GC26 and Free Open Source Software

GC26 Guideline 14 (n. 97)

A preliminary study

21-11-08

(Let) the Rector Major with his Council assess the opportuneness of the use of Free/Libre Open Source Software, through the Department for Social Communication, and give pointers to the Provinces..

WHERE did guideline 14, n. 97 come from?

It is an appropriate question to ask something of the background to Guideline 14, n. 97. The first comment might well be to note that the guideline survived (as did all guidelines in GC26) a rigorous process involving commissions, plenary assemblies and a redaction group. The fact of its survival, then, requires some explanation.

It would not be inaccurate to say that a broad awareness of the existence of Free/Libre Open Source (henceforth F/LOSS, to apply the acronym most widely used) and its possible beneficial implications for both individuals and the institution, was planted by the Rector Major himself in quite unambiguous terms, three years earlier: part 2 of his letter in AGC 390 (2005) has a point 6 which reads:

With regard to software there are two different concepts. The concept of a 'closed source' or proprietary software is based prevalently on business and economic criteria; it claims professional rights and guarantees to the user that it will function properly. The other concept is that of the Open Source; it means that the software code should be known, so as to leave the user free not only to use it and adapt it to his needs, but also to improve it by adding his own contribution and making it available to others. It is a vision of shared knowledge that would be of benefit to all. The overcoming of the 'digital divide' between the north and south of the world depends also on the choice of a technology permitting access to information as the right of everyone and not only of those who can afford it. The Open Source is a way of moving towards the democratisation of information and culture'.

The letter was seen by more than one confrere around the world as an invitation to reflection and action. Several instances amongst others will suffice to illustrate this point. (1) The Advisory Council for Social Communications took up the invitation to explore motivations for adopting F/LOSS, as a result of which BOSCOM (India) brought it to a policy level with regard to Centres of Formation to Social Communications, and has subsequently taken other steps to create awareness amongst confreres. (2) The worldwide meeting of such Centres in Sao Paulo in 2007 asked that an international Congress on the broader issues of educommunication involving the use of F/LOSS be set up and UPS Quito agreed to do this on behalf of the Salesian Society with support from the SC Department in Rome. (3) One confrere wrote a book called Digital Virtues, which directly explores the question of F/LOSS from the perspective of Consecrated Life, its institutes and members – thus an explicit Christian, Catholic and Religious awareness with regard to F/LOSS. This was published in English and Spanish and RIIAL in Latin America has taken it up as a project for Portuguese translation and publication. These factors were already available to members of GC26. (4) Several confreres have now published books using an open publishing methodology, which involves preparation of text, uploading of prepared text to an online publisher and subsequent publishing in digital form which is then available for purchase in hard copy. The process is very different to normal publishing. For one thing it avoids any costs on the part of the author – the book is effectively published at no cost since the only costs involved are at the moment of purchase by someone other than the author. There is no costly 'print run' involved.

Apart from this Salesian context, anybody who keeps a watchful eye on trends in the digital world would have noted the growing interest in and use of F/LOSS approaches and products in the wider community. Server software has for some years been predominantly of this kind (the Internet has run mainly on 'Apache' server software for many years and Domain Name Services mostly involve BIND, another F/LOSS product), the Linux kernel is widely used as an Operating System alternative to the universally known Windows. Open standards for file formats have ISO recognition.

WHAT is F/LOSS?

GC26 was grappling with a concept that has the background explained above but it must be said that other than repeating the words of the Rector Major from AGC 390, few members could have adequately explained exactly what F/LOSS is. Indeed, both the wording (at least in English) of the Rector Major's letter, and the GC26 guideline in regard to F/LOSS as referred to in AGC402 p.36 could be a little misleading. The use of the definite article to refer to 'the Open Source' and, in AGC402 p.36, the reference to it as a 'system' are inaccurate. Clearly there is more than one 'source' involved, and the use of a definite article in English at least, seems to suggest a neatly defined entity of some kind. Open source is complex reality and open to more than one interpretation. Indeed even from the Rector Major's comments it leads easily into the broader concept of open culture. This also means that it would be difficult to apply the term 'system' to F/LOSS with any accuracy. Hence, any future statements of ours about F/LOSS when it comes to offering pointers to Provinces, should avoid the kind of reification of the concept that certain translations or interpretations of the two existing authoritative comments might unwittingly lead to.

