Progressively, sometimes insidiously, by successive shifts in meaning and intellectual conditioning , under the pressure of the lobbies of edition (the first benefiters from Copyright) one will end with a Copyright only focused on the defense of the editors and to the attempt of installing police controls and quick justice.

Free Software home Japanese Integrated Learning Tool (OpenOffice extension)	Free Software (Published on September 13, 2009) Warning This document commits only its author (the owner of this site) who remains watchful for any remark or contradiction from its readers. Why is yet another person speaking about Free Software ? Every day, I read admirable texts in the defense of Free Software, far better than what I would be able to write which explain what Free Software is. In order to realize what are the stakes in the development and use of Free Software they try to put it into perspective with other fights for liberty in agricultural, science or art fields (see the section about patents). Thus, why to add more ? The answer is rather simple. In the dense Amazonian forest that the WEB is, paths are numerous and they don't always lead to the best or richest texts. Moreover, in this world of hurried people whose free time is absorbed by various and not always very rewarding activities, these texts are often so dense and so long that they don't entice their readers. I am very often questioning myself about why a vast majority of computer users remains indifferent to such fundamental topics as Free software and the "Universal Commons" [1] in general. A lot of people who do understand that the digital technologies penetrate all the fields of daily life (communication, commerce, administrative procedures and controls, votes , etc.) stay unconcerned about the risk that the "depriving" [2]software, supported by the monopolies and lobbies of the software industry represents. They remain consumers much more concerned by the satisfaction of their immediate needs (needs most often induced by the lobbies of the Digital Industry) than by the defense of their privacy and liberty. Therefore someone has to simplify and to summarize them, not to reduce their effectiveness, but to lead the reader to make the effort to turn his TV set off and to dive into their reading. The more numerous and the more different backgrounds or tendencies we have, the more our voices will find ears to listen to them. Thus this text is nothing else but a resumé, an appetizer or a signpost which leads to more enlightened and more clever sources. It is with my limited means, as I am not a computer scientist nor a scholar in law, that I take the risk to play this role of ambassador (that everybody should play) as I am really convinced that Free Software is a major stake in Liberty and positive evolution of society in its entirety. And if this could lead only to one more GNU/Linux installation or to one more person joining the April association or the Free Software Foundation, then I would think not to have wasted my time. What is Free Software For me, I would define Free Software as the gathering of two things: 1.Fundamental ethical values 2.Software covering a large scope of needs To have placed the ethical values first, is not a product of chance. Indeed, I made out that Free Software is resulting from this values and that without them it would have never existed or lasted. Now, the major risk for Free Software might be the oblivion of these values for the sake of efficiency. It is obvious that Free Software is gaining ground everyday. Such a performing and entirely free service attracts more and more users, interested in its practical and economical aspects but not always aware of its ethical richness and its fragility. It's a major concern for its founding fathers who have to raise awareness among the Free Software users.. In other fields, we find similar values and behaviors in the tremendous treasures that the Universal Commons represent in the form of totally open encyclopedias such as Wikipedia, the Biology review, the Cooperative Annotation of the Genomes or the archival storage of the public radios. Fundamental Ethical Values Liberty First ranked comes Liberty It deals with the defense, for the user, of the liberty to use his own computer in the manner he decides and with the program that he has chosen. The defenders of Free Software are used to highlighting the liberty to use, understand, modify and transmit software products. Of course they are right. It is of first importance that computer scientists can create and build with no artificial constraints , otherwise nothing of what I am speaking about here would matter. But this is a computer scientists language for computer scientists. As for me, I would rather take the point of view of the user, for who , wanting to write and transmit software is not a common situation. The freedoms that matters for the common users, and fortunately they come with the previous ones, are that he is not imposed such or such product to surf on the Internet, to listen to music or to write a letter of protest to his banker. It is also, that, in order to defend the interest of a particular industry , one comes, without the user's knowledge, to limit the capacities of his computer, to spy him, or to lead him out of his way in the dead ends that proprietary formats are. However, it is what major digital industry companies do with the help of some motivated by their self-interest, incompetent or blind politicians, under the form of DRM [3], filtering black-boxes and more . Sharing and cooperation The engine of Free Software development consists in a community of users and developers, sometimes