Hi all,
I am looking for a good way to explain Free Software to *non-programmers* during a moderated show. It should be short (about 6 minutes), not to technically (I do not want to scare them off), and illustrative.
To start I thought about using the recipe analogy because I have good experiences with this example which others also share.
But now there should be an example for the audience, which shows the advantage of the freedom to modify the software to your own needs. There should be some pictures so not only someone is visible who is just talking or explaining without really showing something.
First I thought of a /translation example/: Think about the case your mother want to use a program, but she is not able to read English. And than show someone who is translating a program into another language (there is the possibility to show things on a screen).
But I do not know if that is something people are really concerned with. So someone had the idea to adept a /Mozilla Firefox extension/ (Firefox, because it is available on different platforms and a lot of people already know it and perhaps use it). For example, adapt a library search to a local library. But I do not know how difficult it is to do something like this and I am unsure if the audience will understand it.
It should be easy to modify it. It does not matter if the result is funny, or useful.
A friend argued OpenOffice.org, FireFox and embedded devices (which also was an idea) are bad examples for showing practical work on the source code and it would be better to use a language and application that does not need a /building step/, like a python application.
Another friend said he thinks you cannot explain Free Software to a non-programmer by showing someone modifying software, because the audience does not know what a program is, so there is no point in showing them a program and pretend to tell them that 'it is easy to modify it'.
After thinking about this I am playing with the idea to just use the recipe example and show someone cooking. But I am not sure if it is good not showing software at all.
Now, what do you think? Do you have good approaches which might help me? Or have experiences that a certain approach did not work with a non-programmer audience?
I am looking forward to your replies.
With best wishes, Matze
Am Donnerstag, den 20.07.2006, 21:53 +0200 schrieb Matthias Kirschner:
Now, what do you think? Do you have good approaches which might help me? Or have experiences that a certain approach did not work with a non-programmer audience?
I think to explain the concept of Free Software to non programmers or non technicians you don't have to show software but you have to show people using software. You have to tell stories about non technical problems solved thanks to the freedom provided by Free Software!
My experience telling the story of the OpenOffice.org translation project for a local Ladin minority language (be aware it's a language not a dialect) was very very positive. The audience understands the problem of a language disappearing on course of glabalisation and digitalisation of communication in the digital age. They are happy to discover that being OpenOffice.org Free Software a translation team of the cultural institutes was able to start the translation project independently from decisions of a single company based on a cost calculation for the company and not for the Ladin culture.
Also the recipe example of precooked soaps, which provoke troubles to allergic people, used by Kurt Gramlich had a very positive impact on the audience at the SFScon2005. People know about precooked soaps and they know that its easy to cook them, but they know also that this goes at the cost to be forced to eat the ingredients chosen by the producer. You cannot change the ingredients. At the end they get the picture that proprietary software is like precooked soaps and Free Software is like grandmas cooking book ;-)
My recommendation, use real life stories and show people which are no technicians, but had evident benefits out of the use and/or adoption of Free Software.
Happy hacking! Patrick
On 20-Jul-2006, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
But now there should be an example for the audience, which shows the advantage of the freedom to modify the software to your own needs.
I find that many audiences believe (with greater or lesser foundation) they personally will never have any occasion to modify software. It's a hard argument to convince them otherwise.
Fortunately, there's an immediate, understandable benefit that comes to every user of free software whether they modify it or not: not that *they personally* can modify the software, but that *anyone* is allowed to.
The analogy of appliances can then be used:
How many of the audience feels they can fix the toaster? How about the refrigerator? How about the microwave oven?
Now, how many people feel they get no benefit from the fact that, if *they* don't want to fix an appliance, they can take it to someone else -- *not* the original manufacturer -- and get it fixed, or even improved? That if enough people want such improvement services, the price for service is kept low by competition?
How would you feel if those appliances could only be fixed by the original manufacturer? How about if you were powerless to get it fixed even if the original manufacturer is in a different country, or doesn't want you as a customer, or has obnoxious repair terms, or has gone out of business?
We enjoy the freedom to take any of our purchased appliances to anyone we choose to get it improved in any way we see fit, at a price and terms we negotiate.
Free software brings that same benefit to software. Proprietary software is like an appliance that can never be fixed, modified or improved by anyone except the original manufacturer.
That's where every user of free software benefits from the "anyone can improve it and redistribute" aspect; and that's exactly what you don't get with proprietary software.
El Sat, Jul 22, 2006 at 01:29:09AM +1000, Ben Finney deia:
Fortunately, there's an immediate, understandable benefit that comes to every user of free software whether they modify it or not: not that *they personally* can modify the software, but that *anyone* is allowed to.
