Search This Blog

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Appropriate technology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Appropriate technology is a movement (and its manifestations) encompassing technological choice and application that is small-scale, decentralized, labor-intensive, energy-efficient, environmentally sound, and locally autonomous.[1] It was originally articulated as intermediate technology by the economist Dr. Ernst Friedrich "Fritz" Schumacher in his work Small is Beautiful. Both Schumacher and many modern-day proponents of appropriate technology also emphasize the technology as people-centered.[2]

Appropriate technology has been used to address issues in a wide range of fields. Well-known examples of appropriate technology applications include: bike- and hand-powered water pumps (and other self-powered equipment), the universal nut sheller, self-contained solar lamps and streetlights, and passive solar building designs. Today appropriate technology is often developed using open source principles, which have led to open-source appropriate technology (OSAT) and thus many of the plans of the technology can be freely found on the Internet.[3][4] OSAT has been proposed as a new model of enabling innovation for sustainable development.[5][6]

Appropriate technology is most commonly discussed in its relationship to economic development and as an alternative to technology transfer of more capital-intensive technology from industrialized nations to developing countries.[2][7] However, appropriate technology movements can be found in both developing and developed countries. In developed countries, the appropriate technology movement grew out of the energy crisis of the 1970s and focuses mainly on environmental and sustainability issues.[8] Today the idea is multifaceted; in some contexts, appropriate technology can be described as the simplest level of technology that can achieve the intended purpose, whereas in others, it can refer to engineering that takes adequate consideration of social and environmental ramifications. The facets are connected through robustness and sustainable living.

Background

History

History of technology, the development over time of systematic techniques for making and doing things. The term technology, a combination of the Greek technē, "art, craft", with logos, "word, speech", meant in Greece a discourse on the arts, both fine and applied. When it first appeared in English in the 17th century, it was used to mean a discussion of the applied arts only, and gradually these "arts" themselves came to be the object of the designation. By the early 20th century, the term embraced a growing range of means, processes, and ideas in addition to tools and machines. By mid-century, technology was defined by such phrases as "the means or activity by which man seeks to change or manipulate his environment." Even such broad definitions have been criticized by observers who point out the increasing difficulty of distinguishing between scientific inquiry and technological activity.

A highly compressed account of the history of technology such as this one must adopt a rigorous methodological pattern if it is to do justice to the subject without grossly distorting it one way or another. The plan followed in the present article is primarily chronological, tracing the development of technology through phases that succeed each other in time. Obviously, the division between phases is to a large extent arbitrary. One factor in the weighting has been the enormous acceleration of Western technological development in recent centuries; Eastern technology is considered in this article in the main only as it relates to the development of modern technology.

Predecessors

Indian ideological leader Mahatma Gandhi is often cited as the "father" of the appropriate technology movement. Though the concept had not been given a name, Gandhi advocated for small, local and predominantly village-based technology to help India's villages become self-reliant. He disagreed with the idea of technology that benefited a minority of people at the expense of the majority or that put people out of work to increase profit.[2] In 1925 Gandhi founded the All-India Spinners Association and in 1935 he retired from politics to form the All-India Village Industries Association. Both organizations focused on village-based technology similar to the future appropriate technology movement.[9]

China also implemented policies similar to appropriate technology during the reign of Mao Zedong and the following Cultural Revolution. During the Cultural Revolution, development policies based on the idea of "walking on two legs" advocated the development of both large-scale factories and small-scale village industries.[2]

E. F. Schumacher

Despite these early examples, Dr. Ernst Friedrich "Fritz" Schumacher is credited as the founder of the appropriate technology movement. A well-known economist, Schumacher worked for the British National Coal Board for more than 20 years, where he blamed the size of the industry's operations for its uncaring response to the harm black-lung disease inflicted on the miners.[2] However it was his work with developing countries, such as India and Burma, which helped Schumacher form the underlying principles of appropriate technology.

Schumacher first articulated the idea of "intermediate technology," now known as appropriate technology, in a 1962 report to the Indian Planning Commission in which he described India as long in labor and short in capital, calling for an "intermediate industrial technology"[10] that harnessed India's labor surplus. Schumacher had been developing the idea of intermediate technology for several years prior to the Planning Commission report. In 1955, following a stint as an economic advisor to the government of Burma, he published the short paper "Economics in a Buddhist Country," his first known critique of the effects of Western economics on developing countries.[10] In addition to Buddhism, Schumacher also credited his ideas to Gandhi.

Initially, Schumacher's ideas were rejected by both the Indian government and leading development economists. Spurred to action over concern the idea of intermediate technology would languish, Schumacher, George McRobie, Mansur Hoda[11] and Julia Porter brought together a group of approximately 20 people to form the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) in May 1965. Later that year, a Schumacher article published in the Observer garnered significant attention and support for the group. In 1967, the group published the Tools for Progress: A Guide to Small-scale Equipment for Rural Development and sold 7,000 copies. ITDG also formed panels of experts and practitioners around specific technological needs (such as building construction, energy and water) to develop intermediate technologies to address those needs.[10] At a conference hosted by the ITDG in 1968 the term "intermediate technology" was discarded in favor of the term "appropriate technology" used today. Intermediate technology had been criticized as suggesting the technology was inferior to advanced (or high) technology and not including the social and political factors included in the concept put forth by the proponents.[2] In 1973, Schumacher described the concept of appropriate technology to a mass audience in his influential work, Small is Beautiful: Economics as if People Mattered....

Growing trend


The Universal Nut Sheller in use in Uganda, an example of appropriate technology

Between 1966 and 1975 the number of new appropriate technology organizations founded each year was three times greater than the previous nine years. There was also an increase in organizations focusing on applying appropriate technology to the problems of industrialized nations, particularly issues related to energy and the environment.[12] In 1977, the OECD identified in its Appropriate Technology Directory 680 organizations involved in the development and promotion of appropriate technology. By 1980, this number had grown to more than 1,000. International agencies and government departments were also emerging as major innovators in appropriate technology, indicating its progression from a small movement fighting against the established norms to a legitimate technological choice supported by the establishment. For example, the Inter-American Development Bank created a Committee for the Application of Intermediate Technology in 1976 and the World Health Organization established the Appropriate Technology for Health Program in 1977.[12]

Appropriate technology was also increasingly applied in developed countries. For example, the energy crisis of the mid-1970s led to the creation of the National Center for Appropriate Technology (NCAT) in 1977 with an initial appropriation of 3 million dollars from the U.S. Congress. The Center sponsored appropriate technology demonstrations to "help low-income communities find better ways to do things that will improve the quality of life, and that will be doable with the skills and resources at hand." However, by 1981 the NCAT's funding agency, Community Services Administration, had been abolished. For several decades NCAT worked with the US departments of Energy and Agriculture on contract to develop appropriate technology programs. Since 2005, NCAT's informational web site is no longer funded by the US government.[13]

