Free Software Under Debate: Free Software, the Final Opportunity for Technological Emancipa- Tion
CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPA- TION
Orestes Mas1, Leopold Palomo2, Rafael Carreras3, Eduard Fabra4 and Francesc Genové5
This article sets forth the various reasons why public administration should become involved in adopting and de- veloping free software. A review is made of the more important concepts concerning this type of software and clarification is given of the most frequent doubts and misconceptions. The article goes on to explain the general advantages of free software and specific advantages for it being adopted by public administration authorities, with special emphasis on teaching, research and citizen and society-oriented services. The basic guidelines to assure maximum guarantees for success in the process of migration to free software are also discussed.
Table of contents
1. Introduction 1.1 Free software is a matter of freedom 1.2 Potential confusion about free software 2. The advantages of freedom 2.1 Better quality 2.2 Greater reliability and stability 2.3 Eliminating compulsory change 2.4 Lower cost 3. The role of public administration 3.1 Software used by public administration
1 Orestes Mas is a PhD telecommunications engineer, an associate professor at the Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya (UPC) and a member of Caliu (Catalan Linux Users). 2 Leopold Palomo is an industrial engineer, a research assistance engineer at UPC and a member of Caliu. 3 Rafael Carreras is a laboratory technician. He is currently employed at the government-run Laboratori General d’Assaigs i Investigacions. He is a mem- ber of Caliu. 4 Eduard Fabra is a computer programmer and the vice-president of Caliu. 5 Francesc Genové is a computer engineer and the president of Caliu.
36 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
3.2 Localisation and translation 3.3 e-Government and the use of open standards 3.4 Security 4. Free software in education 4.1 Language 4.2 Quality in education 4.3 Discouraging illegal copying 4.4 Saving 4.5 Immunity from viruses 4.6 Non-discrimination 5. Innovation and research 5.1 Knowledge distribution 5.2 Software patentability 6. Migration 7. Conclusions
1. Introduction the other hand, the prejudiced diffusion of biased data by sectors that are against free software and There has recently been a notable increase in the insist on stirring up fear, uncertainty and doubt6 in mention of free software in the media. What used people who have decision-making ability with re- to be a subject confined to highly technical cliques gard to information and communications in differ- is now reaching broad sectors of the population by ent sectors. way of radio, the press, TV and Internet itself, which are all but a reflection of the increasing im- The other side of the coin is of course when people pact that this type of software has on daily life. Un- lapse into the puerile demonising of certain propri- fortunately, journalism often treats the subject in an etary software companies and use passionate incomplete, erroneous or just plain tendentious and/or simplistic arguments that help very little in way. There are various motives for this: on the one putting across the benefits associated with free hand, there is a lack of knowledge about this phe- software that for the first time are now very close at nomenon even amongst information experts. On hand. It also does not help the diffusion of this new
6 FUD — fear, uncertainty and doubt.
37 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
paradigm. At the present time, with wide sectors of majority of this information is also accessible via society still unaware of what free software really is, the Internet and is thus easily obtainable. Internet explanations need to be given in a way that the addresses (URL references) have been included as concepts are clearly put across, and the FUD and much as possible, in spite of the risk of these be- more obvious prejudices refuted with a serene and coming defunct in time. All links to on-line material rigorous line of argument that avoids a lapse into have been checked and, as of April 2004, are op- mere rejection or the outright dismissal of other erational. people’s points of view. 1. 1. Free software is a matter of freedom The intention of this article is thus not to dogmati- cally state that proprietary software is intrinsically Richard Stallman, the creator of the GNU pro- bad or that it should be prohibited but to uphold ject7 and the main instigator of the free software that free software be adopted simply because it is concept, defines the latter as software that si- superior in economic, social and technological multaneously provides four fundamental ‘free- terms, as is explained below. doms’8:
1. The freedom to use it for any purpose. 2. The freedom to study how it works and, if ne- Free software provides four fundamental cessary, to adapt it to one’s own needs. ‘freedoms’: to use it for any purpose; to 3. The freedom to redistribute copies of software. 4. The freedom to introduce improvements and study how it works and, if necessary, to make them public for the benefit of the entire adapt it to one’s own needs; to redistribute community. copies of software, and to introduce im- In order for these essential freedoms to make provements and make them public for the sense, the users of free software need access to a benefit of the entire community. programme’s source code9, otherwise it is impossi- ble for it to be modified and the way it works can only be studied by using highly complex inverse engineering techniques that are illegal in certain Before entering into the matter at hand, however, countries. one should bear in mind that reference is made throughout the article to different books, articles There are different licenses that can be associa- and papers in support of the different lines of argu- ted with software so that it can be distributed ment. With regard to an issue as topical as this, the freely. These include those of the Apache founda-
7 The GNU project was started by Richard Stallman in 1984 to develop an operating system like UNIX but with free software (The recursive acronym GNU, in true hacker style, stands for «GNUs Not UNIX»). See FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION, 2004. Available at:
38 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
tion10 and the X Consortium11. Some of these li- both things, which is often used by detractors of censes unfortunately allow any individual or entity free software to present it as having «no value» and to appropriate the software and turn it into proprie- who resort to the subconscious idea that anything tary software by changing the license. One ex- with value has a monetary cost. Obtaining free ample of this is the proprietary —and very expen- software is also always associated with an actual sive— PSPICE programme used for the purchase cost (even if it just the cost of the CD- simulation of electronic circuits, which was de- ROM where it is copied onto or the Internet con- rived from a free programme developed at the nection to download it) and printed documentation University of California in the 1970s. is also paid for along with support, training and system administration, as is the case with propri- In order to prevent this type of appropriation, the etary software. GNU project created the General Public License (GPL)12, which, aside from ensuring the four above- Free software is just as commercial as proprietary mentioned freedoms, obliges any GPL-licensed software programme to maintain the license in successive modified versions that are distributed, without any Associated with the previous point, free software is additional restrictions being added. This gives legal often branded as being «non-commercial» soft- protection to free software in the same way that ware as a way of discouraging enterprises from us- proprietary software licenses legally prevent any ing it. There is nothing in the definition of free soft- copying, modification or non-authorised use. The ware to prevent economic profit from being made majority of free software has come to be GPL-li- from it, if this is considered to be appropriate. Many censed although there are important applications enterprises have in fact done so, like IBM and new- that for different reasons have preferred to use oth- er companies like Red Hat, Mandrake, SuSE and er licenses. many others that develop applicable free software that is then exploited commercially in many differ- 1.2. Potential confusion about free software ent ways. In the case of free software, however, it does not make too much sense to base one’s busi- As mentioned above, a whole series of misunder- ness on the sale of high-priced licenses because standings and falsehoods have developed around the potential competition is very fierce: everybody free software that need to be fervourously op- has the right to obtain a copy of the software and posed. These are some of the most important sell it at the price they like. ones. Free software will not wreck the software industry Free software is NOT cost-free software The group of companies that base their business «Free» and «gratis» are not synonyms. The confu- on software is often referred to as the software in- sion lies in the fact that «free» in English means dustry. The use of this terminology is ill intentioned,
