gvSIG, Conquering New Spaces ... Necessary! Controversial?

This is the name that has been Seventh International Conference on gvSIG To be held at the end of November of the year 2011.

This year's focus will give a lot to talk about in the private environments of the big geospatial software transnationals; but its approach is inevitable, if it is expected that gvSIG manages to break the existing barriers in countries that lack clear policies on the use of free software and where it is often belittled by ignorance or particular interests.

In this regard, it is expected that there will be talks and discussion panels on medium-term strategies to reverse myths such as:

- Free software has no quality

- Behind free software there are no companies

The best thing that the gvSIG foundation has been doing is the link academy - public - private for its sustainability. Nothing that other open source initiatives have not carried out, with the marked difference in the efforts for the systematic documentation and consolidation of alliances with an invasive approach that until now has brought interesting results in Europe and America.

In particular, it has been easier for me to convince a client to use a tool that costs thousands of dollars than a free solution. Not because its capabilities cannot be technically demonstrated, but because the administrative implications of buying software that does not have a nominal value and replacing it with a service solution is difficult for lawyers of a certain contextual veneer to understand.

The issue can become sensitive depending on the positions, but internationalization must also lead to an attitude of snatching in fair fight what will not be granted without a fight. Nothing worse than a software that is good and says… there it is in case they want to use it.

It is not easy if we consider the reprisals that can be expected to tarnish the image as the term is now seen hacker, which is almost synonymous with terrorism although at the beginning it was not. In this case, it is risky to be linked to ideological aspects of the left, which, although they are principles with a consistent foundation, in a large part of the countries of America are associated with populist customs and ignorant statements by their leaders that greatly detract from the ideals.

It is a great challenge what gvSIG intends when addressing this scenario, the confusion between what is Open Source and Private Software have their setbacks for a good understanding even by ourselves, let's see some approaches:

Knowledge must be democratized:  This flag I have raised myself, Geofumadas part of that principle and I often insist on my technicians who exceed the 50 years to not keep their knowledge to themselves and return it to new generations if we expect constant progress.

As the university professor who has the position that will not transmit Just like it the knowledge that has cost you a lot of effort. Thought that has caused the deterioration in many institutions or careers and more seem roots of low self-esteem that is reflected in arrogance and the inability in not being able to sell the services from the acquired knowledge. If someone thinks he is very intelligent and wise, let him prove it by turning that into wealth, either by turning his intellectual production into a marketable product or by selling a service ...

The previous commentary will seem to be a good idea, but it is the same principle that is sometimes observed in the obstruction caused by the private sector towards initiatives with community openness.

... over time, sometimes it is proven that whoever transfers their knowledge grows, learns, updates and impacts more than the one who takes his titles to the grave.

Giving advice should not necessarily involve money, nor is it saying that we should give our services for free. When we talk about the democratization of knowledge, we refer to a principle of intellectual creativity and collaborative vision in which if I have great aspirations (greater than my own capacity), I can create a community of people who collaboratively take the initial idea to another level , with the understanding that it will always be in the public domain, as it was conceived that way.

From this I would then have a capital of non-tangible knowledge, but documented and proven that it works, with public property, that is, of the entire community, as is a street or a parking lot. If implementing it or making specialized adaptations generates money for those involved, then we call this free software: the knowledge built is not worth it, but there is a charge to implement it. Releasing it to the community under free use rules makes it mature and acquire characteristics that a small group of specialists would not have achieved.

This is how the combination of the community, with the public knowledge and the users returns through the developers an increasingly improved product to the original core. There is always business, but under democratized knowledge… It is a whole philosophy that differentiates free from free, and don't expect it to be so digestible, especially after a session with the people of RedHat to discuss an economic offer.

Software is an unpalatable capital:  I invest 10,000 hours of my time and hire three people to develop a computer tool for me. Nothing should prevent me from considering that product as my property and registering the right so that my investment can return through the sale of the software to people or companies.

In this sense, the knowledge acquired when developing this application produced a capital with which other people and institutions will work more efficiently. And there is no reason for me to consider that because I am knowledge, I deliver the codes to the public and smoke only because knowledge must be democratized. Software is not a tangible asset, which is why it is so easy to hack, but it is a body of knowledge packed together to provide a solution.