divided about such and such strategic aspect, that have understood the vital interest that comes with it for the defense of democracy and of technical and scientific progress as well This community shall not be seen like a lot of communities as localized and focused on the defense of some peculiarities (even if this is not condemnable in itself)[4] but rather like a world wide community , open to innovation and questioning, first of all, focused on the progress for the benefit of all. In this community, even if copyright hasn't disappeared (I will explain why farther) everything is placed in a common pot that grows day after day. This situation is used by Free Software detractors, in the pay of the big monopolies of the digital industry, to describe the defenders of Free Software as "communists" with all the negative meaning associated with this word. Despite the fact that it is false, it doesn't miss to hit the bull's eye and to act as bogeyman among some populations that are undereducated, quick to confusion and not capable of nuance. In the world of Free Software, every software creation is seen, like every product of thinking, both as cumulative and incremental. To think, doesn't a human being need a cultural basis that he has to assimilate in order to extend it ? Don't the modern mathematics, the quantum physics, the human genome decoding which are major stages in the human thinking, result from the accumulation of the thinking and the works of thousands of his predecessors ? In a letter to his rival Robert Hooke in 1676, Isaac Newton would have written: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants"[5] If this sentence has often been cited, it is because it is beautiful and very meaningful. It invites to understand in what manner, the other's thoughts whenever we make them ours, open up new horizons made of strangers territories which we are free to explore. Trying to impede somebody from accessing the other's thoughts, whatever the reasons may be , is like putting a brake on progress Transparency The basis of free licenses is the guaranty of transparency. The code of every « free » work has to be [6]accessible in order to be understood and, if necessary, modified. Any derived work must ensure the same. This transparency is a fundamental condition to speed up progress, but it is more than this and a lot have understood it, specially states, public administrations or major private companies; it is, indeed, a token of security and independence.. Security first, as it becomes more and more difficult for software companies to put into their product spy software that deprive you from your secrets. Independence because an alternative, even costly, is always possible and you are not bound to the supplier that has accompanied you up to now. This transparency is anti-monopoly by essence. Education On the contrary of the depriving software, that, first of all, aims at rendering you a docile and imprisoned consumer, the Free Software community considers its users as potential sources of progress.. All is done in order that everybody can become an actor from the basic user that can express his needs or point out mistakes, to the high level programmer. A plethora of tools, from the simplest to the most sophisticated, is made available to all for progress (user forums, programmer forums, on line lessons, compilers, Integrated Developing Environments, etc..). Certainly, the road may be long and difficult, but whoever motivated teenager, rather than being a passive and imprisoned consumer (what big monopolies of digital industry only ask him to be) can experiment programming and progress, from the simplest to the most complex, without his parents being required paying any money, with tools at the top of the art and among the most performing. Moreover the GNU/Linux project, mainstay of the Free Software, is a mean available to the underprivileged populations to access at no cost the computing tools, thus avoiding to resort to illegal usages. Quality software covering a wide scope of needs Nowadays, there are a wide panel of free programs, a lot of which revolve around the GNU/Linux operating system. GNU is a recursive acronym (a kind of linguistic pirouette) that means « GNU is not Unix »). Indeed GNU is a free alternative to UNIX, a proprietary operating system. Linux is its kernel (a very small part of the system that interacts directly with the hardware). Thus, it is unfair and false to call the whole OS: Linux. With GNU/Linux you can practically do anything and to enumerate all the programs would take a very long time. Here is a resumé of what, personally, I do with GNU/Linux which I have been using for more that 10 years; Office work with OpenOffice or KOffice (word processor ,drawing, spreadsheets, etc.) Internet surfing with various browsers the most famous of which is Firefox by Mozilla Image manipulation with GIMP Video watching and music listening with VLC, Totem, etc. Scanning and printing Software development with Integrated Development Environments such as NetBeans or Eclipse. Personal accounting with GNUcash or Grisbi To dialog freely and directly on the Internet with Skype for my remote English lessons. WEB sites development with Bluefish, Apache, PHP and Filezilla. Writing musical scores with Noteedit. So, as you can see, anything that can be done with a computer nowadays. The Copyright paradox A necessary Copyright The defenders of Free Software are a priori against the monopolizing of knowledge and against any form of depriving from the liberty to access this knowledge. At first glance, this stand should collide with Copyright. Nevertheless, it doesn't. Copyright that ordinarily is used as a mean aiming at limiting the other's right (the users as well as the creators 's right) is used by the genial thinkers of Free software (Richard M. Stallman and Eben Moblen) in a radically new manner : the GPL for« General Public License ». It no longer consists in preventing that one can study, modify or redistribute a program but on the contrary 'to prevent that one prevents to do it.. Copyright is claimed there to allow the authors to impose conditions that aim only at guarantying for products derived from Free Software the perpetuation of the liberty to analyze the source code, to modify it and to redistribute it. . Thus it becomes very difficult to privatize software without infringing this Copyright. This law principle is called Copyleft.