Yes, the other day I thought of an example while having a nightmare imagining what if I had to install Windows on my laptop and mantain it (must be something bad I ate).
The audience may not be develeopers, but they may, to some extend mantain their own system, better or worse, larger or smaller, with more or less success. With propietary software it is really difficult (well, I don't really know, I don't do that, but I suspect it is). You have different programs and you have to track how to configure each one and where to check for updates or fixes, it's a lot of uncoordinated work. If you use debian, then you simply pick your branch, and regularly update your software at once. If you need to change configuration, you trust it's somewhere in /etc, if you want to know what's installed, etc. you have easy interfaces. And this is not just for one program, but for thousands. Of course this is thanks to the generous efforts of many debian developers, but it is also because they work on free software, that they can adapt to the debian policy, they can bring to harmony with each other and they can integrate. You enjoy a coherent system not because the original programs are magically coherent, but because anyone is free to adapt them to create a coherent distribution. THe original authors made a good program, but that is only so good. They made it free too, and it was great, because it enabled the distribution authors to integrate it for the user's comfort.
One thing that usually impresses is the ease of updating a debian system (not only debian, it's an example), or installing some complex piece of software in one command line or one click. You could show that and compare it to how difficult it would be with different propietary pieces of software. Or you could even compare with how relatively more difficult it would be to build it from pristine sources (or install from pristine binaries) if you could not use the work of the distribution authors.
I'm not sure it is really easy to explain, but I think it is one of the most obvious benefits for users who don't think of modifiying software but find free software easier because of its freedom and the work of others in it. Explain the step between freedom and the resulting ease for users may be more or less easy.
Note: debian is just an example, there are many more distributions and the whole point of having distributions is that they are very convenient for users, compare with just unintegrated freeware or shareware compilations.
Am Samstag, 26. August 2006 16:50 schrieb xdrudis:
The audience may not be develeopers, but they may, to some extend mantain their own system, better or worse, larger or smaller, with more or less success. With propietary software it is really difficult (well, I don't really know, I don't do that, but I suspect it is).
A lot of proprietary software is easier to maintain and update then Free Software, the reason is that the offers are more mainstream and the vendors can put more efforts in writing and testing the instructions.
I hope that Free Software vendors change this picture soon, but it would also require more people actually paying for a good update service. For practical purposes, e.g. Debian's kernels are often not good enough, to state some problem. Many update descriptions are hard to understand for a non-computer scientist.
Debian and other distributors do a good job, I like them. Still there is a lot to be improved and it does not do us any good to claim Free Software would be easier to maintain for most users.
Bernhard
Hi, In an article, I had conceptualized Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) as "continiously accumulated social knowledge". In this sense, source code itself is both means of production for software development and the product itself.
In that respect, I gave this example, ******************************************* A problem arises because of the double meaning of {\it free} in English. In its first meaning, one does not have to pay any money. One may download (or copy from your friends) audio files, e-books or a whole operating system, GNU/Linux without paying any money. However, for hackers, {\it free} means as it is in {\it freedom} or {\it free speech}. While first {\it free} is more related with consumption, latter is about production. Being free in its second meaning differentiates software from other information goods. There are also collaborative production of information goods other than software in which everybody can freely contribute and benefit from the contribution of others. However, this is more common in software development.
Software may act as database, editor or calculator for performing needs of its user. In this sense, FOSS may be free in its first meaning. On the other hand, if you have the source code of software as in FOSS, it will be potential source code for a more functional software \cite{AND}. For instance, if you have the source code of a calculator application which performs only basic operations (addition, subtraction, multiplication, division), you may develop a more functional calculator in less time than building a calculator from scratch. In other words, FOSS as tendency of software has twofold aspects, use-value and means of production. One can use any FOSS according to his/her needs. Additionally, one can take the accumulated contribution of hackers and by adding value one can create more functional software. In other words, if a programmer develops a basic calculator in five days, another programmer can take its source code and develop a more functional calculator in three days. Yet, if he does not have chance to take the code of basic calculator, he can develop in eight days. *******************************************
-- ibrahim izlem Gozukeles
Matthias Kirschner yazmış:
Hi all,
I am looking for a good way to explain Free Software to *non-programmers* during a moderated show. It should be short (about 6 minutes), not to technically (I do not want to scare them off), and illustrative.
To start I thought about using the recipe analogy because I have good experiences with this example which others also share.
But now there should be an example for the audience, which shows the advantage of the freedom to modify the software to your own needs. There should be some pictures so not only someone is visible who is just talking or explaining without really showing something.
First I thought of a /translation example/: Think about the case your mother want to use a program, but she is not able to read English. And than show someone who is translating a program into another language (there is the possibility to show things on a screen).