Decline

In more recent years, the appropriate technology movement has continued to decline in prominence. Germany's German Appropriate Technology Exchange (GATE) and Holland's Technology Transfer for Development (TOOL) are examples of organizations no longer in operation. Recently, a study looked at the continued barriers to AT deployment despite the relatively low cost of transferring information in the internet age. The barriers have been identified as: AT seen as inferior or "poor person's" technology, technical transferability and robustness of AT, insufficient funding, weak institutional support, and the challenges of distance and time in tackling rural poverty.[14]

A more free market-centric view has also begun to dominate the field. For example, Paul Polak, founder of International Development Enterprises (an organization that designs and manufactures products that follow the ideals of appropriate technology), declared appropriate technology dead in a 2010 blog post.[15]

Polak argues the "design for the other 90 percent" movement has replaced appropriate technology. Growing out of the appropriate technology movement, designing for the other 90 percent advocates the creation of low-cost solutions for the 5.8 billion of the world's 6.8 billion population "who have little or no access to most of the products and services many of us take for granted."[16]

Many of the ideas integral to appropriate technology can now be found in the increasingly popular "sustainable development" movement, which among many tenets advocates technological choice that meets human needs while preserving the environment for future generations.[17] In 1983, the OECD published the results of an extensive survey of appropriate technology organizations titled, The World of Appropriate Technology, in which it defined appropriate technology as characterized by "low investment cost per work-place, low capital investment per unit of output, organizational simplicity, high adaptability to a particular social or cultural environment, sparing use of natural resources, low cost of final product or high potential for employment."[12] Today, the OECD web site redirects from the "Glossary of Statistical Terms" entry on "appropriate technology" to "environmentally sound technologies."[18] The United Nations' "Index to Economic and Social Development" also redirects from the "appropriate technology" entry to "sustainable development."[19]

Potential resurgence

Despite the decline, several appropriate technology organizations are still in existence, including the ITDG which became Practical Action after a name change in 2005.[20] Skat (Schwierzerische Kontaktstelle für Angepasste Technology) adapted by becoming a private consultancy in 1998, though some Intermediate Technology activities are continued by Skat Foundation through the Rural Water Supply Network (RWSN). Another actor still very active is the charity CEAS (Centre Ecologique Albert Schweitzer). Pioneer in food transformation and solar heaters, it offers vocational training in West Africa and Madagascar. There is also currently a notable resurgence as viewed by the number of groups adopting open source appropriate technology (OSAT) because of the enabling technology of the Internet. These OSAT groups include: Akvo Foundation, Appropedia, Appropriate Technology Collaborative, Catalytic Communities, Centre for Alternative Technology, Center For Development Alternatives, Engineers Without Borders, Open Source Ecology, Practical Action, and Village Earth. Most recently ASME, Engineers Without Borders(USA) and the IEEE have joined together to produce Engineering for Change, which facilitates the development of affordable, locally appropriate and sustainable solutions to the most pressing humanitarian challenges.

Terminology

Appropriate technology frequently serves as an umbrella term for a variety names for this type of technology. Frequently these terms are used interchangeably; however, the use of one term over another can indicate the specific focus, bias or agenda of the technological choice in question. Though the original name for the concept now known as appropriate technology, "intermediate technology" is now often considered a subset of appropriate technology that focuses on technology that is more productive than "inefficient" traditional technologies, but less costly than the technology of industrialized societies.[21] Other types of technology under the appropriate technology umbrella include:
  • Capital-saving technology
  • Labor-intensive technology
  • Alternate technology
  • Self-help technology
  • Village-level technology
  • Community technology
  • Progressive technology
  • Indigenous technology
  • People’s technology
  • Light-engineering technology
  • Adaptive technology
  • Light-capital technology
  • Soft technology
A variety of competing definitions exist in academic literature and organization and government policy papers for each of these terms.[12][21][22] However, the general consensus is appropriate technology encompasses the ideas represented by the above list. Furthermore, the use of one term over another in referring to an appropriate technology can indicate ideological bias or emphasis on particular economic or social variables. Some terms inherently emphasize the importance of increased employment and labor utilization (such as labor-intensive or capital-saving technology), while others may emphasize the importance of human development (such as self-help and people's technology).[21]

It is also possible to distinguish between hard and soft technologies. According to Dr. Maurice Albertson and Audrey Faulkner, appropriate hard technology is "engineering techniques, physical structures, and machinery that meet a need defined by a community, and utilize the material at hand or readily available. It can be built, operated and maintained by the local people with very limited outside assistance (e.g., technical, material, or financial). it is usually related to an economic goal."[23]

Albertson and Faulkner consider appropriate soft technology as technology that deals with "the social structures, human interactive processes, and motivation techniques. It is the structure and process for social participation and action by individuals and groups in analyzing situations, making choices and engaging in choice-implementing behaviors that bring about change."[24]

Practitioners

Some of the well known practitioners of the appropriate technology-sector include: B.V. Doshi,[25] Buckminster Fuller, William Moyer (1933–2002), Amory Lovins, Sanoussi Diakité, Albert Bates, Victor Papanek, Giorgio Ceragioli (1930–2008), Frithjof Bergmann, Arne Næss, (1912–2009), and Mansur Hoda,[11] Laurie Baker.

Development

Schumacher's initial concept of intermediate technology was created as a critique of the currently prevailing development strategies which focused on maximizing aggregate economic growth through increases to overall measurements of a country's economy, such as gross domestic product (GDP).[22] Developed countries became aware of the situation of developing countries during and in the years following World War II. Based on the continuing rise in income levels in Western countries since the Industrial Revolution, developed countries embarked on a campaign of massive transfers of capital and technology to developing countries in order to force a rapid industrialization intended to result in an economic "take-off" in the developing countries.[22][26]

However, by the late 1960s it was becoming clear this development method had not worked as expected and a growing number of development experts and national policy makers were recognizing it as a potential cause of increasing poverty and income inequality in developing countries.[27] In many countries, this influx of technology had increased the overall economic capacity of the country. However, it had created a dual or two-tiered economy with pronounced division between the classes. The foreign technology imports were only benefiting a small minority of urban elites. This was also increasing urbanization with the rural poor moving to urban cities in hope of more financial opportunities. The increased strain on urban infrastructures and public services led to "increasing squalor, severe impacts on public health and distortions in the social structure."[21]

Appropriate technology was meant to address four problems: extreme poverty, starvation, unemployment and urban migration. Schumacher saw the main purpose for economic development programs was the eradication of extreme poverty and he saw a clear connection between mass unemployment and extreme poverty. Schumacher sought to shift development efforts from a bias towards urban areas and on increasing the output per laborer to focusing on rural areas (where a majority of the population still lived) and on increasing employment.[28]

In developed countries

The term appropriate technology is also used in developed nations to describe the use of technology and engineering that result in less negative impacts on the environment and society, i.e., technology should be both environmentally sustainable and socially appropriate.[29][30] E. F. Schumacher asserts that such technology, described in the book Small is Beautiful[31] tends to promote values such as health, beauty and permanence, in that order.

Often the type of appropriate technology that is used in developed countries is "appropriate and sustainable technology" (AST),[32] appropriate technology that, besides being functional and relatively cheap (though often more expensive than true AT), is durable and employs renewable resources. AT does not include this (see Sustainable design).