F/LOSS has two distinct movements behind it

Two acronyms, both representing English phrases, have come together in the single acronym F/LOSS. They are FSF and OSI, which stand for Free Software Foundation and Open Source Initiative respectively. They represent two quite distinct social movements and are strongly tied to the generally accepted but at times divergent views of their respective 'founders': Richard Stallman, in the case of the FSF, and Eric Raymond, in the case of the OSI.

Since both acronyms stand for English phrases, and given that the first, FSF, uses the word 'free', it has become commonplace to explain upfront, because of the ambiguity of the word 'free' in English, that 'free' means 'free as in freedom' rather than 'no cost', hence the /L in the resulting combined acronym F/LOSS. The 'L' stands for 'Libre', chosen because it can be understood in English (though not an English word) as a reference to liberty and is readily understood as such in at least French, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese. The entire acronym, then, can be spelt out as 'Free/Libre Open Source Software'.

What is common to both movements is a profound interest in code, but here it is crucial to explain what both movements mean by 'code'. A failure to appreciate the distinction between 'source code' and 'machine, or object code' would mean a failure to appreciate the importance of the entire combined movement. [Note that while in the mind of the everyday user, F/LOSS is a single approach, the fact that the two constitutive movements indicated above are so different makes it in fact inaccurate to speak of a single movement – but for the sake of a useful shorthand we will refer henceforth to F/LOSS as a movement in generic terms].

Code: to move, for example, an item of data from one program to another, one could write the instructions in English (or any other language for that matter), but for a microprocessor to interpret the instructions they need to be turned into machine code. Low level machine code is lots of digits (0s and 1s) and is difficult to write directly, as well as being almost impossible to understand. So high level abstract languages (C++, Java, Basic are several examples) were developed with a clear syntax, built around simplified English keywords. By convention the keywords are English. Theoretically they could be Chinese or any other language. Statements, loops, conditionals, and a number of punctuation marks and symbols make up the 'abstract language'. These are usually written in plain text files and are referred to as 'source code'. Comments are often included (e.g. REM in Basic indicates a remark to follow that will not be interpreted and hence will not be seen outside the source code text) and other information is often added about authorship, versions etc. Hence a source code file contains, in humanly readable language, essential and valuable information about a program.

This code is then 'compiled' or turned into machine code for the microprocessor. This is the object code or executable. Most users are familiar with a file that ends with an .exe extension. At this point the original source code is stripped away and the product may be sold simply in its machine code form. It is technically possible to reverse-engineer machine code back into source code, but this is complex and time-consuming, and mostly illegal! Software sold as executable code without the source code is called proprietary software. The Microsoft (MS) licence tells us that the software is licensed, not sold. The owner remains MS. Very few users are conscious of this, that hey have bought a licence, in fact, not the software, or at least not the source code. MS restricts knowledge about its source code as Coca Cola restricts its formula for the beverage.

FSF and OSM both maintain that source code should be made available at all times but for fundamentally different reasons:

Software can be analysed for its USE functions (the ability and freedom to perform a task with the software), PRESCRIPTIVE functions (restrictions, usually built into the architecture of the software), EXTERNAL functions (e.g. playing music on a word processor - outside the scope of the software). Proprietary software is sold on the basis of its use functions. Prescriptive functions may be built in, usually quietly. DRM or Digital Rights Management (which may have other names like Trusted Computing) employs prescriptive functions where, for example, Adobe Acrobat restricts possibilities of copying, altering an e-book. An example of this much closer to home is the Salesian CD of some years back with the Memorie Biografiche on it. For reasons that may or may not be good ones, it is impossible to copy and paste sections from the MB on the CD into a file. A prescriptive function has been built into the CD in question. DRM exists so that the user is unable to perform actions that break copyright or at least the intentions of an author that material not be copied. Another prescriptive function example, one which directly affects privacy concerns, is the building in of monitoring elements which report back to the manufacturer or even to an employer, enabling surveillance of the user's activity with the software.

This immediately begins to demonstrate wider implications behind software code. Software code actually crystallizes a number of issues in wider society: the legitimacy of technocratic society, public policy in its regard, privacy concerns, to name just three. The academic study of software (as more than a simple tool but a cultural artifact of importance in today's society) regards software code as on some kind of a par with law, since software code plays a part in regulating human behaviour in society. There are those who say that the democratic accountability of code is a key issue for the 21st century.

