Juan Arellano - Let's talk about free software in Latin America,
what's your opinion?
Santiago Hoerth - Well, actually, free software is extremely popular in Latin America.
It is probably the place where it is most popular, regionally.
There is, to begin with, Brazil and its government's
decision to incorporate
free software for public administration purposes,
and the support for the local development of free software.
Also, Venezuela, Ecuador, Argentina,
Costa Rica is now implementing a new system
where universities are required by law to incorporate free software.
And, in other countries, free software is also
growing noticeably, not only through those
who actually use it, who are obviously important
and who make free software possible,
but also through the support of the authorities,
in this case, the government.
The government supporting free software is
an important encouragement for those who
are trying to develop free software.
So, yes, the outlook of free software in
the Latin American region is definitely positive.
Even though some people still use privative software
on their computers, when it comes to
companies and public administration
there has been a noticeable migration towards free
software, and this also includes some universities.
What Código Sur does is to encourage
civil society organizations and social movements
to incorporate free technologies.
Not only free software, but also, once the free software
has been incorporated, move on to other types of
free technologies as well.
It is a fact that free software has become
a Latin American movement.
It is so because of the growing support that
free software has received from different areas.
So the prospects in Latin America for free software
are that free software will continue to grow,
will have an even stronger market position,
and will slowly replace privative software altogether.
What I always say is that those who are nowadays
working with privative software in most
of the information technology areas
have their days numbered.
Because in a short time from now,
no one will support privative software.
I couldn't tell you exactly when.
It is, obviously, a matter of years.
It could be 5 to 10 years.
The growth of free software is unstoppable.
JA - Free software, generally...
There are some criticism of it.
On the one hand, those who develop free software
are quite ...
how can I put it?
radical
SH- Aha.
JA - ...about its incorporation to the market.
And on the other hand, I've also read
that free software simply copies
privative software, and provides the free software
version, and that it lacks originality.
What can you tell me about all this?
SH - Well, the first thing I can tell you is that
no, that free software is original to
a very large extent.
And I'm going to use Firefox as an example,
a web browser of the Mozila Foundation,
that is free software.
In the struggle that took place between
the browsers in the world,
Internet Explorer had 98% of the market share
two years ago. Nowadays it is starting to fall,
it already lost 40% of the market share.
It approximately has 60% of the market share now.
When Firefox was launched, one of the
improvements, related to Internet Explorer,
was that, I don't know if you remember,
a few years ago with Internet Explorer 5 and 6
when you wanted to open a new window,
you had to literally open a new window,
and if you wanted to use several pages
at the same time, we had to open 30 windows
in our operating system, right?
Different windows. Each one in a different
Internet Explorer window.
Firefox said, "I think it'll be a good idea to
solve this with a few tabs".
And it started the idea of tabs for the browsing
of different web pages.
So one could have 30 tabs open
in only one Firefox window.
Automatically, Internet Explorer, on its 7th version,
if I'm not mistaken, what was its next step?
Adding tabs to its browser, wasn't it?
Because the way Firefox was working
was obviously more functional.
80% of the Internet, approximately, it is not an
exact figure, but it is around that number,
works through free software.
Apache is the number one web server.
Most of the e-mail addresses are free software.
And regarding what you said about the
'copying of the privative software', I think
it is not imitation what we could find but attention
to the needs of all those who use the product, right?
For example, Photoshop is not very similar to
GIMP, regarding presentation and the way some
things are done. But it allows you to do--
I mean, the results are practically the same.
The same happens with Inkscape and Illustrator
and other Adobe programs.
There are a lot of programs that are
characteristic of a certaing area, for example
video or audio, and therefore a large
number of users would be used to a specific software.
So the aim would be to keep the learning process
very close to what people already know,
so as not to drive them crazy and to increase the
potential penetration rates of the free software
on users of privative platforms.
So, I think it is not really 'copying',
but rather some projects trying to achieve a
certain level of comparison so new users
would not have any problems when learning
how to use the tools.
But, actually, free software is much more
innovative than privative software.
Many of the numerous developments that are taking
place are not even present in privative software.
JA- Ah, OK.
And I also mentioned the activists of
free software being referred to as "radical".
SH- Right, yes, yes.
Well, radicalization, I think, has to do with
being aware of what is happening with
companies and people who develop privative software.
What is it that happens when one uses
privative software?
I mean, it is not a simple matter.
On the contrary, one does not have any
control over what one is doing.
So the purpose of radicalization is to
make people understand the reasons
when we talk about technology, we
necessarily have to talk about freedom.
And that freedom is translated in the
possibilities and freedoms that
the software I'm using provides me with.
If a software does not let me see the source code
there is no way to audit it and know
exactly what that source code does.
There's a thing that happens--
I don't know if at some point, to those who
use Windows, for example, when trying
to install a program they get a notification
that says: "This software in not validated by
Microsoft. Do you still want to install it?"
JA- Aha.
SH- If us, as developers, want Microsoft to
validate one of our softwares,
what we need to do is send it to them,
send the source code for them to analyse it,
and the application that they approve is
returned to us as a compilation.
What does a "compilation" mean?
That we can no longer see how that
software is done, because we can no longer
have access to the code. It is a compilation,
it is closed, a package, we can no longer open it.
And that is what they allow you to introduce,
as a validated product, into their system.
JA- Which could be completely different
from the one that you sent.
SH - And you don't know what it is that
they changed, exactly.
You don't know what they they did
to it, because they send it as a compilation.
So, from this point of view, what does
it really mean to de radical?
Is being radical making people aware of how much
proprietary software is damaging society?
Or are they people that--
leaving aside any internal problems among
free software supporters, and that some people
can be more radical or more closed-minded.
I mean, generally, the free software movement's
main purpose is for people to see what really
happens when they use privative software
and what are the advantages and possibilities
of using free software.
And I'm not simply referring to technology, but
to society as a whole. With either one of them.
Socially, when we use privative software, we
depend on the person or the company
that develops it. We will never be free
from the company that develops a
certain software which we can't access.
Free software, on the other hand, can be
developed through a specific company
and if in the future, for whatever reason, you don't
want to continue working with that company,
you can hire a different one to continue
developing it, because the source code
would be available to you.
So, radicalization has to do with that.
In some places where human rights are
being violated, there are people who are
extremelly radical exactly because of that,
because they are defending human life.
We can translate this into the position that
the activists of free software have.
JA- Aha, OK. Than you Santiago.
SH - Pura vida