Applications

Building and construction

In order to increase the efficiency of a great number of city services (efficient water provisioning, efficient electricity provisioning, easy traffic flow, water drainage, decreased spread of disease with epidemics, ...), the city itself must first be built correctly. In the developing world, many cities are expanding rapidly and new ones are being built. Looking into the cities design in advance is a must for every developing nation.
The local context must be considered as, for example, mudbrick may not be durable in a high rainfall area (although a large roof overhang and cement stabilisation can be used to correct for this), and, if the materials are not readily available, the method may be inappropriate. Other forms of natural building may be considered appropriate technology, though in many cases the emphasis is on sustainability and self-sufficiency rather than affordability or suitability. As such, many buildings are also built to function as autonomous buildings (e.g. earthships, ...). One example of an organisation that applies appropriate earthbuilding techniques would be Builders Without Borders.

The building structure must also be considered. Cost-effectiveness is an important issue in projects based around appropriate technology, and one of the most efficient designs herein is the public housing approach. This approach lets everyone have their own sleeping/recreation space, yet incorporate communal spaces e.g. mess halls, latrines, public showers, ...

In addition, to decrease costs of operation (heating, cooling, ...) techniques as Earth sheltering, Trombe walls, ... are often incorporated.

Organizations as Architecture for Humanity also follows principles consistent with appropriate technology, aiming to serve the needs of poor and disaster-affected people.


Chunche, naturally ventilated sheds for drying raisins in Xinjiang
  • Natural ventilation can be created by providing vents in the upper level of a building to allow warm air to rise by convection and escape to the outside, while cooler air is drawn in through vents at the lower level.
  • Electrical powered fans (e.g. ceiling fans) allow efficient cooling, at a far lower electricity consumption as airconditioning systems.
  • A solar chimney often referred to as thermal chimney improves this natural ventilation by using convection of air heated by passive solar energy. To further maximize the cooling effect, the incoming air may be led through underground ducts before it is allowed to enter the building.
  • A windcatcher (Badgir; بادگیر) is a traditional Persian architectural device used for many centuries to create natural ventilation in buildings. It is not known who first invented the windcatcher, but it still can be seen in many countries today. Windcatchers come in various designs, such as the uni-directional, bi-directional, and multi-directional.
  • A passive down-draft cooltower may be used in a hot, arid climate to provide a sustainable way to provide air conditioning. Water is allowed to evaporate at the top of a tower, either by using evaporative cooling pads or by spraying water. Evaporation cools the incoming air, causing a downdraft of cool air that will bring down the temperature inside the building.

Agriculture

Appropriate technology has been applied extensively to improve agricultural production in developing countries. In the United States, the National Center for Appropriate Technology operates ATTRA (attra.ncat.org), a national sustainable agriculture assistance program.

Water and sanitation

Water


Hand-operated, reciprocating, positive displacement, water pump in Košice-Tahanovce, Slovakia (walking beam pump).

As of 2006, waterborne diseases are estimated to cause 1.8 million deaths each year while about 1.1 billion people lack proper drinking water.[33]

Water generally needs treatment before use, depending on the source and the intended use (with high standards required for drinking water). The quality of water from household connections and community water points in low-income countries is not reliably safe for direct human consumption. Water extracted directly from surface waters and open hand-dug shallow wells nearly always requires treatment.

Appropriate technology options in water treatment include both community-scale and household-scale point-of-use (POU) designs.

The most reliable way to kill microbial pathogenic agents is to heat water to a rolling boil.[34] Other techniques, such as varying forms of filtration, chemical disinfection, and exposure to ultraviolet radiation (including solar UV) have been demonstrated in an array of randomized control trials to significantly reduce levels of waterborne disease among users in low-income countries.

Over the past decade, an increasing number of field-based studies have been undertaken to determine the success of POU measures in reducing waterborne disease. The ability of POU options to reduce disease is a function of both their ability to remove microbial pathogens if properly applied and such social factors as ease of use and cultural appropriateness. Technologies may generate more (or less) health benefit than their lab-based microbial removal performance would suggest.

The current priority of the proponents of POU treatment is to reach large numbers of low-income households on a sustainable basis. Few POU measures have reached significant scale thus far, but efforts to promote and commercially distribute these products to the world's poor have only been under way for a few years.

On the other hand, small-scale water treatment is reaching increasing fractions of the population in low-income countries, particularly in South and Southeast Asia, in the form of water treatment kiosks (also known as water refill stations or packaged water producers). While quality control and quality assurance in such locations may be variable, sophisticated technology (such as multi-stage particle filtration, UV irradiation, ozonation, and membrane filtration) is applied with increasing frequency. Such microenterprises are able to vend water at extremely low prices, with increasing government regulation. Initial assessments of vended water quality are encouraging.

Whether applied at the household or community level, some examples of specific treatment processes include:
  • Porous ceramic filtration, using either clay or diatomaceous earth, and oriented as either cylinder, pot, or disk, with gravity-fed or siphon-driven delivery systems. Silver is frequently added to provide antimicrobial enhancement
  • Intermittently operated slow-sand filtration, also known as biosand filtration
  • Chlorine disinfection, employing calcium hypochlorite powder, sodium hypochlorite solution, or sodium dichloroisocyanurate (NaDCC) tablets
  • Chemical flocculation, using either commercially produced iron or aluminum salts or the crushed seeds of certain plants, such as Moringa oleifera. Recent work has shown even table salt (NaCl) is effective at removing high-activity clays for solar water disinfection.[35]
  • Irradiation with ultraviolet light, whether using electric-powered lamps or direct solar exposure such as with the SODIS method
  • Mixed flocculation/disinfection using commercially produced powdered mixtures
  • membrane filtration, employing ultrafiltration or reverse osmosis filter elements preceded by pretreatment
Some appropriate technology water supply measures include:
  • Deep wells with submersible pumps in areas where the groundwater (aquifers) are located at depths >10 m.
  • Shallow wells with lined walls and covers.
  • Rainwater harvesting systems with an appropriate method of storage, especially in areas with significant dry seasons.
  • Fog collection, which is suitable for areas which experience fog even when there is little rain.
  • Air wells, a structure or device designed to promote the condensation of atmospheric moisture.
  • Handpumps and treadle pumps are generally only an option in areas is located at a relatively shallow depth (e.g. 10 m). The Flexi-Pipe Pump is a notable exception to this (up to 25 meter). For deeper aquifers (<10 a="" href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_well" m="" title="Water well">submersible pumps placed inside a well
are used. Treadle pumps for household irrigation are now being distributed on a widespread basis in developing countries. The principle of Village Level Operation and Maintenance is important with handpumps, but may be difficult in application.


  • Condensation bags and condensation pits can be an appropriate technology to get water, yet yields are low and are (for the amount of water obtained), labour-intensive. Still, it may be a good (very cheap) solution for certain desperate communities.
  • The hippo water roller and Q-drum allow more water to be carried, with less effort and could thus be a good alternative for ethnic communities who do not wish to give up water gathering from remote locations, assuming low topographic relief.
  • The roundabout playpump, developed and used in southern Africa, harnesses the energy of children at play to pump water.