10 See
39 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
however, because as Eric Raymond13 quite rightly aside and is covered under the section below enti- points out, it is presented as a manufacturing ac- tled «Innovation and research». tivity (license sales) that in actual fact falls for the most part within the service sector (support, cus- Free software should not be confused with open tomised development, etc.). The reasoning that source or shared source «free software will lead to a drop in prices and therefore wreck the software industry» is therefore Open source is a term used by Eric Raymond and groundless. Free software is positive even for most the Open Source Initiative. As the term suggests16, software companies because a reduction in the it is equivalent to free software although there are cost of a good tends to increase, as to reduce, to- biased lines of argument that only emphasise the tal investment in the supporting infrastructure. For technical aspects of the term (namely, the possibili- example, when the cost of cars goes down, the ty of gaining free access to source code) and that demand for car repair garages goes up. A similar avoid those connected with freedom. As this often thing occurs with software: if it is made easier to leads to confusion, it is criticised by Richard Stall- obtain a certain programme, there will be an in- man and the Free Software Foundation, who ad- crease in the demand for more support, personali- vise against the term being used. It is not used in sation, etc. associated with it. The GNU/Linux sys- this article although it does appear in some of the tem14 is itself a clear example of this. What will accompanying references. occur is that, in a context of competitiveness be- tween free software and proprietary software, Shared source was invented by Microsoft17 to businesses that live totally or partially from the sale give the impression of transparency in the face of of licenses will probably either have to reorientate15 repeated accusations of the presence of back- their line of business or disappear, although this is doors18 in its software. In short, shared source normally accepted as a fact in a market economy makes part of the software’s source code avail- and it in fact happens every day in all business able19 to certain groups and bodies so that it can sectors. This is a scenario where a monopoly is be analysed. This initiative and its real effects on impossible. security are analysed and reviewed in a section further on. Free software permits the most efficient form of innovation 2. The advantages of freedom This is an important issue that directly affects a country’s technological capacity in both the pre- The title of this section is obviously deliberately sent and the future. It deserves to be dealt with provocative because no one comes out and says
13 RAYMOND, 2001a. 14 The GNU/Linux association created the operational system kernel known as Linux. All of the software tools were developed by the GNU project. 15 For a more complete discussion on the different business models based on free software, consult GONZÁLEZ BARAHONA et al., 2003, section 5.2 16 See
40 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
that freedom is a disadvantage. It also happens prises that see free software as an opportunity for however that an increase in freedom also demands business. In spite of this variety, the work method is a corresponding increase in responsibility on the not anarchic at all but follows very strict guidelines part of the individual in the use —and also develop- that enable unprecedented levels of quality soft- ment— of this freedom. This surely involves more ware to be produced.22 work. In the case of software, the proprietary soft- ware companies offer to do this work in exchange for the user delegating his/her own freedom. Every- body obviously must use their freedom as they see The user needs to assure his/her freedom fit, even to the point of renouncing it, but one must of choice at all times to prevent people be- be well informed in order to decide freely. Moreover, coming the captive users of proprietary freedom of choice must be assured at all times to prevent people becoming the captive users of pro- software and standards, without any possi- prietary software and standards, without any possi- bility of getting out of such a situation. bility of getting out of such a situation.
If it is a question of being master over one’s own freedom, the benefits that to be obtained will ge- Firstly, with regard to professionalism, many soft- nerously compensate the additional work that ware developers are outstanding in the areas that needs to be carried out. Immediate examples on they work in and contribute years of experience in the global scale are given below. code creation and error detection to the products. The Internet network puts all of these experts in 2.1. Better quality contact as well as enabling people who live a long distance from each other to work together. Se- There are certain biased opinions that insist on pre- condly, with regard to quantity, free software devel- senting free software as the more or less fortunate opment is world-wide and it is not surprising to find result of the anarchistic work of a group of solitary, numerous groups of developers involved in highly idealistic and not very pragmatic individuals. There emblematic projects. For example, 449 people is nothing further from the truth. Universal access have been involved up to the present time in devel- to programme source codes allows any person or oping the Linux kernel23; the KDE project keeps a group to become involved in its development. This list24 (albeit very incomplete) on its website of 461 attracts20 people from very different walks of life, contributors; and OpenOffice.org, the popular free cultures and ideologies like charismatic hackers21 office automation package, has over 10,000 con- who become involved for altruistic reasons to cre- tributors of all kinds, according to the expert Bruce ate a better world and programmers paid by enter- Byfield25. These are merely three examples. Con-
20 As far as the different reasons that motivate them to get involved in free software, see RAYMOND, 2001b. 21 An expert programmer who is enthusiastic about the challenges offered by computer programming. 22 There is an interesting analysis in RAYMOND, 2001c on the methodologies for developing free software and how to produce high quality software. 23 According to the CREDITS file of version 2.6.4 of the kernel. 24 See
41 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
sidering that Debian Sid distribution currently has cialise in providing support services for the rapid more than 14,500 packages of free software, one solution of any eventuality. Problem solving also can see how the numbers add up26. In terms of the benefits the whole community. In the world of combination of quantity and professionalism, one free software, there is no clash between whatev- can easily understand that it is impossible for any er is in the general interest and what is individual. private business to contract so many qualified soft- ware developers. Free software is simply unbeat- 2.2. Greater reliability and stability able with regard to this. Linus Torvalds, the originator of the GNU/Linux It is not merely a question of quality in the devel- system kernel, popularised a maxim known as «Li- opment cycle but also of the matter of user sup- nus’ law», according to which, «given enough eye- port. The numerous user forums to be found on balls, all bugs are shallow». Through the free avail- the Internet are highly efficient for resolving prob- ability of source code, any programmer in the lems and there are also companies that spe- world can examine the code and easily and swiftly
Graph 1 Market share of the different web servers, 1995-2004
70 Apache 65 Microsoft 60 SunONE NCSA 55 Other 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 July 2003 July 2002 July 2001 July 2000 July 1999 July 1998 July 1997 July 1996 April 2004 April 2003 April 2002 April 2001 April 2000 April 1999 April 1998 April 1997 April 1996 October1995 January 2004 January 2003 January 2002 January 2001 January 2000 January 1999 January 1998 January 1997 January 1996 October 2003 October 2002 October 2001 October 2000 October 1999 October 1998 October 1997 October 1996
Source: Netcraft-http://www.netcraft.com/survey/
26 One should also bear in mind that a) it is very difficult to count the number of contributors to a project, and b) all contributions are not equally relevant. Nevertheless, the number of contributors is very high on all levels.