[7] Some speak of viral license. Instead of a term that convey the idea of wrongness or illness I would prefer an other term: maybe something like "antibody" license. The idea being more immunity than illness. In the present situation of law, copyright is an essential element for the survival of Free Software. It is the reason why, all those who, with praiseworthy intentions or not, want to make it disappear, are looked upon with fright by the Free Software defenders. Copyright diverted from its object The defenders of Free Software and those of the Commons Goods in general, do not contest Copyright in its acceptation of moral right, that French law confer to it, to be acknowledged and to have one's work respected. They also consider justified that these authors are financially rewarded for the personal investment they have done during the creation process. But this cannot be confused with the shameless appropriation of patrimonial rights by the multinational companies of edition to the detriment of the public's natural right to access and to share these works and to prolongate them, and even often to the detriment of the authors themselves. Because, as deep studies by eminent scientists and economists show, there are other ways to reward the authors than the one of monopolizing knowledge and culture; monopolizing that goes against progress and eliminate its benefits for society in it entirety. In very didactic essay against diversion of Copyright from its obectives, R.M. Stallman cites this sentence from the American Constitution on which the Copyright is based: "[Congress shall have the power] to promote the progress of science and the useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries. ." With this simple sentence he reminds us that the US Constitution places the Copyright as an artificial concession made to the authors for the sake of progress. That: "The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that promoting progress means benefit for the users of copyrighted works.", and that that the interest of authors and editors is not considered here. That it only expresses the intention to defend the exclusive benefit to the users (in other words the public)/ That: "it's an end in itself». Progressively, sometimes insidiously, by successive shifts in meaning and intellectual conditioning , under the pressure of the lobbies of edition (the first benefiters from Copyright) one will end with a Copyright only focused on the defense of the editors and to the attempt of installing police controls and quick justice. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that R. M. Stallman prefers to call « Domination by Media Corporations Act » promulgated in 1998 in the United States, authorizes editors to impose any restriction they want, by the means they want, on the use of a work. In France, the DAVSI and HADOPI laws, recently voted, are in tune with it, and propose filtering spies, that is to say, mandatory devices for the Internet user to securize his access in order to prevent it from being used in a way that could infringe the copyrights. In addition, the fact that the legal insecurity that such a measure conveys practically dooms all the open wifi access spots (public gardens, airports, cafes, etc.) it requires from the common users to success where more competent organisation in security have failed and exempts at the same time all the technical intervenants (access suppliers, component makers, etc.). If this measure hadn't been vetoed, it could have lead, in fact, to impose a "depriving" software to every free software user , in total contradiction with his basisc philosophy which is to claim the right to entirely control is own computer. Moreover, a user whose Internet address would have been used fraudulently, would have been obliged, without this device, to prove his innocence, in the case this Internet access would had been used for illegal download (evidence only based on the IP address). One will understand the incomptency level of the promoters of such a law as it is obvious that nothing is easier to wrongfully use an Internet address, but also their demonstrated despise, by inverting the charge of the proof, of the innocence presumption. Voir article de l'April: "lhadopi-filtrera-aussi-le-logiciel-libre-lapril-condamne" Fortunately, at the moment, the greatly wise "Conseil Constitutionnel" has vetoed this measure (refer to the very good article of the April on this topic). Nevertheless, vigilence is necessary because the determination to defend this monopolizing logic and the police controls is strong Free Software and Patents We can say it straight out, the Free Software movement is against software patents. Personally I am also very doubtful about the utility, for society in general, of just patents. Those last could find a justification in the promotion of technical and artistic progress, at times of large scale industrialization, in