    • Sanitation

    Poor sanitation is a major issue for a large proportion of the human population, with about 2.5 billion people lacking even the most basic forms of sanitation and more than a billion people worldwide practising open defecation in 2015 according to the Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitation of the United Nations.[36][37]

    The ideas of appropriate technology influenced the provision of sanitation systems for many years. However, since about the early 2000s there has been a departure from a focus on simplistic 'one-size-fits-all' sanitation systems.[38][39] As conditions vary, sanitation systems also need to vary to meet the needs of the users and other stakeholders.[39]

    Technologies for sanitation provision, such as toilets, are important but only one piece of the puzzle. Sanitation needs to be regarded as a system that includes technical and non-technical aspects, such as behavior change and management as well as political aspects – the enabling environment.[40] The overall aim should be to achieve a sustainable sanitation system. One option of achieving that aim can be the ecological sanitation approach which focuses on safe reuse of excreta.

    It is impossible to name all possible sanitation technologies that may fall under the category of "appropriate technologies" but some common systems which might be considered to be "appropriate" include:

    Energy generation and uses

    The term soft energy technology was coined by Amory Lovins to describe "appropriate" renewable energy.[43] "Appropriate" energy technologies are especially suitable for isolated and/or small scale energy needs. Electricity can be provided from:
    Some intermediate technologies include:
    • Bioalcohols as bioethanol, biomethanol and biobutanol. The first two require minor modifications to allow them to be used in conventional gasoline engines. The third requires no modifications at all.
    • Vegetable oils which can be used only in internal combustion (Diesel) engines. Biofuels are locally available in many developing countries and can be cheaper than fossil fuels.
    • Anaerobic digestion power plants
    • Biogas is another potential source of energy, particularly where there is an abundant supply of waste organic matter. A generator (running on biofuels) can be run more efficiently if combined with batteries and an inverter; this adds significantly to capital cost but reduces running cost, and can potentially make this a much cheaper option than the solar, wind and micro-hydro options.
    • Dry animal dung fuel can also be used.
    • Biochar is another similar energy source which can be obtained through charring of certain types of organic material (e.g. hazelnut shells, bamboo, chicken manure, ...) in a pyrolysis unit.[46] A similar energy source is terra preta nova.
    Finally, urine can also be used as a basis to generate hydrogen (which is an energy carrier). Using urine, hydrogen production is 332% more energy efficient than using water.[47]

    Electricity distribution could be improved so to make use of a more structured electricity line arrangement and universal AC power plugs and sockets (e.g. the CEE 7/7 plug). In addition, a universal system of electricity provisioning (e.g. universal voltage, frequency, ampère; e.g. 230 V with 50 Hz), as well as perhaps a better mains power system (e.g. through the use of special systems as perfected single-wire earth returns; e.g. Tunisia's MALT-system, which features low costs and easy placement)[48][49]

    Electricity storage (which is required for autonomous energy systems) can be provided through appropriate technology solutions as deep-cycle and car-batteries (intermediate technology), long duration flywheels, electrochemical capacitors, compressed air energy storage (CAES), liquid nitrogen and pumped hydro.[50] Many solutions for the developing world are sold as a single package, containing a (micro) electricity generation power plant and energy storage. Such packages are called remote-area power supply.


    LED Lamp with GU10 twist lock fitting, intended to replace halogen reflector lamps.
    • White LEDs and a source of renewable energy (such as solar cells) are used by the Light Up the World Foundation to provide lighting to poor people in remote areas, and provide significant benefits compared to the kerosene lamps which they replace. Certain other companies as Powerplus also have LED-flashlights with imbedded solar cells.[51]
    • Organic LEDs made by roll-to-roll production are another source of cheap light that will be commercially available at low cost by 2015.
    • Compact fluorescent lamps (as well as regular fluorescent lamps and LED-lightbulbs) can also be used as appropriate technology. Although they are less environmentally friendly then LED-lights, they are cheaper and still feature relative high efficiency (compared to incandescent lamps).
    • The Safe bottle lamp is a safer kerosene lamp designed in Sri Lanka. Lamps as these allow relative long, mobile, lighting. The safety comes from a secure screw-on metal lid, and two flat sides which prevent it from rolling if knocked over. An alternative to fuel or oil-based lanterns is the Uday lantern, developed by Philips as part of its Lighting Africa project (sponsored by the World Bank Group).[52]
    • The Faraday flashlight is a LED flashlight which operates on a capacitor. Recharging can be done by manual winching or by shaking, hereby avoiding the need of any supplementary electrical system.
    • HID-lamps finally can be used for lighting operations where regular LED-lighting or other lamps will not suffice. Examples are car headlights. Due to their high efficiency, they are quite environmental, yet costly, and they still require polluting materials in their production process.

    Transportation


    A man uses a bicycle to cargo goods in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (2007)

    Human powered-vehicles include the bicycle (and the future bamboo bicycle), which provides general-purpose transportation at lower costs compared to motorized vehicles, and many advantages over walking, and the whirlwind wheelchair, which provides mobility for disabled people who cannot afford the expensive wheelchairs used in developed countries. Animal powered vehicles/transport may also be another appropriate technology. Certain zero-emissions vehicles may be considered appropriate transportation technology, including compressed air cars, liquid nitrogen and hydrogen-powered vehicles. Also, vehicles with internal combustion engines may be converted to hydrogen or oxyhydrogen combustion.

    Bicycles can also be applied to commercial transport of goods to and from remote areas. An example of this is Karaba, a free-trade coffee co-op in Rwanda, which uses 400 modified bicycles to carry hundreds of pounds of coffee beans for processing.[53] Other projects for developing countries include the redesign of cycle rickshaws to convert them to electric power.[54][55] However recent reports suggest that these rickshaws are not plying on the roads.[56]

    Health care

    According to the Global Health Council, rather than the use of professionally schooled doctors, the training of villagers to remedy most maladies in towns in the developing world is most appropriate.[57] Trained villagers are able to eliminate 80% of the health problems. Small (low-cost) hospitals – based on the model of the Jamkhed hospital – can remedy another 15%, while only 5% will need to go to a larger (more expensive) hospital.
    • Before being able to determine the cause of the disease or malady, accurate diagnosis is required. This may be done manually (through observation, inquiries) and by specialized tools.
    • A phase-change incubator, developed in the late 1990s, is a low cost way for health workers to incubate microbial samples.
    • Birth control is also seen as an appropriate technology, especially now, because of increasing population numbers (overpopulating certain areas), increasing food prices and poverty. It has been proposed to a certain degree by PATH (program for appropriate technology in health).[58][59]
    • Jaipur leg was developed by Dr. P. K. Sethi and Masterji Ram Chander in 1968 as an inexpensive prosthetic leg for victims of landmine explosions.
    • The Leveraged Freedom Chair is a low-cost wheelchair designed specifically for rough terrain[60]
    • Natural cleaning products can be used for personal hygiene and cleaning of clothing and eating utensils; in order to decrease illnesses/maladies (as they eliminate a great amount of pathogens).
    Note that many Appropriate Technologies benefit public health, in particular by providing sanitation and safe drinking water. Refrigeration may also provide a health benefit. (These are discussed in the following paragraphs.) This was too found at the Comprehensive Rural Health Project[61] and the Women Health Volunteers projects in countries as Iran, Iraq and Nepal.[62]

