantages
Free Software is advantageous in K-12 environments for several reasons.
Firstly, free software reduces total cost of ownership. 17 Secondly, systems such as GNU/Linux
and FreeBSD are generally extremely secure, efficient and functional. 18 Thirdly, free software is renowned
for its reliability. Wayner puts this into perspective: “Linux users bragged
that their system rarely crashed. Some claimed to have machines that
had been running for a year without a problem.” 19 Finally, since free software is
modifiable at source level, it holds numerous advantages, such as the freedom
to fix software bugs and add new features. Such improvements can then be
contributed to the maintainer of the original application, for the benefit
of all. Thus, the free software model, as opposed to the proprietary model,
has the potential to create an environment that is more accessible to a
wider range of persons in a larger context. Many independent studies have
been conducted that demonstrate these advantages, 20 and these should complement the efforts
of free software advocates in communicating them.
[5]Obstacles
Despite the advantages of free software, most schools have either
failed to consider it as an option, or do not see it as suitable for their
requirements. There are several key reasons for this, including: (1) misinterpretation
of the modern free software movement, (2) the belief that the applications
available for the platform do not meet their curriculum’s requirements
and (3) reluctance to replace the existing software set-up. If free software
is to advance its role in the curricula of K-12 schools, all of these
reasons must be addressed.
Misinterpretation of the free software movement is widespread. In
his great essay, The Cathedral and the Bazaar , Eric Raymond explains
how he “... worked hard not just at individual projects, but also at trying
to understand why the Linux world not only didn’t fly apart in confusion
but seemed to go from strength to strength at a speed barely imaginable
to cathedral-builders.” 21
Raymond was one of many who failed to understand the “great babbling
bazaar of different agendas and approaches” that was the Linux community
of 1993. He explains how he began to understand how the ‘bazaar’ model
operates successfully. In 1998, Netscape Communications embraced the ‘bazaar’
that Raymond had unravelled, 22
and since that time, other previously proprietary-orientated companies
such as and IBM and Sun Microsystems have followed suit, albeit to varying
extents. The vast majority of K-12 schools, however, have not, and it
is critical that the free software community reaches them.
Misinterpretation on the part of major proponents in the proprietary
software market could actually work in favour of free software in educational
environments. These companies may ultimately lose out because of an oversight
- a misunderstanding of how technology is developing the educational process.
Vijay Kumar et al. argue that “The architecture of learning-managemement
systems must support the development of diverse, customised tools in the
support of discipline or pedagogically specific needs.” 23 It can be difficult for a corporate
entity to achieve such diversity. Hackers claim that this is due to the
shallow ‘gene pools’ 24 that
result from highly centralised development. As Kumar et al.’s argument
runs, the enabling of different [6]educational entities to provide
special academic services demands an “open-source, enterprise approach.” 25 It is clear that many companies
do not like the open-source, enterprise approach. The now infamous ‘Halloween
Documents’, a collection of documents leaked internally from Microsoft
in 1998, testify to the fact that the company recognises the threat of
free software, and is targeting it. 26
The company has even created its own brand of proprietary ‘open-source’, 27 called ‘shared source’. 28 David Braue wrote, referring to
several responses by the free software community to Microsoft’s latest
tactics, “With the genie out of the bottle, such efforts could force the
software giant to embrace open-source more warmly, or risk losing its stranglehold
on key parts of the software industry.” 29
Braue, like Kumar et al. implies that free software is the way
of the future, however, there is no concrete evidence that the company
plans to embrace free software warmly, and the free software community
must remain on guard, just as it would with any threat to its existence.
Free software advocates refer to proprietary control over software
as ‘hoarding’. Needless to say, proprietors of such software refer to
this practice as ‘maintenance of intellectual property rights’, or similar.
In the computing community, and, indeed, in the larger scientific community,
there is much debate over whether or not this kind of ownership is ethical.