the fact that it was necessary to encourage efforts and to financially help inventors. Nevertheless, my various reading on this topic, have increasingly convinced me that states could have act differently to get equivalent achievements. Moreover, at whatever time it is, since monopolies of the antique Greece, passing by Patent Letters of the middle age, or the privileges of the Xv-th century Venice, till our modern patents, the system has always got out of control, letting an empty field to favoritism, arbitrary, swindling and corruption to finish in the monopolizing of progress by greedy for possession and power consortium. . I have no time nor envy to write here a whatever demonstrative essay of my stand; others did that very well before (please follow the links of this site). I just deliver my intimate conviction. . Because, why, on behalf of the sacrosanct intellectual property, would we let the multinational companies of the food-processing industry monopolize the ancestral knowledge of the world's peasantry in order to privatize it and to make the peasants depending on them by working nature's laws to their advantage, for example, by putting on the market seeds which crop cannot be sown anew ? Why again, would we let the most serious illnesses progress in Africa, and elsewhere, because patents would prevent them from resorting to, nowadays, yet known medicines ? Why, would we accept that a patent granted on a trivial principle, as a lot are granted nowadays, prevents our computers scientists to make the field of technological mastering progress ? And moreover, are we really the owner of our thoughts ? Do we owe nothing, in the building of our thinking, to the great thinkers of all ages, to our teachers, to all those we have read and listened to by the chance of our actual or virtual encounters ? As for me, I stay convinced that an isolated brain can do nothing. To advance, it needs the springboard of the others' thought. Of course, it is good to acknowledge the efforts and the merit of inventors and of new ideas promoters, but, should we, for all that, regard the intellectual property notion as sacred ? Must knowledge and thinking be relegated to the rank of mere goods ? Mustn't the model of wild competition make now way for the one of real and more productive cooperation ? Culture is a domain of abundance where sharing must be the rule. To organize there an artificial scarcity for the benefit of particular interests is a crime against the progress of human-hood. Yet, in a lot of field, some show us the way : The most famous scientists with the Public Library of Science and its publication Plos Biology., the project of cooperative anotaion of the genomes, etc. The artists with the Creative Commons Organization or the Copyleft Attitude The computer scientists with the Free Software defended, among others, by the Free Software Foundation . Translation in progress (to be continued) Free Software and economy There is today a real economy around the Free Software based on companies of various sizes. A la différence du modèle économique créé autour de la situation de rente basée sur la culture du secret autour de la maîtrise d'un code et le maintien à distance des concurrents par divers artifices juridiques tels que les brevets; l'économie du Logiciel libre repose sur la mutualisation autour de briques logicielles standard et sur la réactivité à mettre sur le marché des solutions adaptées aux besoins propres d'un client. Par ailleurs, les licences utilisées confèrent aux entreprises un excellent niveau de sécurité juridique, ce qui est un facteur supplémentaire à l'accélération de l'innovation. Ce modèle favorise la coexistence de petites sociétés spécialisées et de grand groupes. Le niveau de sécurité et d'indépendance associé aux solutions libres, séduit de plus en plus les entreprises , les administrations et les états soucieux de leur indépendance et de la préservation de leurs secrets. Un point fort du Logiciel Libre est de fournir des applications pérennes , dont les évolutions et les coûts ne dépendent pas de la stratégie propre d’un éditeur unique. Ceci se traduit par une plus grande diversité de l'offre, un meilleur niveau de concurrence et une plus grande garantie de transparence. Rien qu'en France , selon le Livre Blanc de l'April sur les Modèles Économiques du Logiciel Libre, le chiffre d'affaire de l'industrie de Logiciel Libre aurait atteint 500 Millions d'euros en 2006 et devrait être multiplié par 10 d'ici 2010. Logiciel Libre et Politique La défense des libertés fondamentales portées par le Logiciel Libre (et les Biens Communs en général) n'est aujourd'hui l'apanage d'aucun parti politique, ni même d'aucun système politique en particulier. Le monde politique, oblige ses acteurs à tant de contorsions et à tant de compromis, qu'il serait simpliste et hâtif de tirer des conclusions, à la seule vue du nombre des signataires [8] du Pacte du Logicien Libre ou même des votes sur tel ou tel projet de loi. Ces éléments sont indicatifs mais il faut prendre en compte les mécanismes subtils de la discipline de parti quand on est au pouvoir et la situation de relative facilité de ceux qui n'ont qu'à s'opposer. Je suis loin d'être certain, par ailleurs, que tous ses soi-disant [9] défenseurs, soient d'ailleurs passé de la parole à l'acte, en équipant leurs propres ordinateurs de logiciels libres. De plus le mouvement du Logiciel Libre, et des Biens Communs en général, ont peu à gagner d'une quelconque récupération politique. En effet, le choix politique que l'on fait au moment de mettre son bulletin de vote dans l'urne est toujours un compromis qui résulte d"une sorte de moyenne que l'on fait entre telle