This is where the principle of proprietary software was born, which after the arrival of PCs was no longer given as an added value to the sale of hardware and the concepts of license were created (which is more like a permit than a product). It is owned by whoever invested in its development, and it is understood that it gives added value to those who use it: it is worth the packaged knowledge, additionally it can be charged for implementing it.

Computing evolution will continue to delve into the legal definition of intangible capital that 30 years ago did not exist, to give examples, the ranking of a web page, the registered users of a forum. Complexes such as the difference between 100 lines of code in software for which there are already libraries similar to 5 lines of an algorithm that no one had developed.

__________________________________

So far, there are two business models with different tactics, both in search of solving the same problem. The first with the risk of losing sustainability, the second with the risk that the company decides to sell itself to another that may or may not continue its development.

The issue is then, in what happened to Richard Stallman in 1983, when he felt capable of causing improvements to errors that the proprietary program had. The company did not allow him to touch the code, even though it told them that he would do it for free and the benefits would go to the same company.

So, it becomes contradictory, that if I buy a knowledge package and I am able to make adaptations based on my particularities ... then I do not own that package, not freely. Not like it would be when I put some fins on my Toyota vehicle to make it look like a dolphin, just because Toyota says that its image is damaged by the whims of my wife. If for that Toyota put a clause that if I do that then I can be penalized, then I would believe that I do not own what I have bought.

But hey, everything would be resolved if everyone does their business. If someone wants to buy proprietary software, buy it, and accept the conditions. If you want free software, pay for the implementation and take responsibility.

However, the problem lies beyond, not only on an economic but also a political and philosophical level. In the impositions made by large software manufacturing companies, sometimes in association with manufacturers or distributors of equipment to remove free software from the field, closing the spaces for collaboration for interoperability and in many countries putting political pressure. 

In this aspect, you have to be very careful, since the philosophical aspects have been the cause of great wars. Some principles enunciated by Richard Stallman in the GNU movement are very similar to the anti-capitalism struggle whose extremes are to be taken care of.

"That companies have a special influence on politics means that democracy is sick. The purpose of democracy is to ensure that the rich do not have an influence proportional to their wealth. And if they have more influence than you or me, that means that democracy is failing. The laws they get in this way have no moral authority, but the ability to harm. "

Richard Stallman

Totally in agreement in the economic, legislative and political context of a country if it is wanted to take to a plane of social conquests and transformations for the development. But addressing this issue requires tweezers in far-right countries, it is not surprising that in several countries of South America there are already national policies for the use of free software in state institutions. This is a sovereign right, and pressure from transnationals to do so should be considered a disease. But we must take care that the Open Source movement is a victim of the demonization of the principles of the left.

_____________________________

What happens is that due to this confrontation two years ago in Central America, he left a president at 4 in the morning, wearing his bunny pajamas, at an airport in Costa Rica. Also due to stubborn approach in Venezuela, private companies are experiencing a way of the cross that in search of justice has lost the focus of competitiveness. And then the populism of some left-wing presidents makes them pronounce outrages or stop efforts with more catastrophic results than the extreme right.

And in the last case, to see Stallman in a plenary with a beard full of bugs blessing the computers of the auditorium, is folkloric but it takes away seriousness to an effort that does not occupy clichés if it has demonstrated enough its sustainability.

________________________

So that is the spirit in which the Seventh International Conference of gvSIG will move. Without a doubt, the technical presentations will be luxurious, considering the good moment that the foundation is now spending in its internationalization work.

I want to see the presentations under a strategic approach, surely we will learn a lot in favor of the sustainability of a model that until now we assume how it will work but about which we are not as clear as it will be in 20 years. In this there is nothing written, just as we have seen the evolution of licenses born under the GNU or the flavors of distributions on the Linux kernel.

Surely human creativity will triumph over extreme postures.

__________________________________

In conclusion, care must be taken not to mix politics or religion with economics and technique, if it is touched with tweezers or tackled at the extremes, it is important to be prepared for retaliation. In this regard there are different positions, from heaven to hell. 

Some of the above reflection does not pretend to be a position, only an interpretation in an afternoon of Coca Tea, the one that my friend brings when he goes to Santa Cruz de la Sierra.

At some point I may seem extreme, but when it comes to financial control, you have to take care of each clamp. To close I leave you with the good humor of the popularity that Stallman achieved in a controversial issue that we will hardly agree on.