Richard Stallman stated, “... if restricting the distribution of a program
already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical software
developer will reject the option of doing so.” 30 ‘Hoarding’ also commonly involves
the use of proprietary file formats. Free software advocates are especially
averse to this, since it inhibits the compatibility of free software with
those formats 31 . For educators,
this is also an important practical consideration, since standard, open
formats guarantee future compatibility, whilst proprietary formats do not. 32
[7]The belief that certain required applications do not exist
is sometimes true. The efforts of the free software community have made
this less of an issue, however. New educational applications are announced
frequently on the SEUL/Edu (Simple End User Linux/Education) mailing list
and published on the Internet. 33
Furthermore, compatibility layers such as WINE 34 provide certain free platforms
with some foreign binary compatibility. Another development of note on
SEUL’s ‘to-do’ list currently being developed is a set of ISO
images, developed cooperatively by educators around the globe, containing
educational software aimed specifically at K-12 curricula. 36 This set holds promise to help
resolve the issue of finding relevant applications for particular curricula.
Despite these advances, some proprietary applications are difficult to
replace. This is a major issue that will take time to overcome. See Table 1 for examples.
Reluctance to replace a school’s existing proprietary software installation
with free software is, on the surface, quite reasonable. ‘If it aint
broke, don’t fix it’ has always been a common argument. Furthermore,
it can be a significant undertaking to convince one’s superior(s) to agree
to such an undertaking, which invariably goes against the ‘status quo’.
One possible solution is ‘inviting your boss’ and other superiors to take
part in some conversation with real free software advocates, thereby becoming
involved ‘insiders’. 37
Another factor that may be affecting the uptake of free software
in schools is what Havoc Pennington calls “good UI [User Interface]”. Pennington
maintains that “consistently producing quality user interfaces is hard”
and that until recently, more effort was invested in lower-level of free
software, because that is where hacker expertise traditionally lies, however,
the situation will improve as projects such as GNOME 38 mature. 39 Re-learning any user interface can
and will still be intimidating, however, if only initially.
| Application | Issue | Possible Solution(s) |
| Renaissance Learning’s Accelerated Reader (1) | No equivalent free application available | Develop a free application. |
| The Learning Company’s KidPix and other ‘edutainment’ (1) | “... there is political pressure to use what has been purchased” | “If equivalent applications existed
under Linux (and particularly, if they were GPLed), this pressure would be lessened, if not eliminated altogether.” |
| Microsoft Word (1) | Many employers expect experience in using the product, or so many teachers and parents believe. | Somehow communicate to people
that much knowledge in one product “carries over” to other products. ‘How?’
is the problem that remains to be answered. Wait for and/or help employers to see the benefits of free software for themselves. OpenOffice.org, for example, is an excellent, free Microsoft Office-compatible productivity suite. |
| Encyclopaedia Britannica (2) | “If Britannica won't run, we can't use Linux.” | Develop a free viewer application. Hope that Britannica provides support for their upcoming JAVA-based application. Use the online version, if possible. |
| Language Software (3) | “In our point of view, there is a horrible lack of multimedia educative titles in Spanish language for Linux (or in any other language)” | Develop a free application. |
| Corel WordPerfect, MetaCard MetaCard, Vividata OCR Shop (4) | “...if there were open-source that could replace those apps, we would use them!” | Migrate from WordPerfect to another
word processor. Use a MetaCard alternative, such as PyCard or Visual TCL. Both would require MetCard applications to be adapted. |
| Question | Kim Perkins
(VIC) Information Services Manager, Strathcona Baptist Girls Grammar School, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia |
Jeff Nelson United Arab Emirates |
Michael Hall
(NT) Larapinta Primary School, Alice Springs, Northern Territory, Australia |
Alejandro Diaz | Jim Thomas Volunteer SysAdmin, Vienna Adventist Academy, VA, USA Principal Applications Engineer, Bittware, Inc. |
| 1. How extensive is the use of free software in your school/region (specified above)? Is free software considered to be a viable alternative for actual learning and teaching, or is it merely employed for tasks such as web serving or file sharing? | We use a number of "free" software packages in the classroom including: Star Ofice, GIMP, Ayam, Qcad on RedHat 7.2 We have this software suite installed on 90 machines. | Where I'm working
right now (UAE), Linux is seldom seen in education. Right now I'm working
on installing a Linux web server for our department, but it might not last
long because there's such strong movement towards standardizing on Windows,
and I certainly don't have the political clout to effect a wholesale change. I did offer a class in the USA one semester for Korean computer science students using Linux. It was a resounding success. |
