El 29 de julio de 2015 22:27:28 GMT+01:00, Pen-Yuan Hsing <penyuanhs...@gmail.com> escribió: >Dear Libreplanet, > >I believe I am faced with an opportunity to spread the news about Free >Software this coming weekend, and would love to get your suggestions >on how best to proceed. > >In a few days, I will be attending an international wildlife >conservation meeting, and a group of conservation scientists are >scheduled to present a new piece of scientific image management and >analyses software specific to certain cases of wildlife surveys and >management. To achieve maximum "benefit" to wildlife conservation, >they have committed to continued support and updates for the software, >and will release it gratis/free of charge. The problem is that the >software will be proprietary! > >I have yet to meet these scientists in person (but will this weekend), >but some common "reasons" I've heard for not releasing gratis software >as Free (as in Freedom) is that they (1) "want to make sure all users >get our most up to date and definitive version"; (2) "want to make >sure the software is well maintained/taken care of"; (3) "afraid of >their hard work being 'stolen' or misappropriated"; and (4) "sounds >like too much extra work when our resources are already streched so >thin". > >For (4) above, this is especially true for non-profit organisations >since their resources truly are very limited, and they are afraid of >more burden (I know Free Software is actually liberating, I'm just >saying that's what some people are afraid of). For (3), obviously a >Free Software license makes sure that the original developer is fully >attributed. Even then, I wonder what would be some good responses to >(1) through (4)? Also, I don't think "Freedom is paramount, nothing >else matters" is a sufficient catch all response. > >Another possible problem is that these scientists might have actually >hired an outside developer to write this software, and maybe in the >hiring contract the developer made the software proprietary? Is this >something that might have happened? If so, would these conservation >scientists be able to change this? > >The above (1) to (4) are some responses from them that I can >anticipate, but what are some other common "concerns" about switching >to Free Software that I can prepare for? Speaking of which, I wonder >if it'll be nice to make a list of such frequently asked questions >about Free Software for makers of both gratis and for-sale software? >Perhaps it can go on the Libreplanet of FSF websites somewhere? (sorry >it it exists, I confess I haven't been to those sites in a while) If >the list doesn't exist, how can we work together to compile it? > >Regardless of your personal opinion on wildlife conservation, I think >it is safe to say that these people are very well meaning and >sincerely want to do good in this world. They are not greedy/evil >corporations who want to control our lives! The problem is many people >just don't have the digital literacy (I promise I don't mean this in a >condescending way!) to appreciate the issues around software freedom >and why they should care... :( So what is a nice and respectful way to >bring up this problem, and achieve tangible, positive change? This >will be my first time discussing Free Software with someone actively >involved in software development (though I've talked to many general >"end users" about it before), so I'd really appreciate any suggestions >you have. And sorry about the long message!
Here are my two cents. My take with scientific software is that it is a significant part of the science and needs to be peer reviewed. Open access journals is a good point to find simili. For issue 3 there is also the fact that since they came first they should be the official one the go to. If cited in open access papers they will gain traction. If using GPL and someone does a variant they can use the improvements or work with fork to try different avenues. Gnuarchemedes, gwyddion are examples. If stretched thin they can get some fly by improvements. And they do not need to include everything people propose. Also, they have to think it is to protect the users. What if suddenly a manager at the r&d place decides something like it will not support Linux. Then even if large community they will not be able to port it. It should not be extra work if their code is ISO compliant (quality assurance). -- RichmondMakerlabs.uk Ham United Group