42 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
detect and correct any errors. Programmes there- censes accompanying proprietary software of- by become more stable (they don’t spontaneously ten expressly prohibit software benchmark crash) and reliable (they always perform as ex- tests without the authorisation of the manufac- pected). Users of free software are aware of this turer. Infringement of this prohibition can lead to and trust in it. An example is the free web server the risk of being sued.27 In such conditions, it is Apache, which currently serves around 70% of all difficult for there to ever be a study where free Internet sites (more than 30 million) and by far software comes out well.28 greatly exceeds all the other web servers together, as can be seen from graph 1. A similar thing is In any case, grandiose studies are not needed to happening to e-mail service providers and name demonstrate the value of free software. As the servers, which are fundamental for the functioning proverb says, «actions speaks louder than of the Internet network. Without free software, the words» and the recommended action for those Internet would undoubtedly be very different to interested is to skip the studies, try free software what it is today. for themselves and rid yourself of any doubts as fast as possible. This is particularly easy nowa- Regular users of free software are therefore con- days with the widespread distribution of live free vinced of its absolute technical superiority. Never- software that can be loaded from a CD-ROM theless, studies aimed at indecisive users are peri- unit without modifying the user’s hard disk in any odically put into circulation to convince them of way. the opposite. Certain data are provided below in order for the reader to come to his/her own con- clusions:
1. An inquiry into who is behind these studies Without free software, the Internet would shows that they are normally commissioned undoubtedly be very different to what it is and paid for by proprietary software compa- nies, and it is hard to catalogue these as being today. independent. 2. A comparison between proprietary software and free software is sometimes made in these studies under what are highly unfavourable 2.3. Eliminating compulsory change conditions for the latter, such as the use badly configured computers in order to diminish the Proprietary software companies update their pro- performance qualities of free software. grammes every so often and stop providing sup- 3. The reader should be aware of the fact that li- port services (basically the correction of errors de-
27 For example, the licenses of Microsoft products often contain clauses like the following: «You may not disclose the results of any benchmark test of ei- ther the Server Software or Client Software for Internet Information Server to any third party without Microsoft’s prior written approval.» (Extract from the Windows NT Server license but also present in many others). For more information on the subject, consult the various different licenses of Microsoft pro- ducts (EULA) and, for example, the article «Criminalizing fair use» at:
43 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
tected) for previous versions. As these companies are nevertheless certain factors that are common are the only ones who can provide total support to all cases: for their product because they have exclusive ac- cess to the source code and are the only ones a) In general, the initial cost of free software is with the possibility of modifying and improving it, lower than equivalent functional proprieta- the customer is forced to migrate to successive ry software. It has already been mentioned versions to avoid obsolescence, with the conse- above that free software is not necessarily quent need to replace of hardware as newer ver- cost-free although its main cost is not the sions invariably require a higher processor speed, acquisition price. Furthermore, many distri- more memory and better hardware specifications butions already include the majority of appli- in general. With free software, however, older ver- cations necessary for business and adminis- sions are always available and any individual or trative environments, including office business with sufficient knowledge can continue computerisation packages, all kinds of to repair the errors that arise and modify and im- servers, development tools, etc., whereas in prove the product and charge for the service as the case of proprietary software this is all they do so. In this way, the software supply com- paid for individually. pany can never force you to change either your b) The same argument of the initial cost can be software or hardware. applied to successive updates, with the addi- tional factor that, by using free software, the 2.4. Lower cost user is not subjected to a compulsory update every time the software provider feels like put- The matter of the cost of free software is not as ting one out. simple as it seems at first sight because the actual c) Free software allows older hardware to be used cost is often not the only thing to be taken into ac- and also eliminates or delays the need to up- count. This is why the term ‘total cost of owner- date, which can be useful for making best use ship’ (TCO) is used, which is not limited to measur- of resources in socially orientated organisa- ing if the product starts out by being acquired tions, such as NGOs. cheaply but oversees whether the cost is kept low d) The saving made with free software increases throughout its life utility. TCO basically measures as the number of systems that it is installed in the most important cost parameters, such as the multiplies. A typical case is that of teaching ins- initial cost of acquisition, the cost of successive up- titutions where there are numerous computer dates, administration and technical assistance, classrooms that require a license for each etc. workplace configured with proprietary soft- ware; this is also the same for public adminis- There is no «universal» TCO however. Cost calcu- tration and companies in general. lation depends a lot on needs, the type of soft- ware and the specific context where it is being In spite of all of this, however, the issue of the operated. An individual user is not in the same si- TCO is one of the main points in the competition tuation as a large corporation, just as an office between free software and proprietary software computerisation programme is not the same as because the advancement of free software an applications server. Despite this diversity, there means that proprietary software is progressively
44 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
losing its share of the market29, mainly in the area 3. The role of public administration of business servers. This is why reports «demons- trating» that the TCO of free software is superior Public administration is a fundamental aspect of to that of proprietary software frequently appear. society. The decisions that are made and the These reports are however generally biased or tools used delineate citizenry. With regard to soft- they only consider certain types of scenario.30 In ware, one should not fail to appreciate the res- the face of factors like this, the only defence left ponsibility of software managers when it comes to the public concerned is to read a lot, be well to evaluating the tools that need to be selected. informed and for one to come to one’s own con- Market criteria cannot be considered just on their clusions. own. Various social groups and social move- ments33 have realised this and it has also been Be that as it may, in spite of the fact that migration detected by the proprietary software companies, from proprietary software to free software also car- which have increased pressure to the maximum ries with it an economic cost that to begin with can on seeing their share of the software market be seem