All 180 schools in the NT use Linux LAN servers, Star Office as office suite and SquirrelMail as webmail application. | All computers in our school are operating in Linux (servers AND desktop computers). Our school is a public teacher's school, that is, a school that prepares teachers for elementary and secondary institutions. Due the nature of our school, we naturally believe that Linux is a viable alternative for learning and teaching (lot of apps to study and use, a free access to those programs that fits into our constrained budget). | We have 21 PC's in the school which run Linux, including a 20-PC Linux lab and our gateway to the Internet. The Linux lab is primarily for student use. We also have 13 Windows machines - 9 for the staff, and 4 in the library for student use. |
| 2. Is GNU/Linux the dominant free/open source operating system in your school/region (not necessarily the dominant operating system)? | RedHat 7.2 is the dominant free ware operating system | Nope | For servers, yes; for client workstations, no. | Only our school operates in Linux. All the rest of computer centers of other schools in our region (at any level) operate in Windows. | Yes. Linux is the only open source OS in our school |
| 3. Do your students find free software easy enough to learn, as opposed to any proprietary solutions you may have tried? How about the staff - are they generally more or less reluctant to use free software than the students? | Generally the students have adapted quickly especially to Star Office although the change over from Adobe Photoshop to GIMP has been a little more difficult. The staff have generally been competent as well, although again, more complex programs such as GIMP have proven to be a bit of a challenge to some. | N/A in UAE; back home (USA), I had a lot of students who were eager to try it out. Couldn't say for the teachers. | Staff whinge more than students. They are more set in their ways, less prepared to 'play' and learn something slightly different like Star Office or SquirrelMail. Students seem to take it all in their stride. | Generally the students
find it as easy as propietary solutions. The general idea they have is
that in Linux they can use apps that can do the same tasks as in Windows,
and sometimes even better. The staff was never reluctant to use free software because from square one they knew were doing a pioneer job -Our school was the first one to implement Linux in Mexico- |
Many of the students have never been exposed to computers before, so we cannot compare their experiences with OSS to proprietary packages. Those who have used proprietary systems seemed to adapt quickly to Linux. The staff has been more reluctant to embrace Linux. |
| 4. In the future,
which of the following do you see as most important in realizing the mass
use of educational free software in the classroom and why: - Commercialization (i.e. A 'professional' feel to applications; more support; publicly advocating free software such as GNU/Linux as a quality commercial platform). - Concentrating on the 'community' aspects of free software - developing a larger user base by advocating free software to educators and introducing them to the benefits of the free software community, such as friendly, free support and by-products of the free software development process such as quick security fixes. - Helping technology-lacking schools with free software and voluntary support (and maybe free hardware if appropriate as well) to help raise a new generation of free software-conscious persons. - Pointing out the potentially dead-end nature of many proprietary standards and advocating free and open alternatives that can be adapted and extended at will. - Proclaiming to our governments the advantages of free software in government schools. If government schools embrace free software, other schools might follow their example, or at least take some notice. - Any other important points that have not come to my mind and you believe are important. |
Free software offers
the opportunity for creating specialized applications that serve a specific
purpose, without the requirement for making large bloated applications
that have widespread commercial appeal. Professional feel-Many schools and education departments feel that the only platform is the Microsoft one. Consequently they waste many millions of dollars purchasing this system. They need to be made aware of the advantages of using an open-source system, not only financial but educational as well. -Helping technologically disadvantaged schools. It is possible for a school to setup an extremely advanced system for the cost of harware alone, without penalising the students at all. This is a very important consideration. Many universities use unix based systems, particularly in IT subjects, students who enrol in these subject would benefit from having prior experience in a unix based system. |
I think the most
important thing is that once the _parents_ realize the good that Free/Open Source software can do for their schools, changes will start happening because they will put pressure on the school boards. In universities, the key decision-makers need to be sold on it. |