With the above understandings we can now appreciate the difference between the two movements behind F/LOSS:

FSF: The Free Software Foundation maintains an ethical, deontological approach with a broadly Kantian philosophical background. 'Freedom' becomes a categorical imperative, the movement speaks of the 'laws' of freedom, nominating four:

  • The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

  • The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to one's needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

  • The freedom to redistribute copies so one can help one's neighbour (freedom 2).

  • The freedom to improve the program, and release improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. The strange numbering of these freedoms is a convention deriving from computer programming where 0 is a digit.

FSF supports an ethic of sharing all code with others. 'I consider Free Software a human right and thus a moral norm', says Stallman. His is a contributory theory of knowledge. Code, freedom, power, progress, community, rights are the key words in Stallman's discourse, developed over a period of twenty years. Code is useful, at least potentially, to every user, even though many a user would not be the least bit interested in seeing or manipulating the source code. The FSF sees it as a public good that is socially constructed and should be shared. Code is produced in a social network. 'Rights' are spoken of frequently - not so much the absolute natural rights of an author but the natural rights of the public. 'Community' is central - being an active member of the civic community and helping one's neighbour are considered important. 'Freedom' has a purpose in this discourse, so people can cooperate in community. Free is a matter of liberty, not price. Any kind of 'black box' approach by software is seen as hindering progress. Prescription and copyright are acts of power, and power in this discourse is viewed negatively.

We do not have to agree with all the above, but we do need to recognise that this is the discourse which motivates the FSF and hence is behind much, though not all, F/LOSS activity.

OSI: The Open Source Initiative claims no moral high ground and in fact repudiates any claim to being an ethically based movement. It is about technical efficiency, and the discourse is typically neo-liberal; better engineering and economic results are the reason for the OSI. Its founder speaks of the Delphi effect: a way of structuring a group communication process so the result is effective in allowing groups of individuals to deal with a complex problem. Code, Market, freedom, efficiency, property, individual are the key terms in this discourse. If one were looking for a philosophical background it would probably be Lockean and positivist. The profit motive is seen as the greatest source of technological efficiency. Ego-satisfaction rather than altruism is involved (there is no discussion of doing something for one's neighbour as in the FSF). This is about rational choice theory where the individual owner, developer, is a key element. The discourse is about best practice and is generally regarded as being apolitical in nature.

Again we do not need to accept the OSI arguments for F/LOSS but we do need to appreciate that much F/LOSS activity is based on such arguments. It must also be clear by now how essentially different are the two approaches described, while agreeing practically on a single issue: that source code should be available to the user.

HOW should the Christian (Catholic, Salesian....) present F/LOSS?

Attempts to translate fundamental convictions of Christian faith (and in our case a Salesian reading of these convictions based on Don Bosco's beliefs and praxis) into universal blueprints for society, are generally unsuccessful, but there is every reason why we should adopt a clear stance with regard to F/LOSS which is based on our convictions and praxis. We ourselves require little convincing of our right to present a faith-based interpretation of how we should act in society, but it may also help to know that over recent years, since shortly before Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger became Pope Benedict XVI, he and Jürgen Habermas have engaged in dialogue over the role of faith in the public sphere.(Joseph Ratzinger and Jürgen Habernas, The Dialectics of Secularization: Reason and Religion, Ft Collins, CO, Ignatius Press, 2004). Habermas, in a surprising turn from an earlier view that religion had to explain itself in secular terms if it was to be acceptable, has begun to argue that religious conviction has every right to express itself to the secular democratic state in its own terms and that furthermore a democracy cannot be guaranteed survival if it does not take into account religious belief and opinion.

