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