et telle attente. La défense du Logiciel Libre, n'est pas la seule chose qui préoccupe les gens, à supposer qu'ils en soient partisans. Alors, commencer déjà par défendre la cause, ne la vendre à personne et laisser les gens libres de leur vote, en pleine connaissance de cause, me semble être l'attitude la plus pertinente à adopter. Comment défendre le Logiciel Libre Il y a différents moyens de défendre le Logiciel Libre. Le premier et le plus simple c'est de l'utiliser. Il existe aujourd'hui un grand nombre de distributions de GNU/Linux. Les plus connues sont: Ubuntu Debian Open Suse Mais, peut-être moins connues, les distributions reconnues comme les plus proches de la philosophie GNU sont: gNewSense, une distribution basée sur Debian and Ubuntu, et sponsorisée par la FSF Ututo, une distribution basée sur Gentoo. La première reconnue comme entièrement libre par le projet GNU Dragora, une distribution GNU/Linux distribution exploitant le concept de simplicité. Dynebolic, une distribution mettant un accent particulier sur l'édition vidéo et audio. Musix GNU+Linux, une distribution basée sur Knoppix,mettant un accent particulier sur la production vidéo et audio. BLAG, une distribution based on Fedora. Trisquel, une distribution orientée vers les petites entreprises, les particuliers et les centres éducatifs. s. Venenux, une distribution libre autour de KDE desktop. Installer GNU/Linux sur son ordinateur n'est pas plus compliqué que d'installer Windows ou tout autre système d'exploitation. Cela nécessite cependant quelques notions sur le partitionnement des disques, car à la différence de Windows qui écrase tout sur son passage, GNU/Linux se fait sa place en préservant les systèmes d'exploitation existants et en permettant le démarrage de multiples systèmes (multiple boot). Ces notions sont cependant assez élémentaires et les acquérir reste à la portée d'un non spécialiste. Par ailleurs, la communauté offre une multitude de pages d'explication et de forums et vous ne vous sentirez jamais seul. Le second moyen c'est de refuser la vente liée d'un ordinateur et de son système d'exploitation, le plus souvent Microsoft Windows, et d'exiger le remboursement du prix de ce système. Si vous êtes un tant soit peu habile de vos mains, vous pouvez, comme je le fais, acheter un ordinateur en pièces détachées et y installer votre distribution GNU/Linux préférée. Il sera toujours, à prix équivalent, d'un niveau de performance supérieur à un produit de marque pour peu que vous soyez attentif à l'harmonisation de ses composants. Un autre moyen consiste à rejoindre les associations qui défendent le Logiciel Libre. Personnellement, je suis membre de l'April qui est une association active et qui respecte la pluralité de ses membres. Nul besoin d'être informaticien car il y a de nombreuses manières de participer (traduction, conseil juridique, actions pédagogiques, création artistiques, etc.). Vous pouvez également en être l'ambassadeur en en parlant autour de vous comme je le fais ici ou en apportant votre aide à votre entourage pour son utilisation. Notes Pour reprendre le fil du texte, cliquez sur le numéro de la note. [1]The notion of "Universal Commons" is central to the Free Software as well to other artitistic or scientific movements which refuse the appropriation by a minority of the informational goods that they acknowledge as belonging to all. [2]LDepriving software has to be understood as software that deprives you from the rights associated with the notion of Free Software.. The term proprietary software is often used, but it is less discrimating as property and Free Software are not mutually exclusive. [3]DRM or Digital Rights Management that the Free Software Foundation suggests to call Digital Restrictions Management. Please refer to the FSF's position on this topic. [4](...) et soit même louable lorsqu'il s'agit de défendre un patrimoine culturel comme celui des langues et coutumes régionales, à la condition cependant que cela ne remette pas en cause des valeurs aussi fondamentales que la liberté, la laïcité et l'égalité devant la loi. [5] "Si j'ai pu voir un petit peu plus loin, c'est en me tenant sur les épaules de géants." [6] Le code source d'un logiciel consiste en la partie textuelle, intelligible aux humains de ce logiciel. Il existe plusieurs langages de programmation que les humains utilisent pour fabriquer du code source (Java, C++, Perl, etc.). Ce code source est ensuite transformé en une suite de codes binaires ou code "machine" (écrit avec des 0 et des 1) par des outils spécialisés appelés "compilateurs". Pour exécuter, un logiciel, seul ce code machine suffit ,mais ce dernier est pratiquement inexploitable par les humains [7]Ce type de licence n'est d'ailleurs pas spécifique au Logiciel Libre puisqu'il existe également des licences en Copyleft pour les créations artistiques comme, par exemple, la Licence Art Libre. [8] A la date de rédaction de cet article, le Pacte aurait été signé par PS: 49, UMP: 11, PCF:4,les Verts:3,UDF 1, Nouveau Centre:1, Debout La République:1,Rassemblement de la Gauche pour résister:1, Mouvement Républicain et Citoyen: 1. [8] Le qualificatif "soi-disant" n'est pas à prendre dans son acception commune qui évoque le doute ou la remise en question, mais dans son sens premier de "personne qui se dit elle-même".	LIENS Lectures recommandées Cause commune par Philippe AIGRAIN Internet et Création par Philippe AIGRAIN Livre Blanc de l'April Les modèles écomnomiques du Logiciel Libre Les principaux défenseurs du Logiciel Libre The GNU Project The Free Software Foundation La Quadrature du Net Ma distribution GNU/Linux préférée Oui on peut changer le monde
	Previous	Home Home	Next

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that R. M. Stallman prefers to call « Domination by Media Corporations Act » promulgated in 1998 in the United States, authorizes editors to impose any restriction they want, by the means they want, on the use of a work. In France, the DAVSI and HADOPI laws, recently voted, are in tune with it, and propose filtering spies, that is to say, mandatory devices for the Internet user to securize his access in order to prevent it from being used in a way that could infringe the copyrights. In addition, the fact that the legal insecurity that such a measure conveys practically dooms all the open wifi access spots (public gardens, airports, cafes, etc.) it requires from the common users to success where more competent organisation in security have failed and exempts at the same time all the technical intervenants (access suppliers, component makers, etc.).

If this measure hadn't been vetoed, it could have lead, in fact, to impose a "depriving" software to every free software user , in total contradiction with his basisc philosophy which is to claim the right to entirely control is own computer. Moreover, a user whose Internet address would have been used fraudulently, would have been obliged, without this device, to prove his innocence, in the case this Internet access would had been used for illegal download (evidence only based on the IP address). One will understand the incomptency level of the promoters of such a law as it is obvious that nothing is easier to wrongfully use an Internet address, but also their demonstrated despise, by inverting the charge of the proof, of the innocence presumption.

Fortunately, at the moment, the greatly wise "Conseil Constitutionnel" has vetoed this measure (refer to the very good article of the April on this topic). Nevertheless, vigilence is necessary because the determination to defend this monopolizing logic and the police controls is strong

Free Software and Patents

We can say it straight out, the Free Software movement is against software patents.

Personally I am also very doubtful about the utility, for society in general, of just patents.

Those last could find a justification in the promotion of technical and artistic progress, at times of large scale industrialization, in the fact that it was necessary to encourage efforts and to financially help inventors. Nevertheless, my various reading on this topic, have increasingly convinced me that states could have act differently to get equivalent achievements.

Moreover, at whatever time it is, since monopolies of the antique Greece, passing by Patent Letters of the middle age, or the privileges of the Xv-th century Venice, till our modern patents, the system has always got out of control, letting an empty field to favoritism, arbitrary, swindling and corruption to finish in the monopolizing of progress by greedy for possession and power consortium. .

I have no time nor envy to write here a whatever demonstrative essay of my stand; others did that very well before (please follow the links of this site). I just deliver my intimate conviction. .

Because, why, on behalf of the sacrosanct intellectual property, would we let the multinational companies of the food-processing industry monopolize the ancestral knowledge of the world's peasantry in order to privatize it and to make the peasants depending on them by working nature's laws to their advantage, for example, by putting on the market seeds which crop cannot be sown anew ?

Why again, would we let the most serious illnesses progress in Africa, and elsewhere, because patents would prevent them from resorting to, nowadays, yet known medicines ?

Why, would we accept that a patent granted on a trivial principle, as a lot are granted nowadays, prevents our computers scientists to make the field of technological mastering progress ?

And moreover, are we really the owner of our thoughts ? Do we owe nothing, in the building of our thinking, to the great thinkers of all ages, to our teachers, to all those we have read and listened to by the chance of our actual or virtual encounters ? As for me, I stay convinced that an isolated brain can do nothing. To advance, it needs the springboard of the others' thought.

Of course, it is good to acknowledge the efforts and the merit of inventors and of new ideas promoters, but, should we, for all that, regard the intellectual property notion as sacred ? Must knowledge and thinking be relegated to the rank of mere goods ?

Mustn't the model of wild competition make now way for the one of real and more productive cooperation ?

Culture is a domain of abundance where sharing must be the rule. To organize there an artificial scarcity for the benefit of particular interests is a crime against the progress of human-hood. Yet, in a lot of field, some show us the way :

The most famous scientists with the Public Library of Science and its publication Plos Biology., the project of cooperative anotaion of the genomes, etc.

The artists with the Creative Commons Organization or the Copyleft Attitude

The computer scientists with the Free Software defended, among others, by the Free Software Foundation .

Translation in progress (to be continued)

Free Software and economy

There is today a real economy around the Free Software based on companies of various sizes.

A la différence du modèle économique créé autour de la situation de rente basée sur la culture du secret autour de la maîtrise d'un code et le maintien à distance des concurrents par divers artifices juridiques tels que les brevets; l'économie du Logiciel libre repose sur la mutualisation autour de briques logicielles standard et sur la réactivité à mettre sur le marché des solutions adaptées aux besoins propres d'un client.

Par ailleurs, les licences utilisées confèrent aux entreprises un excellent niveau de sécurité juridique, ce qui est un facteur supplémentaire à l'accélération de l'innovation.

Ce modèle favorise la coexistence de petites sociétés spécialisées et de grand groupes.

Le niveau de sécurité et d'indépendance associé aux solutions libres, séduit de plus en plus les entreprises , les administrations et les états soucieux de leur indépendance et de la préservation de leurs secrets.

Un point fort du Logiciel Libre est de fournir des applications pérennes , dont les évolutions et les coûts ne dépendent pas de la stratégie propre d’un éditeur unique. Ceci se traduit par une plus grande diversité de l'offre, un meilleur niveau de concurrence et une plus grande garantie de transparence.

Rien qu'en France , selon le Livre Blanc de l'April sur les Modèles Économiques du Logiciel Libre, le chiffre d'affaire de l'industrie de Logiciel Libre aurait atteint 500 Millions d'euros en 2006 et devrait être multiplié par 10 d'ici 2010.

Logiciel Libre et Politique

La défense des libertés fondamentales portées par le Logiciel Libre (et les Biens Communs en général) n'est aujourd'hui l'apanage d'aucun parti politique, ni même d'aucun système politique en particulier.

Le monde politique, oblige ses acteurs à tant de contorsions et à tant de compromis, qu'il serait simpliste et hâtif de tirer des conclusions, à la seule vue du nombre des signataires [8] du Pacte du Logicien Libre ou même des votes sur tel ou tel projet de loi. Ces éléments sont indicatifs mais il faut prendre en compte les mécanismes subtils de la discipline de parti quand on est au pouvoir et la situation de relative facilité de ceux qui n'ont qu'à s'opposer. Je suis loin d'être certain, par ailleurs, que tous ses soi-disant [9] défenseurs, soient d'ailleurs passé de la parole à l'acte, en équipant leurs propres ordinateurs de logiciels libres.

De plus le mouvement du Logiciel Libre, et des Biens Communs en général, ont peu à gagner d'une quelconque récupération politique. En effet, le choix politique que l'on fait au moment de mettre son bulletin de vote dans l'urne est toujours un compromis qui résulte d"une sorte de moyenne que l'on fait entre telle et telle attente. La défense du Logiciel Libre, n'est pas la seule chose qui préoccupe les gens, à supposer qu'ils en soient partisans.