Accordingly then, bearing in mind our own priorities, the priority of God, the Salesian concern for evangelisation and education, it would be appropriate for us to develop a clear fourfold argument for F/LOSS as a choice which is:

  1. Evangelical,

  2. Educational,

  3. Ethical

  4. Economical

by contrast with proprietary software. Note the order in which these arguments occur. The first two still require some work, since there has been little attempt by the Church to tackle software at this level; the remaining two less so – we can borrow from material already available from the FSF in the case of ethical arguments,adding a few of our own and the economical argument is patently obvious. Herewith some pointers:

Evangelical

The challenge is to formulate a discourse that assists a Christian formation of good, true and faithful lives in the light of the rising ascendancy of techno-science as the formative cultural factor. Do we mean a counter discourse? We mean that telling the story with our Christian vocabulary and grammar may enable other quests for the good and true, and this is especially so for the young people whom we educate. The question is whether we can put the words 'God' and 'software' together in any kind of meaningful sentence. Or by our silence do we leave it to the utterly godless? The wider challenge is to develop a proactive theology concerning technology. The Church has given us a lead, especially since Vatican II and under the pontificate of the communicator Pope John Paul II, but it still regards technology (and 'software' is almost completely non-existent in theological reflection) as a condition to which we need to react.

Perhaps the best way, despite the comment about a reactive theology in general where technology is concerned, is to re-appraise Catholic Social Teaching for its application to issues raised by software. The dignity of the human person, the common good, solidarity, subsidiarity, preferential option for the poor can all come into play quite directly and without being forced into the argument when we come to a discussion of the 'culture of sharing' and when we begin to tackle some of the wider questions to do with F/LOSS. One of these wider questions, one of ownership and rights, is to do with intellectual property. Software began as open and free. When it came time to determine whether it might be patented or put under the mantle of intellectual property (IP) copyright law, the latter path was chosen. There is a broad debate about IP today in the world community and the Vatican has representation in this debate. An example of a statement coming from such representation is as follows:

The Holy See, consistent with the traditions of Catholic social thought, underlines that there is a 'social mortgage' on all private property, namely, that the reason for the very existence of the institution of private property is to ensure that the basic needs of every man and woman are met and sustained. This "social mortgage" on private property must also be applied today to 'intellectual property' and to 'knowledge' (John Paul II, Message to the "Jubilee 2000 Debt Campaign" Group, September 23, 1999). The law of profit alone cannot be applied to that which is essential for the fight against hunger, disease and poverty. Hence, whenever there is a conflict between property rights, on the one hand, and fundamental human rights and concerns of the common good, on the other, property rights should be moderated by an appropriate authority, in order to achieve a just balance of rights.('IP and basic access to medicine,' Archbishop Diarmuid Martin, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/documents/rc_seg-st_doc_20010620_wto_en.html)

The wider F/LOSS community has developed several approaches to IP including Copyleft (The GNU Public Licence), Creative Commons and a range of other open licences.

There are examples available of efforts to develop a gospel-based understanding of these matters, be it at the broader level of understanding technology or the more specific issues of F/LOSS and Intellectual Property. Digital Virtues, Julian Fox; 'Love to Share', a statement on the culture of sharing with regard to Intellectual Property, by the World Council of Churches; 'Technology and Catholic Social Thought', Daniel R. Lynch, are amongst several of these. They involve a critique of purely market approaches to an issue that affects many other aspects of human beings' lives today; confronting 'abundance' with concern for what is 'essential'; applying Scripture not just by bible-bashing the issues but offering, as an example, the original Jerusalem community as a model from which to draw certain principles (Acts 4:32-35); taking up a prophetic stance.

A different approach, which can be tied to the 'evangelical', is from a human rights perspective. Instructive here is a paper delivered by GianMarco Schiesaro of VIS at the recent Quito Congress on F/LOSS and the democratisation of knowledge.

Educational

There is one key argument for F/LOSS in education which derives from the 'open source' aspect: one can teach students how to use a certain software program, but they are limited to pushing buttons if they have no access to the source code. Give students the source code and they can learn how a program works as well as have the possibility of adapting it.

There is a complementary and reciprocal relationship between F/LOSS and education. F/LOSS offers an environment (through access to source code) of unlimited experimentation and tinkering. It also makes possible collaboration and interaction with a community of programmers, developers and users of the same programs.

F/LOSS also means that if someone somewhere in the world has created a specific software tool to meet an educational goal, this same tool can be available elsewhere and can be built on. Because F/LOSS is not limited to one language, it is possible to translate the program, including its source code, into local languages.

But the educational argument goes wider than access to source code, as important as this is. Associated with the F/LOSS approach comes a renewed understanding of approaches to teaching and learning. Access to source code and to a community of users has brought a not-so-subtle change from a Descartian 'I think therefore I am' approach to a 'We participate therefore we are' one. F/LOSS is more than an instrument or set of instruments. It has become a community of praxis. While OSI considers F/LOSS to be a new marketing phenomenon, educationalists become aware that it is a new form of cognitive apprenticeship. New 'members' (of a F/LOSS program's email list for example) learn by opening up code, tinkering with it and perhaps expanding it or making it more robust. In effect a learning community evolves.