But I do not know if that is something people are really concerned with. So someone had the idea to adept a /Mozilla Firefox extension/ (Firefox, because it is available on different platforms and a lot of people already know it and perhaps use it). For example, adapt a library search to a local library. But I do not know how difficult it is to do something like this and I am unsure if the audience will understand it.
It should be easy to modify it. It does not matter if the result is funny, or useful.
A friend argued OpenOffice.org, FireFox and embedded devices (which also was an idea) are bad examples for showing practical work on the source code and it would be better to use a language and application that does not need a /building step/, like a python application.
Another friend said he thinks you cannot explain Free Software to a non-programmer by showing someone modifying software, because the audience does not know what a program is, so there is no point in showing them a program and pretend to tell them that 'it is easy to modify it'.
After thinking about this I am playing with the idea to just use the recipe example and show someone cooking. But I am not sure if it is good not showing software at all.
Now, what do you think? Do you have good approaches which might help me? Or have experiences that a certain approach did not work with a non-programmer audience?
I am looking forward to your replies.
With best wishes, Matze
Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org writes:
But now there should be an example for the audience, which shows the advantage of the freedom to modify the software to your own needs.
That freedom, on its own, is not very valuable. So finding a good example will be very hard.
The combination of that freedom, plus the other three freedoms, is very valuable. Maybe it would be better to focus on this aspect.
For example, it's not very important that I can modify Mozilla Firefox. I don't have the time or the ability. Therefore, showing me that I can modify Firefox will not convince me that software freedom is valuable.
I do have the time and ability to make trivial changes to software packages, but many proprietary programs allow users to make trivial modifications (translations, or plug-ins), so this is not the unique value of free software.
The unique value is that everyone can audit, modify, and publish modified versions of everything. Maybe it would be easier to explain this?
Users of Microsoft Windows can probably make some trivial changes, but no one can remove the built-in spyware, no one can remove the needless restrictions, no one can make it obey standards.
Or you could make a diagram of the decision making process of a Firefox developer who is thinking of adding an advertisement for his company to the Firefox sources.
He is free to add that ad to his copy, and he can publish his copy, and he can submit his diff to the Mozilla team, but will it be in the package that I get from Debian? No. Even if the Mozilla team decided to accept his patch (for some strange reason), it still wouldn't be in the version I get. (And if it was, I could start getting my packages from somewhere else, or I could change distro.)
Another idea is to discuss that backdoor that was discovered in InterBase after it was made free software. More information and similar examples: http://lwn.net/Articles/80115/
* Ciaran O'Riordan ciaran@fsfe.org [2006-07-25 10:49:30 +0100]:
Or you could make a diagram of the decision making process of a Firefox developer who is thinking of adding an advertisement for his company to the Firefox sources.
What kind of diagram do you mean?
Best wishes, Matze
Qui, 2006-07-20 às 21:53 +0200, Matthias Kirschner escreveu:
I am looking for a good way to explain Free Software to *non-programmers* during a moderated show. It should be short (about 6 minutes), not to technically (I do not want to scare them off), and illustrative.
When people ask you "why do they need the freedom to study and modify since they're not programmers and so they will not benefit from that freedom" you can always answer them something like:
"you don't need to be a reporter to benefit from freedom of press"
Rui
On 31 Jul 2006, at 14:33, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Qui, 2006-07-20 às 21:53 +0200, Matthias Kirschner escreveu:
I am looking for a good way to explain Free Software to *non-programmers* during a moderated show. It should be short (about 6 minutes), not to technically (I do not want to scare them off), and illustrative.
When people ask you "why do they need the freedom to study and modify since they're not programmers and so they will not benefit from that freedom" you can always answer them something like:
"you don't need to be a reporter to benefit from freedom of press"
I think it depends on the audience. As you said, it (the audience) is non technical, but what sort of demographic are they?
For instance. if they are mostly comprised of business people then perhaps explaining to them the benefits of avoiding vendor lock in, the open market for support. Perhaps use something similar to the "recipe" story. I like that and I think most people can relate to it.
George
* George McLachlan gmclachl@cis.strath.ac.uk [2006-07-31 15:08:30 +0100]:
I think it depends on the audience. As you said, it (the audience) is non technical, but what sort of demographic are they?
For instance. if they are mostly comprised of business people then perhaps explaining to them the benefits of avoiding vendor lock in, the open market for support. Perhaps use something similar to the "recipe" story. I like that and I think most people can relate to it.
I think most of them will not be programmers nor managers. I was told, that most of them will be younger and engaged in social issues.
Best wishes, Matze