    Food preparation and storage

    Some proven intensive, low-effort food-production systems include urban gardening (indoors and outdoors).[citation needed] Indoor cultivation may be set up using hydroponics with Grow lights, while outdoor cultivation may be done using permaculture, forest gardening, no-till farming, Do Nothing Farming, etc. In order to better control the irrigation outdoors, special irrigation systems may be created as well (although this increases costs, and may again open the door to cultivating non-indigenous plants; something which is best avoided).[citation needed] One such system for the developing world is discussed here.[63]

    Crop production tools are best kept simple (reduces operating difficulty, cost, replacement difficulties and pollution, when compared to motorized equipment). Tools can include scythes,[64] animal-pulled plows[65] (although no-till farming should be preferred),[66] dibbers, wheeled augers[67][68] (for planting large trees), kirpis, hoes, ...

    Greenhouses are also sometimes included (see Earthship Biotincture).[citation needed] Sometimes they are also fitted with irrigation systems, and/or heat sink-systems which can respectively irrigate the plants or help to store energy from the sun and redistribute it at night (when the greenhouse starts to cool down).

    According to proponents, Appropriate Technologies can greatly reduce the labor required to prepare food, compared to traditional methods, while being much simpler and cheaper than the processing used in Western countries. This reflects E.F. Schumacher's concept of "intermediate technology," i.e. technology which is significantly more effective and expensive than traditional methods, but still an order of magnitude (10 times) cheaper than developed world technology. Key examples are:
    • the Malian peanut sheller
    • the fonio husking machine
    • the screenless hammer mill
    • the ISF corn mill
    • the ISF rice huller
    • all other types of electrical or hand-operated kitchen equipment (grinders, cutters, ...) Special multifunctional kitchen robots that are able to perform several functions (e.g. grinding, cutting, and even vacuum cleaning and polishing) are able to reduce costs even more. Examples of these devices were e.g. the (now discontinued) Piccolo household appliance from Hammelmann Werke (previously based in Bad Kissingen.) It was equipped with a flexible axis, allowing a variety of aids to be screwed on.[69][70]

    In Ghana, Zouzugu villagers use solar cookers for preparing their meals
    • Solar cookers are appropriate to some settings, depending on climate and cooking style. They are emission-less and very low-cost. Hybrid variants also exist that incorporate a second heating source such as electrical heating or wood-based.
    • Hot plates are 100% electrical, fairly low cost (around €20) and are mobile. They do however require an electrical system to be present in the area of operation.
    • Rocket stoves and certain other woodstoves (e.g. Philips Woodstove[71]) improve fuel efficiency, and reduce harmful indoor air pollution. The stoves however still make use of wood. However, briquette makers can now turn organic waste into fuel, saving money and/or collection time, and preserving forests.
    • Solar, special Einstein refrigerators and thermal mass refrigerators reduce the amount of electricity required. Also, solar and special Einstein refrigerators do not use haloalkanes (which play a key role in ozone depletion), but use heat pumps or mirrors instead. Solar refrigerators have been built for developing nations by Sopology.[72][73]
    • The pot-in-pot refrigerator is an African invention which keeps things cool without electricity. It provides a way to keep food and produce fresh for much longer than would otherwise be possible. This can be a great benefit to the families who use the device. For example, it is claimed that girls who had to regularly sell fresh produce in the market can now go to school instead, as there is less urgency to sell the produce before it loses freshness.[74]

    Information and communication technologies


    Netbooks such as the Asus Eee PC accommodate low-cost information sharing and communication
    • The OLPC XO, Simputer, Asus Eee PC, and other low cost computers are computers aimed at developing countries. Besides the low price, other characteristics include resistance to dust, reliability and use of the target language.
    • Eldis OnDisc and The Appropriate Technology Library are projects that use CDs and DVDs to give access to development information in areas without reliable and affordable internet access.
    • The wind-up radio and the computer and communication system planned by the Jhai Foundation are independent from power supply.
    • There is also GrameenPhone, which fused mobile telephony with Grameen Bank's microfinance program to give Bangladeshi villagers access to communication.
    • Mobile telephony is appropriate technology for many developing countries, as it greatly reduces the infrastructure required to achieve widespread coverage. However, mobile phone network may not always be available (it depends on the location) and may not always provide both voice and data services.
    • Loband, a website developed by Aptivate, strips all the photographic and other bandwidth-intensive content from webpages and renders them as simple text, while otherwise allowing one to browse them normally. The site greatly increasing the speed of browsing, and is appropriate for use on low bandwidth connections as generally available in much of the developing world.
    • An increasing number of activists provide free or very inexpensive web and email services using cooperative computer networks that run wireless ad hoc networks. Network service is provided by a cooperative of neighbors, each operating a router as a household appliance. These minimize wired infrastructure, and its costs and vulnerabilities. Private Internet protocol networks set up in this way can operate without the use of a commercial provider.
    • Rural electrical grids can be wired with "optical phase cable", in which one or more of the steel armor wires are replaced with steel tubes containing fiber optics.[75]
    • Satellite Internet access can provide high speed connectivity to remote locations, however these are significantly more expensive than wire-based or terrestrial wireless systems. Wimax and forms of packet radio can also be used. Depending on the speed and latency of these networks they may be capable of relaying VoIP traffic, negating the need for separate telephony services. Finally, the Internet Radio Linking Project provides potential for blending older (cheap) local radio broadcasting with the increased range of the internet.
    • satellite-based telephone systems can also be used, as either fixed installations or portable handsets and can be integrated into a PABX or local IP-based network.

    Finance

    Through financial systems envisioned especially for the poor/developed world, many companies have been able to get started with only limited capital. Often banks lend the money to people wishing to start a business (such as with microfinance). In other systems, people for a Rotating Savings and Credit Association or ROSCA to purchase costly material together (such as Tontines and Susu accounts). Organisations, communities, cities or individuals can provide loans to other communities/cities (such as with the approach followed by Kiva, World Vision Microloans MicroPlace and LETS). Finally, in certain communities (usually isolated communities such as small islands or oases) everything of value is shared. This is called gift economy.

    Determining a sustainable approach

    Features such as low cost, low usage of fossil fuels and use of locally available resources can give some advantages in terms of sustainability.[76] For that reason, these technologies are sometimes used and promoted by advocates of sustainability and alternative technology.