Ethical

To the fundamental FSF argument of liberty (and there have been distinctly Catholic efforts to develop this ethical argument under the Scriptural notion of 'eleutheros' , cf. Marco Fioretti et al. in the website www.eleutheros.it ), we may add a range of broadly ethical issues which are especially pertinent to Religious and Salesian life. They could come under the label of 'digital governance'.

  1. The conservation of digitally-born documentation in the Congregation becomes an ethical issue when we consider, for example, that correspondence of Don Bosco, Don Rua and Don Cimatti, to name just three instances, is already available digitally – because it existed on paper and has been converted to this form. It is immediately apparent that today's extensive email exchanges by confreres are most likely not going to be similarly available unless they take appropriate steps. We could take expensive steps to ensure that they are, but two observations are required here: a change in mentality on the part of today's correspondents would be required even before any money was put to such a cause; in terms of a F/LOSS discussion though, an equally important observation is that no money is required! If people choose appropriate software by way of email clients, the conservation of email in open format (plain text!) outside of the client itself is a couple of clicks away. The process is far more complicated if someone chooses to use, say, MS Outlook as an email client. In such an instance, then, the choice of software becomes an ethical issue.

  2. There is a range of practical issues to do with the nature of digital exchange today vis-a-vis the assumptions behind Religious community structures. The processes normally foreseen by Canon Law and Religious discipline in the case of a dispute between a member and his superior are often skipped today because of the opportunities offered by digital exchange. A novice may be in immediate contact with the Rector Major by email, for example, bypassing a string of legitimate authorities along the way. Older forms of 'contestation' take on new meaning when it comes to 'flaming'. There is even a low-level issue at stake here – many confreres simply do not know the fundamentals of email etiquette. To write in upper-case is regarded as rude and aggressive (and is known as 'flaming'). Hence there are questions pertaining to appropriate digital formation. It makes little sense to talk about Salesians 'learning the languages of the young' if one of their most basic languages today (let's call it 'digital') is a complete mystery to them.

  3. There is the question of security in the digital world today – security of one's own digital documentation (meaning documentation an individual creates himself) and security in a world where we leave digital traces everywhere. A mobile phone user may be physically tracked anywhere in the world.

While each of the above issues forms part of a broader digital education and praxis not specifically connected with F/LOSS as such, the reality is that adequate responses are found in this arena since the F/LOSS community in particular has set out to address questions relating to active, responsible (and safe) citizenship in the digital world. We ignore these efforts at our peril. At the very least there is cause for further study and revision of a document as basic as the Ratio to ensure a Salesian balance between technophilia and technophobia in today's Salesian.

Economical

It is not true that all F/LOSS programs are free as in 'gratis'. Nor is it true that all programs which are free as in 'gratis' are F/LOSS. Acrobat Reader is not F/LOSS. The Opera browser is not F/LOSS. Red Hat is a Linux-based operating System which is F/LOSS but costs. The FSF argument, recall is not that a program should not cost (or that a programmer or vendor has no right to ask for remuneration) but that the source code be included and accessible. At this point it is necessary to respond to the most frequently asked question of all when people first begin to contemplate F/LOSS. How can someone offer a program for free? How do they live? Surely there is some trick to this?

The question can be answered at several levels. For someone interested in the more academic answer, there are any number of studies of 'gift culture' inherent to many human cultures. Our hard-bitten economic world today (apart from being in deep trouble) is not the only approach to things. Human beings like to give, including freely. Christianity cannot claim altruism as its own invention.

But the more practical answer is to point out that those who produce open source code, even if not motivated by altrusim, make their money in other ways – software services, for example. And efficient source code is not limited to the programmer. Because the code is open, many ordinary users do look at it, do help to fix up bugs. The 'ordinary user' is as much a part of the good F/LOSS program as is the programmer, and the 'ordinary user' is often acting in his or her own interests – it may require very little effort to fix a bug and the user immediately benefits. He or she would rarely ask for recompense and is delighted to help the community 'out there'. Besides, those who know a little about the software industry know that little money is made out of the sale of software itself. The plastic-wrapped software of some years ago is almost non-existent today. It is usually downloaded (for free), tried, then paid for up to thirty days later. The real money is made not from the sale of the software but from services related to it, upgrades over time, and so forth.

