Does free software not talk business?
What kind of software can be called free software, how much room is there for its development in China, and can it become an opportunity for the rapid growth of China's software industry? At the free software forum held on June 24 by the “China Computer Federation Youth Forum (YOCSEF),” the topics everyone was most interested in were the future business model and promotion model of free software, and what companies engaged in free software development and services could rely on to make profits. Dr. Gong Min said that when the founders of free software created free software, they did not consider money at all, so the promotion model of free software must be a kind of unorganized free development.
No matter what their original intention was in creating free software, in any case free software has already “spread of its own accord,” and has also been widely applied. So should free software end up in businessmen’s pockets, or should it truly be contributed to the public? A passage by Dr. Li Mingshu, the new YOCSEF chairman and deputy director of the Institute of Software of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, on free software and the communist movement pushed the discussion to a climax. Here, we publish the views of the experts who attended, for our readers’ enjoyment.
The definition of “free” and “non-free”
Gao Wen:
As for free software, I think first of all it is a new industrial model, because software includes commercial copy software and shareware. Among this copied software, there is some utility software with restricted functions. Such software can be freely distributed, but generally becomes invalid automatically after 60 days. And shareware, of course, can also be freely distributed at first, but there are requirements in the copyright license; once a usage license is signed, an individual can of course use it, but if it is for commercial operation, payment must be made. This belongs to one kind of “Shareware.” In addition, there is some free executable-code software that can be used and distributed free of charge, but the source code cannot be shared. There is also some non-commercial software, such as that used for education and scientific research, which can also be freely obtained and distributed, but it is mainly aimed at non-profit institutions; if a group or company uses it, it must also be purchased, and this is also true of some free library software. In my understanding, free software generally refers to open-source software. Open source now has all kinds of different licenses, such as “BSD” style, “Apache” style, and the current “Linux” style. These different styles impose stronger or weaker constraints on users, but no matter which one it is, one common feature is that the program source code is open.
Hong Feng:
Free software has four layers of meaning: first, for the user, there is the freedom to run the program; second, users must be allowed to obtain the source code and modify the program according to their own needs; third, it must be permitted to use this free software to help the people around them; fourth, there is the freedom to form communities based on this software, including by using the source program or modified programs. As long as it conforms to these four meanings, we can call it free software.
Free software talks interests
Gao Wen:
I think software is a product of human culture. For example, with the written characters we use, no one would say that writing one Chinese character entitles them to so much money, but if you write a beautiful article or publish a book, your article or book can be sold for money. Software is the same, especially platform software such as operating systems and tools. Once it has developed to a certain extent, it becomes some of the basic building blocks of human culture, and these building blocks ought to be open and shared by everyone. But for higher-level things created on top of this platform, they become works.
From the perspective of business models, I think the whole open source code approach is also a business model, though of course some may disagree with me. I think today’s software business models can be viewed from two angles. One is the typical model like Microsoft’s, conducting business by selling commercial copies; while free software may actually have two profit-making methods: direct profit and indirect profit. Direct profit is actually made through after-sales service, publishing and distributing teaching materials, and providing training. Indirect profit may be even more important: because the source code is opened and widely recognized and spread by society, the author’s fame rises sharply, thus giving them very high value. But it must be admitted that quite a number of people are actually volunteers, what you might call “enthusiast”-level software hobbyists. These people have relatively stable sources of income and in their spare time put their works on the Internet, allowing their creative urge to be fully exercised. At present there are still quite a number of such people.
Hong Feng:
How should we view the relationship between the interests of free software and commerce? Free software obviously does not reject commercial operation; it respects commercial operation, on the condition that the commercial operation is free, namely the four levels I mentioned above. If a commercial company can provide users with this kind of freedom, free software will succeed in the market. Many American enterprises have obtained recognition on the Nasdaq market of Wall Street through the free software model. The Free Software Foundation and free software communities all hope such companies will succeed, as long as they remember to continue providing users with such freedom in the future. Although there are still not many domestic free software companies, as long as everyone can clearly understand this startup model, corresponding companies will become more and more numerous.