    Besides using natural, locally available resources[77] (e.g. wood or adobe), waste materials imported from cities using conventional (and inefficient) waste management may be gathered and re-used to build a sustainable living environment. Use of these cities' waste material allows the gathering of a huge amount of building material at a low cost. When obtained, the materials may be recycled over and over in the own city/community, using the cradle to cradle design method. Locations where waste can be found include landfills, junkyards, on water surfaces and anywhere around towns or near highways. Organic waste that can be reused to fertilise plants can be found in sewages. Also, town districts and other places (e.g. cemeteries) that are subject of undergoing renovation or removal can be used for gathering materials as stone, concrete, or potassium.

    Related social movements

    at

    Free-culture movement

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Lawrence Lessig standing at a podium with a microphone, with a laptop computer in front of him.
    Lawrence Lessig, an influential activist of the free-culture movement, in 2005.

    The free-culture movement is a social movement that promotes the freedom to distribute and modify creative works in the form of free content[1][2] or open content[3][4][5] by using the Internet and other forms of media.

    The movement objects to over-restrictive copyright laws. Many members of the movement argue that such laws hinder creativity.[6] They call this system "permission culture."[7]

    Creative Commons is an organization started by Lawrence Lessig which provides licenses that permit sharing and remixing under various conditions, and also offers an online search of various Creative Commons-licensed works.

    The free-culture movement, with its ethos of free exchange of ideas, is aligned with the free and open-source-software movement.

    Today, the term stands for many other movements, including open access (OA), the remix culture, the hacker culture, the access to knowledge movement, the Open Source Learning, the copyleft movement and the public domain movement.[citation needed]

    History

    Precursors

    In the late 1960s, Stewart Brand founded the Whole Earth Catalog and argued that technology could be liberating rather than oppressing.[8] He coined the slogan Information wants to be free in 1984[9] against limiting access to information by governmental control, preventing a public domain of information.[10]

    Background of the formation of the free-culture movement

    In 1998, the United States Congress passed the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act which President Clinton signed into law. The legislation extended copyright protections for twenty additional years, resulting in a total guaranteed copyright term of seventy years after a creator's death. The bill was heavily lobbied by music and film corporations like Disney, and dubbed as the Mickey Mouse Protection Act. Lawrence Lessig claims copyright is an obstacle to cultural production, knowledge sharing and technological innovation, and that private interests – as opposed to public good – determine law.[11] He travelled the country in 1998, giving as many as a hundred speeches a year at college campuses, and sparked the movement. It led to the foundation of the first chapter of the Students for Free Culture at Swarthmore College.

    In 1999, Lessig challenged the Bono Act, taking the case to the US Supreme Court. Despite his firm belief in victory, citing the Constitution's plain language about "limited" copyright terms, Lessig only gained two dissenting votes: from Justices Stephen Breyer and John Paul Stevens.

    Foundation of the Creative Commons

    In 2001, Lessig initiated Creative Commons, an alternative "some rights reserved" licensing system to the default "all rights reserved" copyright system. Lessig focuses on a fair balance between the interest of the public to use and participate into released creative works and the need of protection for a creator's work, which still enables a "read-write" remix culture.[6]

    The term “free culture” was originally used since 2003 during the World Summit on Information Society[12] to present the first free license for artistic creation at large, initiated by the Copyleft attitude team in France since 2001 (named free art license). It was then developed in Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture in 2004.[13]

    In August 2003 the Open Content Project, a 1998 Creative Commons precursor by David A. Wiley, announced the Creative Commons as successor project and Wiley joined as director.[14][15]

    "Free Cultural Works" Definition

    In 2005/2006 within the free-culture movement, Creative Commons has been criticized by Erik Möller[16] and Benjamin Mako Hill for lacking minimum standards for freedom.[17] Following this, the Definition of Free Cultural Works were created as collaborative work of many, including Erik Möller, Lawrence Lessig, Benjamin Mako Hill and Richard Stallman.[18] In February 2008, several Creative Commons licenses were "approved for free cultural works", namely the CC BY and CC BY-SA (later also the CC0).[19] Creative commons licenses with restrictions on commercial use or derivative works were not approved.

    In October 2014 the Open Knowledge Foundation described their definition of "open", for open content and open knowledge, as synonymous to the definition of "free" in the "Definition of Free Cultural Works", noting that both are rooted in the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition.[20] Therefore, the same three creative commons licenses are recommended for open content and free content, CC BY, CC BY-SA, and CC0.[21][22][23] The Open Knowledge foundation defined additionally three specialized licenses for data and databases, previously unavailable, the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence (PDDL), the Open Data Commons Attribution License (ODC-BY) and the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL).

    Organizations

    Creative Commons logo

    The organization commonly associated with free culture is Creative Commons (CC), founded by Lawrence Lessig. CC promotes sharing creative works and diffusing ideas to produce cultural vibrance, scientific progress and business innovation.

    Student organization FreeCulture.org, inspired by Lessig and founded 2003. The Building blocks are a symbol for reuse and remixing of creative works, used also as symbol of the Remix culture.

    QuestionCopyright.org is another organization whose stated mission is "to highlight the economic, artistic, and social harm caused by distribution monopolies, and to demonstrate how freedom-based distribution is better for artists and audiences."[24] QuestionCopyright may be best known for its association with artist Nina Paley, whose multi-award-winning feature length animation Sita Sings The Blues has been held up as an extraordinarily successful[25] example of free distribution under the aegis of the "Sita Distribution Project".[26] The web site of the organization has a number of resources, publications, and other references related to various copyright, patent, and trademark issues.

    The student organization Students for Free Culture is sometimes confusingly called "the Free Culture Movement," but that is not its official name. The organization is a subset of the greater movement. The first chapter was founded in 1998 at Swarthmore College, and by 2008, the organization had twenty-six chapters.[27]

    The free-culture movement takes the ideals of the free and open source software movement and extends them from the field of software to all cultural and creative works. Early in Creative Commons' life, Richard Stallman (the founder of the Free Software Foundation and the free software movement) supported the organization. He withdrew his support due to the introduction of several licenses including a developing nations and the sampling licenses[28] and later restored some support when Creative Commons retired those licenses.

    The free music movement, a subset of the free-culture movement, started out just as the Web rose in popularity with the Free Music Philosophy[29] by Ram Samudrala in early 1994. It was also based on the idea of free software by Richard Stallman and coincided with nascent open art and open information movements (referred to here as collectively as the "free-culture movement"). The Free Music Philosophy used a three pronged approach to voluntarily encourage the spread of unrestricted copying, based on the fact that copies of recordings and compositions could be made and distributed with complete accuracy and ease via the Internet. The subsequent free music movement was reported on by diverse media outlets including Billboard,[30] Forbes,[31] Levi's Original Music Magazine,[32] The Free Radical,[33] Wired[34][35] and The New York Times.[36] Along with the explosion of the Web driven by open source software and Linux, the rise of P2P and lossy compression, and despite the efforts of the music industry, free music became largely a reality in the early 21st century.[37] Organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Creative Commons with free information champions like Lawrence Lessig were devising numerous licenses that offered different flavors of copyright and copyleft. The question was no longer why and how music should be free, but rather how creativity would flourish while musicians developed models to generate revenue in the Internet era.[38][39][40]