It is the case, however, that most F/LOSS is either gratis or low cost, hence the argument that F/LOSS is an economical choice is clear enough for an institution like the Salesian Congregation. How much money could be saved for other purposes if people did not have to upgrade (at cost) annually and could purchase (at no or little cost) software to efficiently achieve almost any purpose which is software related? This economic/al argument then moves into the ethical arena when it comes to our work with poor young people who cannot afford access to costly software, or when it becomes a discussion about pirated software. We may want to argue that 'piracy' is a legitimate exercise in some instances, that the word is a deliberately negative one, that piracy is actually supported by major companies as a way of commencing the 'lock-in' path so that the 'thief' either through desire or by being eventually caught, has little choice but to continue using that software. But we would then need to also argue that the system is somehow rotten (sinful structures at work). F/LOSS then becomes an ethical response as well as an economical one.

WHAT actions can Salesian Provinces take?

In this early draft study there is currently an unordered list of possible actions. It may well be that there needs to be a prioritised list. It may also be argued that it may be sufficient to offer a smorgasbord of possible actions.

Any issue of depth requires reflection. Just as communities are encouraged to reflect on other issues which impinge on consecrated life, and the Salesian mission, reflection on the kinds of issues raised in this paper is to be encouraged. Currently there are few models of such reflection available. One is offered here. It is a generic model (found initially in use in another form in another Religious Congregation, the Marist Fathers) adapted to our own use and published in Digital Virtues.

The community reflects

  • Identifying our experience: Which aspects of our digital engagement (beginning perhaps from the most obvious level of the member who uses a PC or laptop) have had significant impact on the life of the community? Since we are an international community, is there likely to be a diversity of response to this question, and what does that tell us?

  • Reflecting on our experience: If we begin to critically analyse our experience, are there events, changes in society (in general, but also in the Congregation), in the Church, which point to the impact the digital era has had in our regard? How has the life style of the society we live in been affected?

  • Throwing light on our experience: are there charismatic elements (ícons of the Congregation, sayings, typical actions of the Founder…) which speak to us about some of the elements we have discovered thus far? Is there a 'digital divide' in our own experience, or in the Congregation? Is there some element of the Spirit here?

  • Considering alternatives: The digital world offers us both challenges and possibilities. What sort of digital involvement (at any level) does our charism and mission ask of us?

  • Choosing a horizon: People who remain just users, almost like objects of digital forces around them, have no particular horizons. Eople who are active subjects act better with clear horizons, even if these are distant ones. What kind of horizons (e.g. biblical, charismatic) could help us to think ethically, responsibly in terms of our mission where this area is concerned ?

  • Action programme: Are we at a point where our involvement, our participation and our digital activity needs some planning? What sort of strategies do we need? How can we create opportunities to make our intentions real?

Policy

There are a number of areas of intervention which might make up a Province policy on F/LOSS

  • Software procurement: since the choice of software may be critical in a number of instances (conservation reasons, for example) software should be procured which offers the possibility of open formats [for text, presentations, images, sound, video...]

  • Awareness-raising and information

  • Formation

  • Education and evangelisation

  • Mission and Development offices

  • Administration

  • Archival requirements

  • Collaboration

  • ....

Each area of intervention needs its own achievable goals and targets. For example, it would be an achievable target to create 100% awareness of F/LOSS amongst the members of a Province. It would not be an achievable one to create 100% usage.

The 'archival requirements' could make reference to the Salesian Social Communication System, the frame of reference for the Congregation produced during the 2002-8 six year period. F/LOSS solutions to archiving involve the conservation of documentation in open formats, including documentation which is born digital. Existing, so-called 'legacy' documentation, can be converted to open formats.

Criteria should be offered for making software choices. Confreres will have their own ideas about (and can be further informed about) how a particular F/LOSS choice responds to:

  • reliability

  • performance

  • scalability

  • security

  • total cost of ownership (TCO in English), often overlooked in religious communities and their work. This includes acquisition, purchase (not the same thing – it costs money to drive or take a bus to a computer store, and then it costs money to purchase the item or it costs to download from the internet if one considers payment to be online in the first place....), licenses, administration, training and support, upgrading, maintenance.

Strategy formulation. Once a target is considered to be achievable, how will it be achieved? An example might read thus:

The community will implement F/LOSS where analysis has shown it to be the appropriate option. The primary criteria for selecting software options will include evangelical motivations as well as economic or efficiency ones.

Other activities which respond to broader horizons

What follows is simply an unordered list, mostly in question form. All of these issues have already been raised at the Salesian Congress on F/LOSS and the Democratisation of Knowledge in Quito in October 2008.

  • If technology and software are to some extent 'missing links' in Catholic Social Teaching, then study and research is required. Our Faculties and Departments in the communications area may be equipped to help with this.

  • Actions must follow convictions – we need policies, statements of institutional ethics which include this area.

  • F/LOSS can be a learning environment which inculturates into a practice. What more can we do as a community of educators in the Salesian tradition to cultivate communities of practice where F/LOSS is concerned, along with learning networks which foster civic engagement, and which ensure open access and accessibility?

  • What implications are there for a 'presence' phenomenon now widespread in most provinces – the province and/or local Salesian community website? (cf also GC26 Guideline 16)

  • What can we do to help our presence, activity online to be more of a coherent self-aware force for good (Don Bosco's 'vast movement' moved online) on behalf of the young and the poor, and in what ways can F/LOSS be part of such a strategy?

  • If F/LOSS has many good reasons to commend it, it is also true that it is not as widely used (by Salesians, by other users too) as it could be, and this may well be because of lack of awareness, lack of qualified teachers and trainers for tools and concepts, lack of quality educational materials dealing with F/LOSS and its use. What implications are there here for a particular Province? For that matter for all provinces given that material can be readily shared?

  • 'If you are in the network you can share and over time increase your chances in life' (Castells) – surely this is motivation for concrete Salesian action on behalf of the young who are in situations of either being 'locked out' or 'switched off'.

WHAT actions can the individual take?

A 'Master, what must I do?' question still remains. What concrete steps can an individual take to demonstrate that he is a F/LOSS user?

The real Master's answer to the original question is not entirely inappropriate here! 'Go sell....'. Not that one needs to apply that literally. Understood another way, and by way of a radical step, one could simply cease to use proprietary software and replace it with software that, for the most part, will not cost anything. This latter fact is a bonus, not the central motive (recall the motivations: evangelical, educational, ethical and then economical).

Old habits die slowly, and one can hardly expect all users to take radical steps immediately. Education is a gradual process.

The simplest set of steps is as follows:

  1. Replace an existing browser, email client and word processor with true F/LOSS items (the 'true' is there to remind the user, again, that the real issue is not cost, but openness). Examples of true F/LOSS replacements – there is always a range of likely replacements – could be Firefox as a browser, Thunderbird as an email client and OpenOffice (with its Writer component) for word processing. This step alone ensures that 99% of the ordinary user's tasks are being achieved with F/LOSS.

  2. Ensure that word processing is not carried out (even with the 'Writer' choice) in the traditional type-format approach, but with a view to structure. Even MS Word will allow the user to adopt styles instead of piece-by-piece formatting. OpenOffice makes this even simpler. The use of styles ensures that text is well-structured (logical structure of title, sub-title, heading levels, paragraphs and so forth) which means easy conversion to various media outputs, an 'open' standard in practice.

  3. Where a proprietary software item is still in use, seek to save files in as open a format as that software allows. MS Word allows one to save as .rtf instead of .doc, for example. In most cases, rich text format (rtf), which can be read outside of MSWord by other word processors and indeed by a simple text editor, will suffice.

  4. Tasks not covered by the above software (for example working with images) will mostly have have F/LOSS equivalents. Many of these are compatible with the Windows operating system.

A further step, more difficult still because of habits already formed, is to take care with the language one uses about software and its results. Constant reference to word-processing as 'Word' only helps a global monopoly in this field! The same applies to 'Power Point'. The alternative choice is to describe the results for what they are – word processing documents or presentations. If the 'presentation' is the result of one or other software then it is appropriate to add the qualifier – Power Point presentation, or Impress presentation and so forth.

One can always choose a Linux operating system, at least as part of a dual-boot option. And since Linux is less-demanding in terms of processing power and gentler on hardware, old hardware rendered obsolete because of processing power issues can be recycled

12