Free software lowers the transaction costs of society as a whole, so it itself contains tremendous social wealth. This requires every company in society to fully understand the meaning of the freedom contained in software, and to obey the rules of the GPL game, turning this “freedom” into even greater social wealth.
Gong Min:
Can free software talk about interests, and is exploring the profit space of free software beneficial to the development of free software? On this question, the founder of free software had a saying. He said the “Free” in “Free Software” should not be understood as free of charge, but rather emphasizes its “freedom,” and money should not be too entangled in this matter. But at the same time he said, I did not forbid you to make money, because free software itself can be distributed, and in the process of distribution, if you want to charge money I do not forbid it, and if you do not charge money I have no objection. But there is one rule you must understand: the recipient of your distribution enjoys the same rights as you. You can sell the software to Zhang San, and Zhang San likewise has the right to sell it to Li Si. This is the so-called GPL rule of free software.
Now let us look again at how free software developed from nothing to what it is today. I cannot name a single profitable company; from compilers to kernels, not one item was done by a profit-making institution. So I think that, in a certain sense, the concept of free software has no direct relationship with profit. As for whether there is room for profit, I do not think this is a question scientists and software developers should consider. If you want to make money, there are plenty of ways; there is no need to insist on making money from other people’s work. That is my personal view.
Sun Yufang:
Nowadays when people talk about software they often mention “copying.” I think that buying a piece of software does not mean you have bought the entire software, only its right of use. On this point, commercial users should be given a good explanation. For businesses, making free software can bring benefits through providing knowledge services. Of course, at present there are still some mistaken ideas in China, such as the belief that services should not cost money, and that software itself is a kind of service, so there may be obstacles in this respect in the future. But before attitudes are completely changed, we still need to continue supporting services, otherwise people will not dare use the software you develop. I think the areas that can truly gain benefits should be high-end servers and embedded systems, because embedded systems are very complex, such as mobile communications, network infrastructure, information appliances, and now WAP and so on.
In the future we do have a positioning, which is to develop high-end applications and provide users with a real choice. Of course this does not mean we must keep making money. We hope to integrate our work into free software or put it into the shareware alliance, and at the same time I hope to manage it well, so that after everyone uses it, they can acknowledge our work. I hope these software projects can be well organized and managed so they can truly develop.
Yang Zhenkun:
Free software products are promoted in society by companies, but I have never understood how free software companies make money. The profits from operating systems are actually relatively low, and free software would be even lower. Also, I used to regard free software as free operating systems, with very high technical content, so it requires close cooperation. For example, Windows 2000 test source code, while Linux was put together rather loosely by many people. How does it achieve rigorous coordination?
Gong Min:
I think free software companies probably cannot make money. It is said that worldwide, except for one company that made a little money, the others basically do not make money. But if people praise you, you might get some money from the capital market. Perhaps you can also make money by developing application systems and providing services.
Free software and “communism”
Li Mingshu:
I have this idea: I often compare free software with the communist movement. I think the free software movement is a little like the communist movement in the West. It was once very popular to a certain extent, but it may also enter a period of decline. But I believe in communism, and I think the communist ideal is absolutely good, so from this I judge that the free software movement will also enter a downturn for a time. I have several reasons for this. First, what really makes money is not free software itself, but companies like Unix, which have made a lot of money under the banner of free software. Second, the GPL rules: I very much agree with Mr. Hong Feng’s view—Unix is not at all a complete representative of free software, but I feel that in the eyes of many people now, GPL equals Unix, and this is one sign of a downturn. Third is the issue of commercialization. The current development of the free software movement has a certain conflict with the values of commercial society. Lenin once made a judgment about socialism: socialism would first achieve victory in part of the countries. And China is a country that achieved a breakthrough first. This is my basic conclusion.
I have some views about China’s situation that I would like to discuss with everyone. First, I believe that none of those present here today are so poor they cannot keep the pot boiling; if your family were waiting for rice to cook, I believe none of you would be attending this forum. Second, economic conditions have shaped the development of free software.
I think the support point of free software is belief. Like communism, in the end it can only truly develop by relying on belief. The analogy may not be entirely appropriate, but discussing it this way may be more thought-provoking.
Gao Wen:
Communism is actually the idealized realm proposed by Marx that we ought to pursue. In that society there are neither classes nor gaps between rich and poor; everyone is completely equal, and distribution is according to need. My view is that free software is a kind of communist society for software: just as when material goods are extremely abundant, everyone takes whatever they want, and then uses it to build the applications they want to make. But why has China’s software development not advanced? Aside from all kinds of management-related reasons, the most important thing is that we have lacked earlier accumulation, which makes it very hard for us to do deep work. But free software changes the whole rules of the game. If everything is open, everyone stands on the same starting line, then everyone can compete again from the beginning. This is of relatively great benefit to China. In addition, for the state, enterprises, or research units, the initial investment may be very large. We need to use a lot of manpower to do the foundational work well. With free software, most of this problem can be solved. For those developers with software talent, I think there will be a bigger stage and greater room for them to fully display their abilities.
Who will drive free software
Gao Wen:
The advantage of free software is that the intelligence of developers can be pooled, and this pooling and sharing of intelligence has grown together with the Internet. Free software is software of genius, a paradise of idealism. But its drawback is that the cost of management is relatively high, because no organization takes full responsibility for it, and providers of open source code assume no responsibility at all.
Free software will certainly lead to changes in the entire structure of the software industry. In today’s software industry it is easy for giant companies like Microsoft to appear, but if things shift toward free software, such giant companies would actually find it hard to exist. The free software industry does not rely on huge organizations backed by considerable funds to operate the market; instead it is completely decentralized, relying on education and training to support development. Therefore free software is better able to bring out the creativity of young individuals and small groups. For example, if someone wants to be hired by Microsoft, they must first pass all kinds of tests Microsoft gives them, including ability, quality, programming level, and so on. But after being hired, that does not necessarily mean they will produce very good software. Under the free software model, however, as long as they write a piece of software and throw it onto the Internet, no one will test them at all. If the software is really useful, it will spread widely, and at the same time the person who wrote it will also gain recognition. Such an open environment will allow some genuine software experts to gather together and tackle difficult problems, and will make the software culture of society as a whole advance rapidly. In this game, the real protagonists should be young students, not highly experienced software engineers in big enterprises.
The Gongchuang Software Alliance will play an organizing role: whoever makes the best software, the organization will provide some funding. This is most beneficial to students in universities. Young people should be encouraged to innovate, so as to align with the broader trend of open source.
Li Anyu:
As far as I know, Microsoft’s development costs for all its developers account for only 15% of its total budget, while 85% is spent on supporting service facilities. The Gongchuang Software Alliance is meant to let everyone stand on the shoulders of giants. But how to raise the software application level of the entire country—in this most expensive part, there is actually still not much of a solution. How to promote it nationwide, and how different parties should coordinate with each other, remains a big problem. In the previous 10 years, companies like Microsoft and Novell produced many products, and thus earned a lot of money; now they can use that money on sales and services. We are a developing country. Our software products have not yet earned money, and to rely on services to accumulate capital right from the beginning is not very realistic for newly established companies.
Hong Feng:
If services are to be treated as an industry, then a system should be established. And to establish a system requires transaction costs. The biggest challenge for free software to operate in China lies in whether such a system can be established. When Microsoft spends most of its budget on market promotion, what they are actually handling is the relationship among IQ, EQ, and social quotient. For a person, the ratio of these three should be: IQ 5%, EQ 10%, and the remaining 85% should be whether that person can establish an interface with society; the ability to communicate with society is very important. Enterprises are the same. But with free software and the Internet, the cost of this part—the so-called transaction cost—is greatly reduced.
Gong Min:
I believe that up to now, the main channel by which free software has spread is that it spreads of its own accord; it is absolutely not promoted by businessmen. Its future development is also unlikely to break away too much from this pattern.
Sun Yufang:
Free software is not developed for freedom’s sake; in the end its commercial application value must be realized. That is the real fundamental purpose of free software, so users’ problems absolutely must be solved. Commercial application is definitely the key factor in driving a software product’s development.
Wang Yangsheng:
I have two questions. First, is the “Red Flag Linux” product free software or commercial software? If it is free software, what does the company rely on to maintain its operations? If it is commercial software, then how is the software copyright handled? Second, under China’s current environment, should commercial software be promoted, or should free software be promoted? In the process of developing free software, developers need guarantees for their livelihood, and in China at present, there are not many cases where people support themselves while independently developing products.
Sun Yufang:
This is a very sensitive issue, namely the issue of the business model. On this issue, I should say I still do not have a final conclusion. As a company, making money is part of its corporate culture. Even in research institutes or universities, producing achievements also requires money. But for a company, legally striving for greater turnover and profit is success.
Hong Feng:
In fact everyone encounters such issues in China; survival is the first thing that must be solved. But from another angle, a person who writes free software can itself gain a great deal of enjoyment from it, and for developers that is also a kind of return. You can rely on it to accumulate social reputation. From the perspective of Western economics, this kind of reputation is intangible assets, and intangible assets can in certain circumstances be transformed into wealth.
Chen Rong:
Our company is making an operating system, and I hope to talk about one issue: respect for knowledge. As for development, I think free software is very useful for software education. Looking at it from another side, at the present stage free software may be beneficial to China’s software development, and we can promote this matter; this is a matter of winning the country. But governing the country afterward depends on how you want to govern it—you cannot go too far in what you say, kill off all the rich people, and then when you turn back around and want to find capitalists again, none can be found!
Cai Jianjun:
What I want to say is, do not stir up the state into putting all its money into free software, because our country has been deceived too many times on many key investment issues. As for free software, I actually feel that for things like OS, it is enough for a small number of groups to do them, and application software can also borrow the ideas of free software to develop a bit better. For example, a lot of software could adopt something like the concept of freelance contributors, with a small number of people making a particular specialized piece of software, and then some organization able to evaluate that software. When companies are doing large-scale applications, they can take the source code and integrate it, thus reducing society’s waste in software.
Is free software secure
Gao Wen:
One issue with free software is the issue of responsibility, which we can also understand as the credibility of the organization. When we buy Microsoft software, to a large extent it is because we have a certain degree of trust in that company; if problems occur, the company must use its reputation to take responsibility for the software. But open source is different: if problems occur, the provider of the open source code assumes no responsibility. This may be one weakness of open source.
Are operating systems based on free software secure? I think they are more secure. Why are our current operating systems insecure? Is it because passwords have been cracked? No. The main reason is some imperfect areas left behind by the designers when developing the system, and when systems are breached, it is often precisely at these imperfect points. No system can be extremely perfect the moment it is first made. But for hackers attacking systems, whether your system is public or not, they have ways to analyze it and try to get in. In a closed system, only the people who wrote the system can look at it and discover vulnerabilities, which is very limiting. Open source has one advantage: once software is put on the Internet, there may be thousands upon thousands of engineers looking at it. Once a problem is found, everyone will think of ways to solve it. The more people look at it, the more chances there are to discover problems, and the greater the possibility of patching the vulnerabilities, making it harder for others to attack.
Hong Feng:
I think first of all that security is not an absolute concept; there is nothing absolutely secure in the world. When the United States launches a space shuttle, so many scientists work together on it, and everyone thinks there definitely will not be any problem, yet one year seven astronauts lost their lives because of it. From this perspective, free software has a great advantage over commercial software, because it provides source code.