    Reception

    Skepticism from the FSF

    Initially, Free Software Foundation founder Richard Stallman did not see the importance of free works beyond software.[41] For instance for manuals and books Stallman stated in the 1990s:
    As a general rule, I don't believe that it is essential for people to have permission to modify all sorts of articles and books. The issues for writings are not necessarily the same as those for software. For example, I don't think you or I are obliged to give permission to modify articles like this one, which describe our actions and our views.
    Similarly, in 1999 Stallman said that he sees "no social imperative for free hardware designs like the imperative for free software".[42] Other authors, such as Joshua Pearce, have argued that there is an ethical imperative for open-source hardware, specifically with respect to open-source-appropriate technology for sustainable development.[43]

    Later, Stallman changed his position slightly and advocated for free sharing of information in 2009.[44] But, in 2011 Stallman commented on the Megaupload founder's arrest, "I think all works meant for practical uses must be free, but that does not apply to music, since music is meant for appreciation, not for practical use."[45] In a follow up Stallman differentiated three classes: Works of practical use should be free, Works representing points of view should be shareable but not changeable and works of art or entertainment should be copyrighted (but only for 10 years).[46] In an essay in 2012 Stallman argued that video games as software should be free but not their artwork.[47] In 2015 Stallman advocated for free hardware designs.[48]

    Copyright proponents

    Vocal criticism against the free-culture movement comes from copyright proponents.

    Prominent technologist and musician Jaron Lanier discusses this perspective of Free Culture in his 2010 book You Are Not a Gadget. Lanier's concerns include the depersonalization of crowd-sourced anonymous media (such as Wikipedia) and the economic dignity of middle-class creative artists.

    Andrew Keen, a critic of Web 2.0, criticizes some of the Free Culture ideas in his book, Cult of the Amateur, describing Lessig as an "intellectual property communist."[49]

    The decline of news media industry's market share is blamed on free culture but scholars like Clay Shirky claim that the market itself, not free culture, is what's killing the journalism industry.[13]
    at

    Free software movement

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Richard Stallman circa 2002, founder of the GNU Project and the free software movement.

    The free software movement (FSM) or free / open source software movement (FOSSM) or free / libre open source software (FLOSS) is a social movement[1] with the goal of obtaining and guaranteeing certain freedoms for software users, namely the freedom to run the software, to study and change the software, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. Although drawing on traditions and philosophies among members of the 1970s hacker culture and academia, Richard Stallman formally founded the movement in 1983 by launching the GNU Project.[2] Stallman later established the Free Software Foundation in 1985 to support the movement.

    Philosophy

    The philosophy of the movement is that the use of computers should not lead to people being prevented from cooperating with each other. In practice, this means rejecting "proprietary software", which imposes such restrictions, and promoting free software,[3] with the ultimate goal of liberating everyone in cyberspace[4] – that is, every computer user. Stallman notes that this action will promote rather than hinder the progression of technology, since "it means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state of the art".[5]

    Members of the free software movement believe that all users of software should have the freedoms listed in The Free Software Definition. Many of them hold that it is immoral to prohibit or prevent people from exercising these freedoms and that these freedoms are required to create a decent society where software users can help each other, and to have control over their computers.[6]

    Some free software users and programmers do not believe that proprietary software is strictly immoral, citing an increased profitability in the business models available for proprietary software or technical features and convenience as their reasons.[7]

    "While social change may occur as an unintended by-product of technological change, advocates of new technologies often have promoted them as instruments of positive social change." This quote by San Jose State professor Joel West explains much of the philosophy, or the reason that the free source movement is alive. If it is assumed that social change is not only affected, but in some points of view, directed by the advancement of technology, is it ethical to hold these technologies from certain people? If not to make a direct change, this movement is in place to raise awareness about the effects that take place because of the physical things around us. A computer, for instance, allows us so many more freedoms than we have without a computer, but should these technological mediums be implied freedoms, or selective privileges? The debate over the morality of both sides to the free software movement is a difficult topic to compromise respective opposition.[8]

    The Free Software Foundation also believes all software needs free documentation, in particular because conscientious programmers should be able to update manuals to reflect modification that they made to the software, but deems the freedom to modify less important for other types of written works.[9] Within the free software movement, the FLOSS Manuals foundation specialises on the goal of providing such documentation. Members of the free software movement advocate that works which serve a practical purpose should also be free.[10]

    Actions

    GNU and Tux mascots around free software supporters at FISL 16

    Writing and spreading free software

    The core work of the free software movement focused on software development. The free software movement also rejects proprietary software, refusing to install software that does not give them the freedoms of free software. According to Stallman, "The only thing in the software field that is worse than an unauthorised copy of a proprietary program, is an authorised copy of the proprietary program because this does the same harm to its whole community of users, and in addition, usually the developer, the perpetrator of this evil, profits from it."[11]

    Building awareness

    Some supporters of the free software movement take up public speaking, or host a stall at software-related conferences to raise awareness of software freedom. This is seen as important since people who receive free software, but who are not aware that it is free software, will later accept a non-free replacement or will add software that is not free software.[12]

    Ethical equality

    Margaret S. Elliot, a researcher in the Institute for Software at the University of California Irvine, not only outlines many benefits that could come from a free software movement, she claims that it is inherently necessary to give every person equal opportunity to utilize the Internet, assuming that the computer is globally accessible. Since the world has become more based in the framework of technology and its advancement, creating a selective internet that allows only some to surf the web freely is nonsensical according to Elliot. If there is a desire to live in a more coexistent world that is benefited by communication and global assistance, then globally free software should be a position to strive for, according to many scholars who promote awareness about the free software movement. The ideas sparked by the GNU associates are an attempt to promote a "cooperative environment" that understands the benefits of having a local community and a global community.[13]

    Legislation

    A lot of lobbying work has been done against software patents and expansions of copyright law. Other lobbying focusses directly on use of free software by government agencies and government-funded projects.

    The Venezuelan government implemented a free software law in January 2006. Decree No. 3,390 mandated all government agencies to migrate to free software over a two-year period.[14]

    Congressmen Edgar David Villanueva and Jacques Rodrich Ackerman have been instrumental in introducing free software in Peru, with bill 1609 on "Free Software in Public Administration".[15] The incident invited the attention of Microsoft Inc, Peru, whose general manager wrote a letter to Villanueva. His response received worldwide attention and is seen as a classic piece of argumentation favouring use of free software in governments.[16]

    In the United States, there have been efforts to pass legislation at the state level encouraging use of free software by state government agencies.[17]

    Subgroups and schisms

    Like many social movements, the free software movement has ongoing internal conflict between the many FOSS organizations (FSF, OSI, Debian, Mozilla Foundation, Apache Foundation etc.) and their personalities. For instance there is disagreement about the amount of compromises and pragmatism needed versus the need for strict adherence to values.[18]