Quite simply this: that educationally sound and proven applications exist for Linux. Educationally, the platform or operating system is irrelevant. Does the software available for a platform actually help in teaching anybody anything? Most of the other arguments are financial, technical, etc etc. They are all valid but secondary to the question of educational validity, IMHO. | I believe all your points are important, because our school is advocating all of them, except the first one (we are not a commercial enterprise). Check out our web page, http://enmac.seul.org. It is loaded with Linux in education advocacy (in Spanish language, though...) | I believe that a linux distribution focused on education would be helpful. Such a distribution would have four options: student machine, staff machine, server, or custom.The cost of ownership is also a very important factor - especially among private schools. Open source will often run on older hardware, so a school can put off a hardware upgrade, getting more life out of existing machines. The non-requirement to license every copy of the software has a huge impact on the bottom line, and the ability to remotely administer the system reduces the need for on-site technical staff. Security. Everyone's root on a Windows box, and students routinely (and incorrectly) reconfigure these machines. This is not possible with Linux. This also reduces the administration costs. |
| 5. What is your experience with support? How has your experience, if any, with proprietary software support, compared to your experiences with free software support? | We tend no to use external support, for any software. | Very little experience with proprietary support. I had a question once about 6 years ago that I needed to call a support number for; I think it was a Mac web server product, and the solution was pretty easy. On the whole, the free support on the Web for Linux is great, though every now and then I find a problem that I'm banging my head against the wall on and nobody seems to volunteer any help. If I were more persistent and contacted the developers directly, I might get an answer in such cases. | ... led me to believe that it is better than OSS? No way. The support available in online OSS communities is amazing, and free. | My experiences
have not been very good. I had to experience the disregard of problems
in numerous times. In KDE 1.0 there was a bug in the latinamerican keyboard layout (it didn't type the initial exclamation mark of Spanish language). The developer pointed to me the way to fix it, but the fix was never incorporated in newer releases of 1.x series. In KDE 2.0 the latinamerican keyboard layout was dropped, as well as other international layouts. KDE developers simply disregard our requests to have those keyboards layouts back. In the newest version of KSpread was reintroduced a bug: all cells with no content are taken as if there were a zero in it, rendering functions such as "average" useless. Again, there are no answers until this moment to fix it. In MetaCard for Linux there is a bug in the sound system, that makes that sound files sound too fast in certain cards, or doesn't sound at all. The answer from Metacard developer was "here we don't have that problem" and "sound in Linux is a mess. Not our problem" (although sound was just fine in all other Linux apps) And so on... :( |
I do not have much experience with tech support from proprietary vendors, but if you know where to look (USENET, mailing lists), the support of OSS is tremendous. |
| 6. What is about free software that you feel is most important? Do you see closed-source software as unethical, and/or do you believe that free software is simply a far superior and efficient development method? | I have no problem
with commercial software. I will gladly pay if the cost of the software
is reflected in its stability and usability. The problem with many commercial
software packages is that they are priced beyond all reason, particularly
when this pricing structure is applied to education where the school is
often needing large numbers of each package. You can install a free package at school and make it available to students for their home computers free of charge. That means that you know that they have access to the same software at school and at home. Free software, being open source, allows collaborative development of the code. This means that it can be developed quickly and with more imagination (through collaboration) and it can be varied to meet specific needs. |
I don't see closed-source
software as unethical in itself, but illegal competitive practices (e.g., Microsoft) certainly are, and in a lot of cases _using_ proprietary software is unethical, if it means that a lot of money is spent that didn't have to be, especially in schools and nonprofits. |
Better development method, available to the entire world (not just rich whities), but most importantly for me, infinitely extensible and customisable. | From the perspective
of our school, the most important factor is the free one (free as in "free
beer"). We do not care too much if a program is open or closed source,
what we care is that we can have programs to offer to our students without
a price tag. Our school doesn't have a budget for computer technology, so
it is maintaned exclusively by our own activities to fund it. With costly
commercial-propietary software there is no way we could have had "up
to date" apps. It doesn't mean that we act as free loaders. As a retribution to free sofware, we develop open source multimedia titles for Linux. (check http://enmac.seul.org/historia/historia.html) and advocate the use of free software in schools. We do not see closed-source software as unethical. We believe this kind of software is a part of the equation. We use closed-source software for Linux in our school (WordPerfect, MetaCard, OCR Shop). Of course, if there were open-source that could replace those apps, we would use them! |
The cost of ownership. Also open source is a better model for developing secure software. |