high, many private and group consumers are reduced. saving a lot of money with free software. This is not a statement from some doctored study but it is they 3.1. Software used by public administration themselves that say this. Amazon, the Internet sales’ specialists, declared31 that they had saved 17 million Public administration, as a managerial authority, dollars in technological expenditure in just one quar- needs to use software in order to operate. This ter, mainly as a result of migrating to GNU/Linux. The must be chosen from the software that is available microelectronics giant Intel Corporation saved an on the market and that best adapts to its needs. It even larger sum, 200 million dollars, by substituting is also obliged to guarantee the impartiality of pu- its expensive UNIX servers for more economical blic allocation. A series of proprietary software ones that work with GNU/Linux. An example closer companies has started a «software choice» cam- to home is an estimated saving of 18 million euros in paign34 that, on the face of it, appears to pursue software licenses for teaching institutions through administration authorities so that they are consi- the deployment of free software in Extremadura.32 dered and not excluded first when it comes to the
29 According to Avneesh Sxena, vice-president of computer systems research at IDC consultants for the Asia-Pacific region, a study by his company fore- casts that the market share of Microsoft operating systems will drop to 58% by 2007 (it is currently around 90%). The information, which appeared in the PC World magazine, can be seen at:
45 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
administration choosing its software. Public ad- more important within the scope of public admi- ministration should be neutral, they say, when it nistration, given the large quantities of licenses comes to choosing the type of software it will need bought from multinational proprietary software to use. In fact, public administration must be im- companies that merely revert back to the local partial and not neutral; it has every right to specify economy in the mark-up of the distribution com- what type of software is best for its needs for the panies. benefit of the public interest. It is the companies that, if they are interested in the business, should 3.2. Localisation and translation adapt their software to the demands of tenders by the administration35. Software must be adaptable to the environment in which it is used. The actual process consists of two stages, internationalisation36 and localisation37. In- ternationalisation consists of adapting the software The Administration must be impartial in so that it can be localised. Software localisation choosing its software and not neutral. consists of it being adapted to the local standards and practices where it will be used, such as lan- guage, local currency and time format. The inter- nationalisation stage is a technical stage because a So what conditions should the administration de- modification of the code is required. This is not dif- mand of the software that it uses? ficult although a certain level of complexity is in- volved in order for it to be carried out correctly as all a) It must operate in the official language of the possible languages and places must be taken into country (localisation). account. Localisation is not a technical stage. The b) It must guarantee access to information at all source code of the software does not need to be times, both now and in the future (in perpetu- modified to do this and, in general, most people ity). can do it. c) Access to confidential data on citizens or re- served information (security) is not allowed to Most free software is internationalised, which en- non-authorised persons. ables it to be localised. Non-localised free soft- ware can be internationalised because the As is contended below, only free software is able source code is available. The bulk of the work in to guarantee these conditions and this must be localisation is in translating all the messages and the only option when contracting software from manuals. the different suppliers. Moreover, it has already been mentioned above that free software repre- Public administration should, wherever possible, sents a saving in licenses for operating systems, always use software localised for the environment office computerisation packages, etc. This is even and translated into the official language. Mone-
35 As well as creating a storm, citizens have also accused the software choice initiative of fraud (see
46 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
tary agreements for the localisation and transla- On-line communication between citizens and tion of proprietary software have customarily the Administration always follows certain proto- been considered a positive factor in political cir- cols and document formats, which are generally cles38. It should be said, however, that this de- specified by the Administration. Some of these pends exclusively on the good will of the propri- are public and open while others are the proper- etary software company. When all is said and ty of a particular company. Open formats are done, it is the owner of the software that has the created by consortiums of information technolo- final say and not the customer, who only has a li- gy experts around the world and are defined on cense to use it. the basis of consensus and impartiality, while at the same time allowing for improvement through Free software offers a totally different perspec- new contributions. They generally have the sup- tive. For software to be localised and translated, port of, and are standardised by, an official you do it and that is that. All one needs is the body. minimum of infrastructure and resources to do this. An example is the translation of the Proprietary formats, on the other hand, are created OpenOffice software package into Hungarian39, by companies and are generally not made public, which was carried out by twelve people in a which means that only they know how to deal with computer class at Budapest University Poly- them. Problems arise when the use of one of these technic. With the help of around one hundred proprietary formats becomes very extensive and people over the Internet, the translation of the ends up becoming a de facto standard. This di- 21,000 text chains was completed in three rectly affects the perpetuity of the data and the citi- days.40 zen’s freedom to choose his/her software. How can that be? 3.3. e-Government and the use of open standards It is essential for the use and maintenance of software to be independent of the good will of In the age of the Internet and the information the suppliers and of the monopolistic conditions technologies, public administration cannot get left imposed by them. The use of proprietary soft- behind and it must offer e-Government services ware leaves the user totally in the hands of the that facilitate inquiries and make on-line proces- supplier. Data used by the Administration will sing easy. e-Government is already top priority in need to be used in the future and computer sys- many countries41 and for numerous supranational tems will need to guarantee this, in the same bodies, such as the European Union, where all way that a written document provides such a kinds of initiative associated with this are emerg- guarantee. It could occur that data on citizens is ing. stored on the Administration’s computers and
38 In 1998, the Autonomous Government of Catalonia paid 80 million pesetas (more than 480,000) for Microsoft to translate Windows 98 into Catalan, which was highly criticised by numerous groups that contended that the translation should have been in-service, i.e. the responsibility of Microsoft, and that this should have been a precondition prior to the Administration acquiring the software. 39 «Open source’s local heroes», The Economist, 4 December 2003. Available at:
47 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
can only be processed using the software of a cate with all citizens via computer and Internet particular company.42 This company could dis- connection. appear or decide to stop providing support for the software. What would happen then with the At the present time, for example, the German Go- data? vernment is providing support for the drawing up of a report43 that specifies the actions to be carried Furthermore, if the Administration does not use out in the planning of e-Administration based on standards and open formats to communicate the use of the standards proposed by the OASIS with citizens, it could be forced to buy software organisation.44 products from companies that would benefit from a monopolistic situation. If citizens do not want 3.4. Security the software or cannot pay for it, they will not be able to communicate on-line with the Administra- Computer systems have to deal with evil codes like tion, which would be flagrant discrimination. Citi- viruses, trojan horses (programmes that enter into zens cannot be forced to acquire software of a systems), worms (programmes that get activated in particular brand for the purpose of formalities a system, etc.) and other different kinds of attack that procedure. make use of vulnerabilities that are normally pu- blished by the software producer. The importance of computer security is proportional to the size of the computer system and the importance of the stored If the Administration does not use standards information. The economic losses due, for example, and open formats to communicate with citi- to a computer attack are high for a large company zens, it could be forced to buy software that cannot connect up to its servers for a whole working day and if its reserved information is threat- products from companies that would bene- ened, the losses can be critical for the company. fit from a monopolistic situation. The companies and organisations that package free software continuously publish the vulnerabili- ties detected in their operating systems. On the The situation could be acceptable if there was no basis of these data, Forrester Research Inc. pu- other way to organise e-government but that is blished a study45 in which it assured that Microsoft evidently not the case. It is necessary for the Ad- Windows, with fewer published vulnerabilities, is ministration to not only use free software but to more secure than GNU/Linux. However, whether also require its software supplier to comply with the importance of the vulnerabilities is critical for open standards in order to be able to communi- the system or not is not taken into account.46
42 DI COSMO, 2000. 43 BUNDESMINISTERIUM DES INNERN, 2003. 44 ORGANIZATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF STRUCTURED INFORMATION STANDARDS (OASIS):
48 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
Immediately following the appearance in 2001 of National Security Agency], where they compiled various worms that took advantage of the vulnera- and added whatever they wanted and it was bility of Microsoft’s web server, Internet Information then returned to us as a product for distribution. Services (IIS), the Gartner Group, a reputable firm I don’t know what they put in it. Many other of consultants, recommended47 the companies processes that we’ve done have been without that had been affected to change their web servers backdoors, which is something that is really im- to other non-IIS products. According to Gartner, portant for ensuring people’s privacy.»49 The this server charges a very high economic cost in quote could not be clearer: there is absolutely order to maintain the system reasonably secure. nothing that can safeguard closed software from The most recent worm demonstrated the high risk being free of backdoors. There is no way of of using this programme and the effort involved knowing this. There are also cases of backdoors with the update and frequent botches by Mi- that have been detected50, some of which have crosoft. been exploited by the FBI.
Another security problem, although different to that of viruses, is guaranteeing the confidentiality of data stored in the Administration’s computers so Source code thus needs to be totally avail- that access is prohibited to non-authorised per- able and compilable in order to verify that a sons. Politicians are fortunately increasingly aware programme being used coincides with the of the importance of protecting the security of pub- lic computer systems.48 given source code. There must be total traceability in order for fraud not to occur. What can be more secure than free software? One of the main reasons is backdoors (men- tioned above), which are often miscalculations in programming (vulnerabilities) or are used ex- Backdoors are much more difficult, if not impossi- pressly to guarantee hidden access without the ble, to introduce in free software because the code knowledge of the user. When asked if his com- can be examined by anybody who knows what pany’s programmes had backdoors, Hugo Scol- they are doing and any possible accusations could nik, from the codifying company Firmas Digi- easily be checked. The ability to scrutiny the code tales, which developed the first cryptography adds an element of control in essential matters: ci- and security projects for the forty-five main tizens have the legitimate right to know how their banks in Argentina, answered, «When we vote is computed or how their taxes are calculated. worked with Microsoft, we had to send the This is why free access to source code and the ve- source code of every change to the NSA [US rifying of programmes for correct functioning is
47 CNET NEWS.COM STAFF, 2001. 48 In January 2004, the Catalan Minister for Universitats, Recerca i Societat de la Informació, in a televised statement in which he strongly advocated the introduction of free software, put particular emphasis on the security that it provides. Information on the Minister’s statements at:
49 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
necessary.51 Above all, however, citizens need to stages when people are being trained that they ac- be able to verify that the software used by the go- quire habits in their interaction with software vernment complies objectively with the functions (nomenclature, vocabulary, ways of doing things, for handling their data.52 Certain opinions have etc.) that will be difficult to change later on. even been expressed that question whether the public authorities, according to current legislation, Furthermore, it is well known that the proprietary can use proprietary software, mainly on account of software companies are very reluctant to translate the drawbacks explained here.53 their products because they allege that it is not eco- nomically profitable for them to do so. In a quasi- Source code thus needs to be totally available monopoly situation like that of the present, these and compilable in order to verify that a pro- companies rule the roost and, as a result, class- gramme being used coincides with the given rooms in teaching institutions are stuffed with soft- source code. There must be total traceability in ware in languages that are different to that stipulat- order for fraud not to occur. What is the use of be- ed by law as being the main language to be used in ing able to consult the source code given by a education. The expansive growth of free software software company if one is not entirely sure that it has fortunately seen this situation of dependence is exactly the same as the one that eventually gets begin to change and there are increasingly fewer run on the computer? arguments that justify the purchase, installation and use of proprietary software in Spanish or English when there are equivalent alternatives of free soft- 4. Free software in education ware that are of high quality and in Catalan.
There are many reasons why it is of high priority for 4.2. Quality in education the government to introduce free software in schools, colleges and universities. The ones men- The use of free software in teaching institutions is tioned here are merely the more obvious ones. an easy way to increase the quality of education re- ceived by school children and students. There are 4.1. Language different reasons for this:
The importance for every linguistic group of the a) Software can be used in totally innovative availability of all kinds of resources, including those ways. For example, in November 2003 it was connected with the new technologies and translat- disclosed54 that the Institut Miquel Biada55 in ed into the mother tongue, has been commented Mataró, near Barcelona, had set up a live dis- on above. This issue takes on special relevance in tribution system for its pupils known as Biadix the case of education because it is precisely in the with over 900 programmes56, which had a
51 MOLIST, 2003. 52 VILLANUEVA NÚÑEZ, 2002; HIPATIA, 2003. 53 HISPALINUX, 2003. 54 This can be read in the on-line edition of EL PUNT, a
50 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
considerable impact on the educational com- environments, etc. It is educationally interesting munity in Catalonia. The volume of downloads for students to use this software at home in order disrupted the school’s network for several to practice and work but this impossible if the li- weeks. Aside from the educational use of soft- cense cost is high. Forced by the pressure on ware included in Biadix, the fact that it was them, many end up using non-authorised copies free software enabled the pupils themselves to of software, which is an offence. Moreover, this begin making spontaneous contributions to contributes to the spread of people’s knowledge the distribution, which implies an increase in about proprietary programmes, which become a technological competence. This derives from de facto standard and this is consequently detri- the flexibility of the «do-it-yourself» approach mental to consumers, as is mentioned in a sec- that arises spontaneously when the appropri- tion above. Free software helps to break this vi- ate tools are available. cious circle because copying is perfectly legal. b) It enables things to be done that are impossi- ble with closed software. There are certain 4.4. Saving subjects, for example, operating systems de- sign, in which it is essential to carry out labo- It is easier to calculate the cost in the case of ratory testing in order to totally understand teaching institutions than with companies. In the them. It is unthinkable to teach the ins and majority of cases, it is merely sufficient to add up outs of the system without students being the price of software licenses and updates. Ser- able to enter the source code, make their vices for support, administration, training, etc. are modifications and be able to recompile and usually centralised and the cost is shared. As the test the result in a real environment. This can cost per copy of free software is almost nothing only be done with restriction-free access to all or very low, the saving made from licensing can the source code, which is only feasible with be described quite simply as being spectacular.57 free software. This argument is not only appli- Moreover, operating systems based on free soft- cable to operating systems but can also be ware tend to have fewer hardware requirements extrapolated to algorithms for processing than the equivalent for proprietary software, voice and images, databases, communica- which helps to extend the life utility of computer tions and many others. equipment.
4.3. Discouraging illegal copying 4.5. Immunity from viruses
As students progress through their educational Computer viruses and other related evil pro- studies, they learn to use increasingly sophisticat- grammes are a real headache for most users to- ed and specialised software, from simple text edi- day but this problem is worse in teaching institu- tors to sophisticated programmes for retouching tions because of files and programmes of dubious photographs and non-linear video editing, as well origin that students open in the computers. Ac- as web page editing programmes, programming cording to a report by the QinetiQ Company,
57 One needs to go no further than the aforementioned examples of Amazon, Intel Corporation or the Junta de Extremadura.
51 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
which is associated with the British Ministry of De- later on reap the benefits of an entire group of fence58, there are approximately 60,000 known people who are familiar with their software that viruses of the Windows platform and only 40 of ensures the companies a future customer base, GNU/Linux.59 There are various reasons for this but either in the form of users or potential qualified they are mostly due to system design. The majori- employees. In this way, even by giving their soft- ty of viruses are harmless or do not spread exten- ware away, the companies that do this receive sively but there are a few that have caused very great benefits to the detriment of public interest high economic losses and forced teaching institu- and with no special advantage for users, the tions to reinstall all their software, in some cases state or institutions. repeatedly so. It is therefore evident that the use of GNU/Linux greatly reduces the risk of infection School children and teachers clearly need to be and therefore simplifies software60 and administra- given sufficient skills in how to use computers tion work in teaching institutions. The additional and the most appropriate software is obviously saving resulting from this is ultimately very consi- necessary in each case. Limiting the learning derable. process to the products of a particular brand of software, however, would imply that the Adminis- tration was unduly granting preference to a spe- cific seller and thereby discriminating against the rest. Discrimination of this type would clearly be There are approximately 60,000 known unconstitutional. viruses of the Windows platform and only 40 of GNU/Linux 5. Innovation and research
No-one questions whether computers are be- coming increasingly important in the fields of 4.6. Non-discrimination technology and science because they are al- ready extremely important in scientific research Even if the proprietary software companies were and technologically speaking they have become to give software to teaching institutions at zero a fundamental part of daily life. Innovation and cost, this should not be accepted. Giving soft- technology policies need to bear in mind very ware away to schools and other educational insti- clearly how computers and informatics are dealt tutions when the same software is sold elsewhere with as this can set the technological standards at high prices is clearly a marketing strategy. of a country as well as its dependence on Companies often resort to these techniques to others.
58 As its website (
52 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
5.1. Knowledge distribution of innovating and doing research on software has become accessible to everybody. With this im- Innovation in computer hardware is not dealt with mense culture medium, new ideas in software here as this would require an article of its own and have arisen from a very wide diversity of places it does not come within the scope of this one. As ranging from simple individuals and small compa- far as software is concerned, a distinction needs to nies formed around a privileged person with be made between research that can be done with brains to research carried out by university re- it, i.e. using it as a tool, and that which can be done search groups. The results of these ideas have of- on it, i.e. consideration of it as an object of re- ten been released as free software and have had search. Innovation and research into software ge- a much quicker and more effective impact on so- nerally refer to this second aspect. ciety. This was the case with the Web concept, developed originally at the CERN61 by Tim Bern- One of the most malicious and false accusations ers-Lee, together with some of the basic pro- made against free software is that its development grammes that help the Internet to operate, such model cannot generate technological innovation. as Apache, BIND, Sendmail, FTP and Telnet, to The origin of this FUD is the reasoning according to give but a few examples.62 which R+D requires large quantities of investment, which —they say— can only be guaranteed by the As can be deduced from the previous examples, proprietary software industry. the large software corporations have neither the exclusive nor leadership in technological innova- It is fortunately very simple to refute this argument. tion. Quite the contrary in fact. Ideas are often Research into software is in a very peculiar situa- produced elsewhere and these corporations re- tion that distinguishes it from research being done sort to headhunting, buying up smaller compa- in other fields of technology. As software is imma- nies or directly copying (legally or not63) in order terial, there is minimal investment to start re- to appropriate and commercialise original ideas. search. Anybody with a computer and sufficient These companies are often so successful with talent has the potential ability to innovate. In this their marketing and commercialisation tech- respect, programming is similar to literature and niques that people end up associating a particu- the fine arts where the material tools of creation lar technology with a company and forget who (paper, pencils, paint) are very economical but the the inventors were. This is the case with Mi- essential component, i.e. the individual, is irre- crosoft, the dominant company in the software placeable. market, which has not developed any of the im- portant innovations in the world of computers Since the invention of the PC and the subsequent but has limited itself to adapting and reimple- popularising of computer science, the possibility menting them.64
61 The European Organisation for Nuclear Research. See:
53 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
All of this does not mean to say that innovation cessary technology for building a supercomputer cannot take place within the large software corpo- out of PCs and thereby considerably reduce rations but that it is simply noted that the degree cost. This technology has been incorporated in of innovation attained does not correlate very different scenarios that were originally unfore- much with the investment made in R+D. Compa- seen; the result is therefore a real sharing of ratively speaking, the pace of innovation in large knowledge by society as a whole because it has corporations is much slower65 and nothing gets been applied in fields outside of research and developed without extensive market research be- science. None of this would have occurred with- forehand to assure that a certain technology is out free software. sufficiently mature enough to produce profits. In contrast, the free software model is much more 5.2. Software patentability dynamic despite having vastly inferior financial re- sources. The industrial patent concept emerged in the nine- teenth century. The original idea was that the in- The free software philosophy cannot be gene- ventor published the details of his invention in ex- ralised in all fields without in-depth study but in change for the protection of his invention against terms of the software, if it is a question of the de- his competitors during a period of time. This model mocratisation of technology, knowledge and in- of protection for industrial innovations is not appro- novations, there are few alternatives outside of priate for software. According to Xavier Drudis, an free software. One potentially controversial point expert in software patents67, these do not protect is the role of the universities and public research aspects of entire programmes, like copyright, but centres in relation to the software. These actors only more general concepts and practices. For ex- play a decisive role in a country’s innovation as ample, the copyright on a word processor would they have the human and economic resources to prohibit anyone from distributing the word proces- carry out research. The benefits of this innova- sor without the author’s permission whereas the tion have customarily been divided between the patent would prohibit anyone from developing a centre that carried out the research and the word processor, which means that it would protect company that markets it in the form of a pro- the concept of the word processor. In the case of duct. Because of the nature of software as an software patents, they want to patent ideas more immaterial asset, this benefit can very easily be that specific achievements, which is absurd as try- made accessible to everybody. Developing an in- ing to patent the genetic code or an adventure novation policy for free software contrasts totally novel. with a model of research that has the exclusive objective of commercialising results. The Be- There are attempts moreover to associate innova- owulf project is a good example to cite.66 This tion with patents, with the argument that «there are project was funded by money from the US Ad- more patents so there must be more innovation». ministration and its benefits resulted in the ne- The analysis by Galli68 conveniently refutes this evi-
65 This has even been recognised by Microsoft in the famous Halloween papers. See RAYMOND, 2004. 66 For an explanation of the Beowulf project, see:
54 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
dently simplistic line of reasoning. There has more- adopt free software on all levels. These reasons over been a decrease in the number of innovations are not just philosophical but are also based on as the number of patents has increased. practical questions such as the advancement of language, technological innovation, cost and se- The question of software patents is highly complex curity. and a whole article would be needed to give an ap- proximate idea of the issues involved. At the same The unfortunate fact is that the majority of adminis- time, it is a serious and disturbing enough issue for trations use proprietary software. This means that, those interested to form a precise idea of what it is all in order to adapt to free software, they would have about. As a way of summarising it, software patents to carry out a process of migration, which must be are not valid in Europe but there is very strong pres- done correctly. A migration that is badly carried out sure from the multinational software companies to le- or without appropriate support for the users is con- galise them. Only very recently (18 May 2004) the demned to failure or to suffer serious problems, as Council of Ministers for the EU at the Competitive- has occurred in the cases of Mexico71 and the city ness Council69 approved a directive on software of Munich.72 patents that totally ignored the amendments intro- duced by the European Parliament several months before to put clear limits on what can be patented. In the event of total patentability ultimately prospering, Software patents are not valid in Europe but the impact on the European software industry, on there is very strong pressure from the multi- users and on free software would be disastrous. For this reason, a large number of entities of all kinds have national software companies to legalise joined a campaign against software patents started them. by the Free Software Foundation. The campaign in Catalonia is led by the Caliu association, which has pioneered the task of exposing software patents and has also expounded its ideas to the Senate. The In order to prevent these past errors from reoccur- campaign continues to be active and its website70 ring and to ensure that migration is as fluid as pos- gives the most important references on the issue. sible, the European IDA (Interchange of Data be- tween Administrations) Directives73 recommend the need for a very clear idea of the reasons for mi- 6. Migration gration, that there be active support from compu- ter personnel, that a firm defender of the change Up to this point, an explanation has been given of be involved and the higher up the organisational the reasons why public administration should structure the better, that experience be acquired,
69 The presidency of the EU is currently held by Ireland, which has strong interests in the matter of software patents because it has a special tax system for this type of patent that attracts many foreign software companies. For more information, see the article
55 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
that relations be established with the free software vides other types of advantage to do with cost, reli- movement, that non-critical systems be the first to ability, quality, etc. As a result, free software is be migrated and that assurance is given that each slowly but progressively and increasingly being stage of the migration is feasible. used in government’s administration authorities, as shown by the map of free software implementation that appears in Libro Blanco.74 Moreover the trend towards this is on the increase and politicians and The process of technological emancipation Administration technical personnel are becoming clearly presents itself now and possibly un- increasingly knowledgeable about free software. like any other time in the past or future in Another important aspect is the impact of free soft- the unique form of free software and it is the ware on the increase in a country’s level of techno- duty of the politicians and society in gener- logical development and no country75 can afford to al to take advantage of this. be left behind. The process of technological eman- cipation clearly presents itself now and possibly unlike any other time in the past or future in the unique form of free software and it is the duty of the Even though the directives anticipate a complete politicians and society in general to take advantage changeover to free software, it is most probable of this. that both models will coexist in the short term un- til all applications are made replaceable. This is One should also not overlook the social aspects of not an urgent problem, particularly when, if ad- free software. The effectiveness of its development ministrations and users collaborate, the produc- model, which is based on collaboration and not tion of free software would be very economical, competition, has shown that there are viable alter- meaning that, instead of each entity paying for so natives to the customary conceptions of produc- many licenses per programme used, it would pay tion, at least in the field of software. As Javier Bus- a small part to develop a common programme, tamante, lecturer of ethics and sociology at the which could then be modified by other entities if Universidad Complutense de Madrid, notes in Li- necessary. bro Blanco, the methodology of free software de- velopment splits the neo-liberal paradigm of maxi- mum individual profit by replacing competition with 7. Conclusions synergy or, in other words, through the conver- gence of individual endeavours for the benefit of a The use of free software and standards by public common objective. The monopoly of the mind of administration authorities at the present time is not «the more we have, the more we keep for our- an option but a necessity in order for certain basic selves», where the results of research (or software rights of citizens in a democratic society to be as- development) are not subject to public scrutiny nor sured. Furthermore, the use of free software pro- open mechanisms of improvement, has been bro-
74ABELLA et al., 2004. 75 In this particular case, Catalonia. (translator’s note).
56 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
ken. It will be interesting to follow the on-going de- software as well as increased independence and velopments in this process and see how it affects higher levels of technological capability. In societies other areas. with large numbers of people and few resources but many ideas, free software will be called upon Everything points to the fact that free software will as a key tool in establishing a higher technological also have a notable impact in the technological de- level of software development without these soci- velopment of many developing countries as this eties being committed for a long or indefinite pe- should provide them with legal access to quality riod of time into the future.
57 CONEIXEMENT I SOCIETAT 05 ARTICLES
References
ABELLA, A., J. SÁNCHEZ and M. A., SEGOVIA. Libro Blanco del software libre en España 2004. The latest updated version can be obtained at:
BUNDESMINISTERIUM DES INNERN. SAGA. Standards und Architekturen für e-Government-Anwendungen, 2003. Available at:
CNET NEWS.COM STAFF. «Gartner: Companies should drop IIS». CNET News.com, September, 25, 2001. Available at:
DELIO, M. «Munich Open Source plows ahead». Wired News, February, 11, 2004. Available at:
DI COSMO, R. Piège dans le Cyberspace. Alexandrie Online, 2000. Available at:
FESTA, P. The Eolas-Microsoft case-patent ending? CNET News.com, March, 16, 2004. Available at:
FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION (FSU). GNU operating System. Boston: Free Software Foundation, 2004. Available at:
GALLI, R. El informe NERA analizado, September 2003. Available at:
GONZÁLEZ, Á. «Mexican schools embrace Windows». Wired News, August, 2, 2001. Available at:
GONZÁLEZ BARAHONA, J., J. SEOANE PASCUAL and G. ROBLES. Introducción al Software Libre, Barcelona: Fundació per a la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, 2003. Available at:
HIPATIA. «29 requisitos del software para una sociedad del conocimiento democrática. Razones para el uso del software libre y el abandono del privativo». Web d’Hipatia, 2003. Available at:
HISPALINUX. «Terrorismo informativo sobre el software libre». BOLETIC, Nov.-Dec. 2003. Available at:
KOETZLE, L, Ch. RUTSTEIN, N. LAMBERT and S. WENNINGER. Is Linux More Secure Than Windows? Forrester Research, Inc., 2004. Available at:
MEYERHANS, N. (Debian), V. DANEN (Mandrakesoft), M. J. COX (Red Hat) and R. DRAHTMUELLER (SUSE). «»Is Linux more secure than Windows?» — Debian, Mandrakesoft, Red Hat and SUSE answer». Lxer, April, 6, 2004. Available at:
MOLIST, M. «Fallos en un software de voto electrónico ponen en duda las victorias republicanas en EEUU» Hispasec sistemas, 2003. Available at:
ORGANIZATION FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF STRUCTURED INFORMATION STANDARDS (OASIS):
PEELING, N. and J. SATCHELL. Analysis of the impact of Open Source Software. QinetiQ Ltd., 2001. Available at:
58 FREE SOFTWARE UNDER DEBATE: FREE SOFTWARE, THE LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR THE TECHNOLOGICAL EMANCIPATION
RAYMOND, E. S. «The Magic Cauldron». A: RAYMOND, E. S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Sebastopol, California, USA: O’Reilly and Associates, 2001a. Available on-line at:
RAYMOND, E. S. «Homesteading the Noosphere», A: RAYMOND, Eric S. The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Sebastopol, California, USA: O’Reilly and Associates, 2001b. Available on-line at:
RAYMOND, E. S. «The Cathedral and the Bazaar». Al llibre homònim. Sebastopol, California, EUA: O’Reilly and Associates, 2001c. Available on- line at:
RAYMOND, E. S. «The Halloween documents». Open source Iniciatives (OSI), 2004. Available at:
VAUGHAN-NICHOLS, S. J. «Linux vs. Windows: Which is more secure?» eWEEK, March, 30, 2004. Available at:
VILLANUEVA NÚÑEZ, E. D. «Respuesta a Microsoft del Perú». GNU Perú, 2002. Available at:
WEST, D. M. Global e-Government Full Report, 2003: Web «Inside Politics», 2003. Available at:
WHEELER, D. A. Why Open Source Software / Free Software (OSS/FS)? Look at the Numbers! The author’s website, 2003a. Available at:
WHEELER, D. A. The Most Important Software Innovations. The author’s website, 2003b. Available at:
WHEELER, D. A. Microsoft, the Innovator?. The author’s website, 2004. Available at:
59