    Open source

    Although commercial free software was not uncommon at the time (see Cygnus Solutions for example), in 1998 after an announcement that Netscape would liberate their popular Web browser, a strategy session was held to develop a stronger business case for free software which would focus on technology rather than politics.[19] After this, Eric Raymond and Bruce Perens founded the Open Source Initiative (OSI) to promote the term "open source software" as an alternative term for free software. OSI wanted to address the perceived shortcomings in ambiguous "free software" term,[20][21][22] and some members of OSI in addition didn't follow the free software movement's focus on non-free software as a social and ethical problem; but instead focused on the advantages of open source as superior model for software development.[23] The latter became the view of people like Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds, while Bruce Perens argues that open source was simply meant to popularize free software under a new brand, and even called for a return to the basic ethical principles.[24]
    Some free software advocates use the term free and open source software (FOSS) as an inclusive compromise, drawing on both philosophies to bring both free software advocates and open-source software advocates together to work on projects with more cohesion. Some users believe that a compromise term encompassing both aspects is ideal, to promote both the user's freedom with the software and also to promote the perceived superiority of an open-source-development model. This eclectic view is reinforced by the fact that the overwhelming majority of OSI-approved licenses and self-avowed open-source programs are also compatible with the free software formalisms and vice versa.[10]

    While some people prefer to link the two ideas of "open-source software" and "free software" together, they offer two separate ideas and values. This ambiguity began in 1998 when people started to use the term "open-source software" rather than "free software". People in the community of free software used these separate terms as a way to differentiate what they did. Richard Stallman has called open source "a non-movement", because it "does not campaign for anything".[25] Open source addresses software being open as a practical question as opposed to an ethical dilemma. In other words, it focuses more on the development. The open-source movement ultimately determines that non-free software is not the solution of best interest but nonetheless a solution.[26][10]

    On the other hand, the free software movement views free software as a moral imperative: that proprietary software should be rejected for selfish and social reasons, and that only free software should be developed and taught to cope with the task of making computing technology beneficial to humanity. It is argued that whatever economical or technical merits free software may have, those are byproducts stemming from the rights that free software developers and users must enjoy. An example of this would be the unlikelihood of free software being designed to mistreat or spy on users.[27] At the same time, the benefits purveyed by the open-source movement have been challenged both from inside and outside the free software movement. It is unclear whether free and open-source software actually leads to more performant and less vulnerable code, with researchers Robert Glass and Benjamin Mako Hill providing statistical insight that this is usually not the case.[28][29]

    Regarding the meaning and misunderstandings of the word free, those who work within the free software camp have searched for less ambiguous terms and analogies like "free beer vs free speech" in efforts to convey the intended semantics, so that there is no confusion concerning the profitability of free software. The loan adjective libre has gained some traction in the English-speaking free software movement as unequivocally conveying the state of being in freedom that free software refers to. This is not considered schismatic; libre is seen as an alternative explanatory device. In fact, free software has always been unambiguously referred to as "libre software" (in translation) in languages where the word libre or a cognate is native. In India, where free software has gained a lot of ground,[30] the unambiguous term swatantra and its variants are widely used instead of "free".[31][32]

    The free software movement rebuts that while "free" may be prone to confuse novices because of the duplicity of meanings, at least one of the meanings is completely accurate, and that it is hard to get it wrong once the difference has been learned. It is also ironically noted that "open source" isn't exempt of poor semantics either, as a misunderstanding arise whereby people think source code disclosure is enough to meet the open-source criteria, when in fact it is not.[10]

    The switch from the free software movement to the open-source movement has had negative effects on the progression of community, according to Christopher Kelty who dedicates a scholarly chapter to the free software movements in "Theorizing Media and Practice". The open-source movement denies that selectivity and the privatization of software is unethical. Although the open-source movement is working towards the same social benefits as the free software movement, Kelty claims that by disregarding this fundamental belief of the free software advocates, one is destroying the overall argument. If it can be claimed that it is ethical to limit the internet and other technology to only users who have the means to use this software, then there is no argument against the way things are at the moment; there is no need to complain if all morality is in effect.[33]

    Although the movements have separate values and goals, people in both the open-source community and free software community collaborate when it comes to practical projects.[34] By 2005, Richard Glass considered the differences to be a "serious fracture" but "vitally important to those on both sides of the fracture" and "of little importance to anyone else studying the movement from a software engineering perspective" since they have had "little effect on the field".[35]

    Stallman and Torvalds

    The two most prominent people associated with the movement, Richard Stallman and Linus Torvalds, may be seen as representatives of the value based versus apolitical philosophies, as well as the GNU versus Linux coding styles. In the GNU/Linux naming controversy the FSF argues for the term GNU/Linux because GNU was a longstanding project to develop a free operating system, of which they assert the kernel was the last missing piece.[36]

    Criticism and controversy

    Should principles be compromised?

    Eric Raymond criticises the speed at which the free software movement is progressing, suggesting that temporary compromises should be made for long-term gains. Raymond argues that this could raise awareness of the software and thus increase the free software movement's influence on relevant standards and legislation.[37]

    Richard Stallman, on the other hand, sees the current level of compromise as a greater cause for worry.[18][38][39]

    How will programmers get paid?

    Stallman said that this is where people get the misconception of "free": there is no wrong in programmers' requesting payment for a proposed project. Restricting and controlling the user's decisions on use is the actual violation of freedom. Stallman defends that in some cases, monetary incentive is not necessary for motivation since the pleasure in expressing creativity is a reward in itself.[5] On the other hand, Stallman admits that is not easy to raise money for FOSS software projects.[40]

    "Viral" licensing

    The free software movement champions copyleft licensing schema (often pejoratively called "viral licenses"). In its strongest form, copyleft mandates that any works derived from copyleft-licensed software must also carry a copyleft license, so the license spreads from work to work like a computer virus might spread from machine to machine. These licensing terms can only be enforced through asserting copyrights.[41] Critics of copyleft licensing challenge the idea that restricting modifications is in line with the free software movement's emphasis on various "freedoms," especially when alternatives like MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses are more permissive.[42][43] Proponents enjoy the assurance that copylefted work cannot usually be incorporated into non-free software projects.[44] They emphasize that copyleft licenses may not attach for all uses and that in any case, developers can simply choose not to use copyleft-licensed software.[45][46]

    License proliferation and compatibility

    FOSS license proliferation is a serious concern in the FOSS domain due to increased complexity of license compatibility considerations which limits and complicates source code reuse between FOSS projects.[47] The OSI and the FSF maintain own lists of dozens of existing and acceptable FOSS licenses.[48] There is an agreement among most that the creation of new licenses should be minimized at all cost and these created should be made compatible with the major existing FOSS licenses. Therefore, there was a strong controversy around the update of the GPlv2 to the GPLv3 in 2007,[49][50] as the updated license is not compatible with the previous version.[51][52][53] Several projects (mostly of the open source faction[50] like the Linux kernel[54][55]) decided to not adopt the GPLv3 while the GNU projects adopted the GPLv3.
    at
    Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

    Operator (computer programming)

    From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operator_(computer_programmin...

    • Islamic State and the Levant
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام   ( ...
    • Heart Sutra
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia A reproduction of the palm -leaf manuscript in Siddham script ...
    • Slum
      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ...