Author: Benjamin Mako Hill

Apologies to anyone that finds this preachy or holier-than-thou. I don’t consider myself immune to this criticism: my mobile phone still runs non-free software. I realize that what I describe here is a process for everyone. I’m just trying to make sure nobody gets too comfortable with the status quo.

It’s been interesting to see non-hackers finding inspiration in the free/open source software movement. In particular, I’ve been watching this phenomena for a couple years in the the non-profit and NGO sector. Folks in these groups are often very philosophically aligned with the freedom movement behind free software and there are a number of organizations that are involved in promoting free software and the ideas behind it to NGOs and beyond.

What’s amazing to me is that in many situations, major advocates of free and open source software in these areas — people who are advocating the software because of the freedom and not only for the pragmatic benefits — don’t actually use free software on their desktops or in other places they could.

Sure, everyone uses Firefox. Sure, everyone uses Apache and GNU/Linux for their web servers. Sure, everyone uses Drupal, Mambo, Plone, or another free CMS. But one can’t help but notice that Firefox, Apache, and free CMSs are higher quality, more featureful, and easier to use than the proprietary alternatives.

People arguing for free software from a principled position need to remember that principled positions are sometimes inconvenient. Free software is no exception. It’s frequently different, sometimes incompatible and a bit more work. In some situations (dare I say it?), it’s not as good as the proprietary alternatives.

We all need to remember that living a principled life is not always the easiest path. If you take a principled position against GMO foods or in favor of organic produce, you’ll probably spend more and shop farther from your house. Your favorite fruit may not be in season year-round. If you only buy fair-trade clothing, your garment choices will be cut down in ways that will sometimes be inconvenient.

It’s nice when taking a principled position also means you get to do what is most convenient. But there’s little principle in taking a principled position only when it’s convenient.

Yes. There are problems — often major — with free software: usability, documentation and otherwise. There are also ways to address these problems. Few of them require that you be or become hacker but almost all of them involve using the software first. I don’t have to think hard to recall all of the times I’ve received contributions (e.g., documentation, suggestions, translations, patches, etc.) from people who don’t use my software.

If you don’t think that spreading free software is an ethical act, you can happily ignore me. If you agree that it’s the right thing, think hard about your principles and challenge yourself to take the next step — whatever that is.

The press, others, and even myself have made much of the Media Lab and One Laptop Per Child’s decision to embrace a platform that is fully free and open. There are two major reasons for working with the free world on this project. The first is the philosophical reasons that I’ve laid out recently. The second is the fact that a free platform will help us leverage the work of a large community to accomplish building, testing, and improving what we believe will ultimately develop into a new and more relevant type of software platform for the world’s children.

In terms of building community, our first goal must be harnessing the power of the existing free software world and interested parties therein. Later on (i.e., once the machines exist) we can focus on getting governments, non-profits, and ultimately some of the students using the machine, to contribute as well. While there’s clearly a bootstrapping phase, we unfortunately, we haven’t done much of either so far.

Up until now, Red Hat has been doing the legwork in the realm of software. So much so that at points it has been difficult even for some of us officially working on the project (e.g., myself) to make meaningful contributions. While we’ve had many people express interest in helping with the project from elsewhere in MIT and in non-MIT world, we’ve been at a loss for ways to plug folks in.

As part of a larger effort to address these issues in the next month or so, Walter Bender, myself, and David Cavallo are organizing a short workshop on getting involved in the OLPC/$100 laptop project for people at MIT. We will also be posting information from that workshop online for everyone. If you’re at MIT and are interested, please show up. If you are in the area but without an MIT or Harvard affiliation, contact me. If you’re out of the area and are interested in getting involved, just stay tuned.

The workshop is being offered as a three hours one-day-only IAP class. You can check out the IAP web page and then show up.

We will be done with plenty of time to rest up before the MIT mystery hunt begins. It looks like I’ll be hunting with Codex Dresden.

Quim Gil asked a number of good questions about the One Laptop Per Child initiative. I will not answer all of his questions now and am not sure answers exist yet for every question. With that said, I will try to answer his final question with the traditional disclaimer that the thoughts expressed here are my own and may or may not be shared by others within the project are not the official position of OLPC.

Quim asked, "what measures will be taken to avoid or [inhibit] the spread of a (unconscious or well-intentioned?) cultural neocolonialism?" I have been asked this question many times. It is an issue that concerns me personally. As such, I’ll give you my personal feelings on the subject.

Discussion of cultural colonialism, Westernization, Americanization or techno-imperialism are hardly limited to OLPC. Sometimes it comes in the form of reactions against what is seen as the homogenizing or Americanizing effect of US-based multinationals (e.g., McDonald’s or Nike) or against the culturally oriented US-based motion picture or recording industries. In terms of technology, the debate is often framed in terms of Appropriate Technology.

There is an argument that modern information technology — designed and developed in highly industrialized countries to address their particular set of cultural contexts and needs — may be inappropriate and potentially dangerous in the developing world. This is a fair critique. But while there may be a danger, insisting that the technology be kept out is unrealistic and may miss the larger evil.

These discussions can not responsibly ignore the fact that, depending on whose numbers you trust, there are between and 1 and 2 billion mobile phones in the world today and that number will reach something like 2.6 billion operational units in 2009. That’s nearly half the world population and it’s not hard to find out where most of those phones are going:

All the growth in subscribers is coming from emerging markets," says David Taylor, Motorola’s director of strategy and operations for high-growth markets. Researchers predict that of the 1 billion cell phones expected to be sold in 2010, half will be in developing economies. (link)

Information and communication technology is, in one form or another, on a fast track into the developing world. That may very well be a problem but it’s not the biggest problem in this field. The bigger problem is the nature of the technology that is being imported.

People in the, rich and developed countries may have cellphones, but they frequently also have computers: full-fledged, reprogrammable, hackable computers; computers that they can use to write software, design hardware, install new OSes on, and even — if they are really adventurous — use to reprogram their mobile phone.

People in the developing world will have information technology (in the form of cellphones at least) but do not have the ability — no matter how interested, talented, or intelligent they are — to change the way they work. This is the greater danger.

The most powerful and empowering quality of information technology in the context of personal computers is that as communication is being mediated, facilitated, and defined through software on computers fully within users’ control, each user has the ability to determine the terms on which they communicate. In a world where people are communicating, trading, voting, learning, working, and organizing through digital channels, massive power lies in the hands of those who have the tools (e.g., computers and development platforms) and access and permission (e.g., Free and Open source software) necessary to make the necessary changes.

In three years, there will be a billion people in the developing world who are using information technology on the terms and at the whim of the today’s global elite and they will not be able transcend their role and consumers and subservients in this context. Their ability to transcend their depressed role in larger economic contexts will be highly influenced by this fact. The developing world’s "computers" will not be able to create or change the software that define them. The code that runs these devices will be proprietary and will remain immutable even in the context of additional hardware.

Unless we do something about it.

As far I’m concerned, that something is two steps:

• We need to create and distribute — real computers that can be used as development platforms — at a price that can begin to compete with their alternatives (e.g., phones, thinclients, WebTVs, etc).
• We need to make sure that these machines are hackable — totally hackable — on every level. That means open hardware. That means Free and Open Source software. That means open specifications, protocols, and data formats.

That is my personal goal in OLPC and it is one that has seemed to have been echoed by others involved in the project.

Of course, I have hardly washed myself or my project of the stigma of cultural imperialism yet. That said, while making a completely malleable machine allows every user to, if they choose to, transcend their role as a consumer of technology and technologically-defined culture, one side effect of this process is that it also allows them to do so on their own terms. Because the machine is completely free and open, users are free to use the machine in ways that not only have the originators not considered, but that they could not imagine. With time, the machine — and its software in particular — can be rewritten, reshaped, and eventually replaced with something of, by, and for its users.

Of course, this will not happen overnight. As the first step, OLPC will attempt to create something we think provides a compelling and flexible platform with which the world can learn and build. With this in hand, governments and ministries of education that purchase the machine will get to shape (or replace?) the platform in line with their own ideas and curricula. As the students and communities to which the machines are deployed learn and build with and upon the machine, another transformation will occur. As those communities grow in relation to their technology, this change will be sustained.

The potential for this dynamic and empowering relationship is the reason I’m here.

After a unfortunate bout of downtime, I’m happy to announce that Sam Hartman has officially revived the Debian-Boston-Social mailing list and our community is back in business.

If you’re in Boston and would like to participate in key signings, meetings with local and traveling free software hackers (Debian and otherwise) and to stay keyed into a crowd of people in Boston working on and using Debian and its derivatives, this is your list.

You should feel free to attend events and to plan and announce your own in pubs and other points of interests.

With its strong academic predisposition and its important place in the history of free software, the Boston/Cambridge has no excuse being shown up by places like New York City when it comes to having a happening Debian scene.

You can sign up here.