| 7. Can you pinpoint anything that you feel may be holding free software in education back from what it might achieve? Perhaps you can think of a specific application that is forcing you or someone you know of to use proprietary software, simply because there is no equivalent free software available to use as an alternative. A specialized example (this is unlikely to affect many, but a certain proportion of people would be) is software that analyses data from chemical testing machines (such as a spectrometer). | I know it is a bit much to ask...but for free software to be useable it needs to be robust. There is nothing worse than a package that continually crashes because it has been written badly. It needs to be reliable and its output (files) need to be able to be read by the main stream commercial packages. It is of little use having a great word processor that creates files that can not be read by MS Word for example | That's easy--there's
very little software for language learning in Linux. (I teach English to non-native speakers.) On the other hand, the trend is towards Web applications, so this doesn't matter as much as it used to. |
I use 100% Linux/OSS for everything I do at home, and everything interesting I do at work. | 1. Installation/configuration/troubleshooting
seems to be harder or more crude that propietary software. 2. There are not enough people with skills to administer school Linux centers. 3. Resistance to change. |
The only reason we have Windows boxes in the library is so we can use the encyclopedias on CD. |
| 8. What would your overall assessment of free software in education be? Is it ready to take on the world of proprietary software? Is it too late? | In many cases yes. GIMP for example is an excellent package that can replace Photoshop without any real disadvantage. | I think it's already
ready! Both on the server and the desktop. It's just a matter of perceptions. |
It is already doing so here in the NT. | In our point of view, there is a horrible lack of multimedia educative titles in Spanish language for Linux (or in any other language). That lack prevent us to get rid of Windows partitions, we still need it to run multimedia programs. Other that that, we believe there is enough apps in Linux to counterpart the Windows apps | It is almost ready. Right now it takes a willing administration and a dedicated sysadmin. But it is certainly not too late. I have a feeling that the new licensing approach MS is using for Windows XP will force many organizations "get legal" - and that may cost a lot more than they can afford. |
| 9. Thankyou for taking the time to complete this survey. I appreciate your input. Is there anything else you would like to comment on? Do you have a revolutionary insight into free software in education? Do you want to offer some constructive criticism? | Glad you're interested in this. How about a summary of your findings on the mailing list? | Do a search for my article 'Linux and Open source software in Australia's Northern Territory' at www.opensourceschools.org for more details about Linux/OSS in the NT. | Excuse the english grammar errors. English is not my native language |
1 Free (as in ‘liberty’) software can generally be said to be synonymous for ‘OSS’, however, there are some special exceptions, the scope of which is outside this paper. These terms have caused much heated debate. In this paper, ‘free’ will be used, unless a direct quote contains alternate usage.
2 ‘free software’ in Raymond, Eric (ed). The Jargon File Version 4.3.1. The Internet: 2001, at http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/html/entry/free-software.html (accessed 28/6/02).
3 Salus, Peter H. The hard roots of open source software. The Internet: 2000, athttp://oss.software.ibm.com/developer/opensource/features/roots.html?dwzone=opensource (accessed 27/11/01).
4 The Jargon File Version 4.3.1 (http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/jargon/) defines hackers as people who “program enthusiastically” (article ‘hacker’) and believe that “information-sharing is a powerful positive good, and that it is an ethical duty of hackers to share their expertise by writing free software and facilitating access to information and to computing resources where possible.” (article ‘hacker ethic’).
5 ‘GNU’ is what is known by hackers as a recursive acronym. They are traditional in hacker culture and relatively common today (e.g. LAME [Lame Aint an MP3 Encoder], WINE [Wine Is Not an Emulator], HURD [HIRD (HURD of Interfaces Representing Depth) of Unix-Replacing Daemons]).
6 Williams, Sam. Free as in Freedom First Edition. ch. 7. The Internet: 2002, athttp://www.oreilly.com/catalog/freedom/ch07.html (accessed 15/5/02).
7 Ibid., ch. 10.
8 It should be noted that while Richard Stallman is to be a, if not the key historical figure in the modern free software movement, free software, including operating systems, completely unrelated to the GNU project is fairly common. Most of the BSD Unices, for example, are free, but their communities’ precise definition of ‘freedom’ differs to some extent from that of Stallman’s.
9 Wayner, Peter. Free For All. p. 78-9. New York: HarperCollins, 2000.
10 Ibid.
11 Refers to binary programs. A program must be compiled from source code into a binary format before it can be understood by a computer’s microprocessor.
12 Ibid., p. 297.
13 Duin, Steve.
Microsoft puts the squeeze on NW schools. The Internet: 2002, at http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf?/xml/story.ssf/html_standard.xsl?/
base/all_wire_stories/101386428029222529.xml (accessed 23/4/02).
14 The Linux Terminal Server Project involves the use of numerous diskless workstations which all boot off a central server instead of a local disk. In effect, only one software installation need be maintained, easing administration.
15 A distribution, or ‘distro’, is a collection of individual programs packaged to form a cohesive whole. K12LTSP is simply GNU/Linux distribution that focuses on integrating LTSP (Linux Terminal Server Project) software. This might not seem so amazing, but for a school with hundreds of machines to manage, it is revolutionary!
16 Ibid.
17 Wheeler, David A. Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers! The Internet: 2002, at http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html (accessed 20/4/02).
18 Ibid.
19 Wayner, Peter. Free For All. p. 6.
20 op. cit. Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers!
21 Raymond, Eric. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The Internet: 1998, at http://www.ccil.org/~esr/bazaar/cb.htm (accessed 15/3/02).
22 Raymond, Eric. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. ch. 13. The Internet: 1998, at http://www.ccil.org/~esr/bazaar/cb13.htm (accessed 15/3/02).
23 Vijay Kumar, M. S. and Merriman, Jeff and Long, Phillip D. ‘Building “Open” Frameworks for Education.’ Educause Review, November/December (2001), 80-81.
24 This is a relatively common expression used by hackers in this kind of context. Its origins appear to be unknown.
25 op. cit. Building “Open” Frameworks for Education.
26 Microsoft. The Halloween Documents [leaked internal Microsoft documents]. The Internet: 1998, at http://www.opensource.org/halloween/ (accessed 12/5/02).
27 Microsoft’s ‘shared source’ cannot legally be advertised as ‘open-source’, since it does not fit the officially licensed definition of the term. David Braue (below) is thus technically incorrect in this usage. For the open-source community, ‘open-source’ and ‘proprietary’ are mutually exclusive terms.
28 Braue, David. ‘Open Season.’ The Bulletin, 21/8/2001, 62.
29 Ibid.
30 Stallman, Richard.Why Software Should Be Free. The Internet: 1992, at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html (accessed 13/5/02).
31 Examples of such formats compressed GIFs - which use LZW compression (patented by UNISYS), Sorenson Video 3 and more recently, JPEG, who’s patent is owned by Forgent Networks.
32 Gulledge, Dale.Open Formats. The Internet: 2002, at http://opensourceschools.org/article.php?story=20020605174415668 (accessed 24/6/02).
33 Simple End User Linux. Current NPO’s. The Internet: [often updated - date n/a], at http://seuldat.seul.org/npo/ (accessed 25/4/02).
34 Hampton, Wade. Cross-Platform Work with Cygwin and Wine. The Internet: 2001, at http://opensourceschools.org/article.php?story=20011206165714853 (accessed 15/3/02).
35 Referring to ISO9660, the standard CD-ROM format.
36 Simple End User Linux. Seul/Edu Educational Application Index. The Internet:[often updated - date n/a], at http://richtech.ca/seul/ (accessed 14/5/02).
37 Bucknell, David.Dear Tech Coordinators: Invite Your Boss (and others) Inside. The Internet: 2001, at http://opensourceschools.org/article.php?story=20011104051636645 (accessed 10/4/02).
38 GNOME - GNU Network Object Model Environment - a free desktop environment (GUI).
39 Pennington, Havoc. Free software and good user interfaces. The Internet: 2002, at http://www106.pair.com/rhp/free-software-ui.html (accessed 13/5/02).
40 ‘Copyleft’ is a term coined by Richard Stallman to denote a specific kind of free license. In short, copyleft involves copyrighting a work (e.g. free software, documentation) and prohibiting the licensee to redistribute a non-free version, modified or unmodified, of that work. Copyleft does not allow for sublicensing, thus ensuring that future derivatives of a program will be free.
41 Gates, Bill (hosted by Murray, Jonothan). Government Leaders Conference (Interview in Seattle). The Internet: 2002, at http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/04_17glc.asp (accessed 20/4/02).
42 Ibid.
43 Greene, Thomas C. MS in Peruvian open-source nightmare. The Internet: 2002, at http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/25157.html (accessed 6/5/02).
44 Ibid.
45 Schoolforge. Schoolforge Press Release (January 8th 2002). The Internet: 2002, athttp://schoolforge.net/doc.php?w=pr-jan8 (accessed 22/2/02).
46 Szulik, Matthew. Open Schools to Open Source. The Internet: 2002, at http://www.linux-mag.com/2002-02/trench_01.html (accessed 6/6/02).