[OLPC India] Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?: RMS

Thu May 1 05:00:29 EDT 2008

---------- Forwarded message ----------
  From: Hempal Shrestha <hempalshrestha at gmail.com>
  Date: 2008/5/1
  Subject: [FOSSNepal] Fwd: {OLPC Nepal} Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?: RMS
  To: foss-nepal at googlegroups.com

  Dear All,

  Here is what RMS is asking, How are the OLPC things going to take
  shape in Nepal?
  Source: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/can-we-rescue-olpc-from-windows/blogentry_view

  Regards,

  Hempal Shrestha
  ====================================================================================

  Can we rescue OLPC from Windows?

  by Richard Stallman

  I read Negroponte's statement presenting the OLPC XO as a platform for
  Windows in the most ironic circumstances possible: during a week of
  preparing, under a deadline, to migrate personally to an XO.

  I made this decision for one specific reason: freedom. The IBM T23s
  that I have used for many years are adequate in practice, and the
  system and applications running on them are entirely free software,
  but the BIOS is not. I want to use a laptop with a free software BIOS,
  and the XO is the only one.

  The XO's usual software load is not 100% free; it has a non-free
  firmware program to run the wireless chip. That means I cannot fully
  promote the XO as it stands, but it was easy for me solve that problem
  for my own machine: I just deleted that file. That made the internal
  wireless chip inoperative, but I can do without it.

  As always happens, problems arose, which delayed the migration until
  last week. On Friday, when I discussed some technical problems with
  the OLPC staff, we also discussed how to save the future of the
  project.

  Some enthusiasts of the GNU/Linux system are extremely disappointed by
  the prospect that the XO, if it is a success, will not be a platform
  for the system they love. Those who have supported the OLPC project
  with their effort or their money may well feel betrayed. However,
  those concerns are dwarfed by what is at stake here: whether the XO is
  an influence for freedom or an influence for subjection.

  Since the OLPC was first announced we have envisioned it as a way to
  lead millions of children around the world to a life in which they do
  computing in freedom. The project announced its intention to give
  children a path to learn about computers by allowing them to study and
  tinker with the software. It may yet do that, but there is a danger
  that it will not. If most of the XOs that are actually used run
  Windows, the overall effect will be the opposite.

  Proprietary software keeps users divided and helpless. Its functioning
  is secret, so it is incompatible with the spirit of learning. Teaching
  children to use a proprietary (non-free) system such as Windows does
  not make the world a better place, because it puts them under the
  power of the system's developer -- perhaps permanently. You might as
  well introduce the children to an addictive drug. If the XO turns out
  to be a platform for spreading the use of proprietary software, its
  overall effect on the world will be negative.

  It is also superfluous. The OLPC has already inspired other cheap
  computers; if the goal is only to make cheap computers available, the
  OLPC project has succeeded whether or not more XOs are built. So why
  build more XOs? Delivering freedom would be a good reason.

  The project's decision is not final; the free software community must
  do everything possible to convince OLPC to continue being (aside from
  one firmware package) a force for freedom.

  Part of what we can do is offer to help with the project's own free
  software. OLPC hoped for contribution from the community to its
  interface, Sugar, but this has not happened much. Partly that's
  because OLPC has not structured its development so as to reach out to
  the community for help -- which means, when viewed in constructive
  terms, that OLPC can obtain more contribution by starting to do this.

  Sugar is free software, and contributing to it is a good thing to do.
  But don't forget the goal: helpful contributions are those that make
  Sugar better on free operating systems. Porting to Windows is
  permitted by the license, but it isn't a good thing to do.

  I am typing these words on the XO. As I travel and speak in the coming
  weeks, I will point to it in my speeches to raise this issue.
  ________________________________

  Copyright 2008 Richard Stallman
  Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article are
  permitted worldwide without royalty in any medium provided this notice
  is preserved.

  ====================================================================================

  --
  Frederick FN Noronha * Independent Journalist
  http://fn.goa-india.org * Phone +91-832-2409490
  Cell +91-9970157402 (sometimes out of range)
  Please see http://nursing.goa-india.org