Montreal Tech Watch

This is the second part of the interview of Robin Millette, and as mentionned previously, is part of a series about the upcoming SQIL 2007. You can find the first three questions on a previous post, where he answered preliminary questions about his background and about SQIL.

4. Is there an area in Free Software in which Québecers are good contributors?

This is a hard question to answer. One project I have on the back burner is a Sourceforge spider to try and determine the level of Québec’s participation. I have to mention the PHP Conference organized every year by Yann Larrivée and PHP Québec that brings international visitors to Montreal. Canonical’s user support for Ubuntu is based in Montreal, so I’m guessing we’re good at that too :)

Tiki-Wiki wouldn’t have 300 developpers (I could exaggerate a little, I haven’t checked the numbers lately) if it wasn’t for Marc Laporte’s leadership. AlternC won a Trophée du libre last year in an international contest and Antoine Beaupré from Koumbit is a main contributor to that web hosting project.

I also think the MILLE project and other initatives in the education sector are showing the path, and the recent launch of Logique Libre for the business sector will also help gain contributions from diversified sources.

I’m probably forgetting obvious contributors, I’ll let you know if I ever launch my Sourceforge spider.

5. Open Source Software has been adopted by a wide range of public and private organizations, especially in european countries like Germany and France. Can you describe the situation in Québec and what the future looks like? Will we see the Québec governement adopt next Open source software?

I’m not sure about other countries, but here, the lobbies seem very strong and forceful. The CLLAP (Conférence sur les logiciels libres en administration publique) will be back in 2008 and shed further light on the topic.

The current government is happy to have umbrella contracts with the largest companies to allow it to automatically change the version of the software it uses. In Le Soleil’s April 10th 2007 edition, Guy Chouinard, acquisition director at the Centre des services partagés du Québec, recognized that the actual conditions aren’t favorable to free software.

Cyrille Béraud, president of Savoir-faire Linux, just published “La longue route du logiciel libre au Québec” on this topic for the SQIL.

Another growing player in this field, the Techno Centre Logiciels Libre, started as a network of service providers in Québec, is doing everything in its power to show the government it can handle its business.

6. What do you think of the trend of using the word “Open Source” everywhere, and not only for software? we see it in emerging conferences like barcamps, in terms like “crowdsourced ideas and media”, and even in design and art, like opensourcecinema.org in Montreal. Do you see it as beneficial for the Free Software movement or is it just a misappropriation of the word?

I rarely use “open source”, it’s always “open source software” and usually preceded by “free software”. In french, I keep it simple, with “logiciel libre”. We automatically understand “free market” doesn’t mean every thing is given away, I don’t see what’s wrong with using “free software”, even if you need 3 more seconds to explain you don’t mean “gratis”. But that wasn’t the question, was it.

Another project I have is to elaborate on all the uses of the word “open”, and there are lots (which is why I’m not done yet). Take “open source journalism” for instance. Does it mean the article uses open sources (like public stats, etc.) or are we talking about citizen journalism?

One of the most important aspect of Free Software and the concept of copyleft is its transitivity. The first degree collaboration/participation is one thing, but the emphasis is generally on enabling long term participation by building on the available body of works. Lots of uses of “open source” concentrate only on the first level of direct participation. Lots of creative commons works are published with a non-derivative clause, or worst, a sharealike (copyleft) + non-commercial clause. That’s devious, because on the one hand it encourages collaboration, but on the other, it makes it harder to share if you can’t charge for the copies you make or can’t include it with other works without that commercial clause. Where’s the free market here?

Getting closer to your question now… and I’ll conclude with this.

Free Software is multifaceted. So much it grew a new name, Open Source Software. It’s not just a single community anymore, but many, many. Wikipedia showed what can happen on an immense scale with an encyclopedia, and although it has certain flaws, its a project we can all be proud of. Same goes for Creative Commons and the Art Libre Licence for various kinds of works. Software is special, in that it’s covered by copyright while it’s a functionnal work, so it needs special treatment.

Free Software didn’t invent sharing, communities, participation, collaboration, helping a stranger, etc. These values have been part of us since the dawn of ages. But if it can serve as an example to enable us to get more freedom, better control and the involvment of larger masses, I’m all for it, in any field. Just remember, seeing the source is just a precondition to freedom.