Alors, commencer déjà par défendre la cause, ne la vendre à personne et laisser les gens libres de leur vote, en pleine connaissance de cause, me semble être l'attitude la plus pertinente à adopter.

Comment défendre le Logiciel Libre

Il y a différents moyens de défendre le Logiciel Libre. Le premier et le plus simple c'est de l'utiliser. Il existe aujourd'hui un grand nombre de distributions de GNU/Linux. Les plus connues sont:

Ubuntu

Debian

Open Suse

Installer GNU/Linux sur son ordinateur n'est pas plus compliqué que d'installer Windows ou tout autre système d'exploitation. Cela nécessite cependant quelques notions sur le partitionnement des disques, car à la différence de Windows qui écrase tout sur son passage, GNU/Linux se fait sa place en préservant les systèmes d'exploitation existants et en permettant le démarrage de multiples systèmes (multiple boot). Ces notions sont cependant assez élémentaires et les acquérir reste à la portée d'un non spécialiste. Par ailleurs, la communauté offre une multitude de pages d'explication et de forums et vous ne vous sentirez jamais seul.

Le second moyen c'est de refuser la vente liée d'un ordinateur et de son système d'exploitation, le plus souvent Microsoft Windows, et d'exiger le remboursement du prix de ce système. Si vous êtes un tant soit peu habile de vos mains, vous pouvez, comme je le fais, acheter un ordinateur en pièces détachées et y installer votre distribution GNU/Linux préférée. Il sera toujours, à prix équivalent, d'un niveau de performance supérieur à un produit de marque pour peu que vous soyez attentif à l'harmonisation de ses composants.

Un autre moyen consiste à rejoindre les associations qui défendent le Logiciel Libre. Personnellement, je suis membre de l'April qui est une association active et qui respecte la pluralité de ses membres. Nul besoin d'être informaticien car il y a de nombreuses manières de participer (traduction, conseil juridique, actions pédagogiques, création artistiques, etc.).

Vous pouvez également en être l'ambassadeur en en parlant autour de vous comme je le fais ici ou en apportant votre aide à votre entourage pour son utilisation.

[1]The notion of "Universal Commons" is central to the Free Software as well to other artitistic or scientific movements which refuse the appropriation by a minority of the informational goods that they acknowledge as belonging to all.

[2]LDepriving software has to be understood as software that deprives you from the rights associated with the notion of Free Software.. The term proprietary software is often used, but it is less discrimating as property and Free Software are not mutually exclusive.

[3]DRM or Digital Rights Management that the Free Software Foundation suggests to call Digital Restrictions Management. Please refer to the FSF's position on this topic.

[4](...) et soit même louable lorsqu'il s'agit de défendre un patrimoine culturel comme celui des langues et coutumes régionales, à la condition cependant que cela ne remette pas en cause des valeurs aussi fondamentales que la liberté, la laïcité et l'égalité devant la loi.

[5] "Si j'ai pu voir un petit peu plus loin, c'est en me tenant sur les épaules de géants."

[6] Le code source d'un logiciel consiste en la partie textuelle, intelligible aux humains de ce logiciel. Il existe plusieurs langages de programmation que les humains utilisent pour fabriquer du code source (Java, C++, Perl, etc.). Ce code source est ensuite transformé en une suite de codes binaires ou code "machine" (écrit avec des 0 et des 1) par des outils spécialisés appelés "compilateurs". Pour exécuter, un logiciel, seul ce code machine suffit ,mais ce dernier est pratiquement inexploitable par les humains

[7]Ce type de licence n'est d'ailleurs pas spécifique au Logiciel Libre puisqu'il existe également des licences en Copyleft pour les créations artistiques comme, par exemple, la Licence Art Libre.

[8] A la date de rédaction de cet article, le Pacte aurait été signé par PS: 49, UMP: 11, PCF:4,les Verts:3,UDF 1, Nouveau Centre:1, Debout La République:1,Rassemblement de la Gauche pour résister:1, Mouvement Républicain et Citoyen: 1.

[8] Le qualificatif "soi-disant" n'est pas à prendre dans son acception commune qui évoque le doute ou la remise en question, mais dans son sens premier de "personne qui se dit elle-même".