Gong Min:
We often hear that Unix has been breached, BSD has been breached, and so on, but have you ever heard that Linux has reserved back doors? It seems not. These are two problems of different nature. One is problems caused by oversight in work or programming errors that were not anticipated; the other is when some manufacturers leave some back doors for certain purposes.
The innovation model of free software has in fact already changed. From nothing to something, it was basically not planned by any one person or organization. Regarding the question of security, I suggest that China make extensive use of free software to raise the security of information infrastructure. Free software offers better security than commercial software. No organization is better than having organization; everyone shares a common ideal. In addition, the source code is open, so if you wish to add some security facilities of your own into it, that is also very easy.
Sun Yufang:
Speaking of security, I think one aspect is to consider commercial users, and another is to consider especially confidential users, that is, the military, or particularly sensitive government departments. People often think that if the source code is public, then you can add security things to it, but at the same time hackers or others can also add such things; this is what is meant by when virtue rises a foot, vice rises ten. My view is that open source will not be more insecure than the present situation where source code is not open, but you must do more rigorous work.
Gao Wen, head of the National 863 Intelligent Computer Expert Group, chairman of the Gongchuang Software Alliance
Hong Feng, CEO of Wuhan Rongshi Data Communication Co., Ltd.
Gong Min, research scientist at Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Sun Yufang, deputy director and researcher, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Li Mingshu, deputy director and researcher, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Yang Zhenkun, professor, Institute of Computer Research, Peking University
Li Anyu, director, E-Commerce Technology Research Center, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Wang Yangsheng, researcher, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Chen Rong, general manager, Beijing Ketai Century Technology Co., Ltd.
Cai Jianjun, general manager, Beijing Disaipu Software Company
(Note: compiled from recordings by our reporters Cheng Hong and Yin Mingfang, not confirmed by the persons themselves)
Excerpted from：http://www.oso.com.cn
What kind of software can be called free software, how much room is there for its development in China, and can it become an opportunity for the rapid growth of China's software industry? At the free software forum held on June 24 by the “China Computer Federation Youth Forum (YOCSEF),” the topics everyone was most interested in were the future business model and promotion model of free software, and what companies engaged in free software development and services could rely on to make profits. Dr. Gong Min said that when the founders of free software created free software, they did not consider money at all, so the promotion model of free software must be a kind of unorganized free development.
No matter what their original intention was in creating free software, in any case free software has already “spread of its own accord,” and has also been widely applied. So should free software end up in businessmen’s pockets, or should it truly be contributed to the public? A passage by Dr. Li Mingshu, the new YOCSEF chairman and deputy director of the Institute of Software of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, on free software and the communist movement pushed the discussion to a climax. Here, we publish the views of the experts who attended, for our readers’ enjoyment.
The definition of “free” and “non-free”
Gao Wen:
As for free software, I think first of all it is a new industrial model, because software includes commercial copy software and shareware. Among this copied software, there is some utility software with restricted functions. Such software can be freely distributed, but generally becomes invalid automatically after 60 days. And shareware, of course, can also be freely distributed at first, but there are requirements in the copyright license; once a usage license is signed, an individual can of course use it, but if it is for commercial operation, payment must be made. This belongs to one kind of “Shareware.” In addition, there is some free executable-code software that can be used and distributed free of charge, but the source code cannot be shared. There is also some non-commercial software, such as that used for education and scientific research, which can also be freely obtained and distributed, but it is mainly aimed at non-profit institutions; if a group or company uses it, it must also be purchased, and this is also true of some free library software. In my understanding, free software generally refers to open-source software. Open source now has all kinds of different licenses, such as “BSD” style, “Apache” style, and the current “Linux” style. These different styles impose stronger or weaker constraints on users, but no matter which one it is, one common feature is that the program source code is open.
Hong Feng:
Free software has four layers of meaning: first, for the user, there is the freedom to run the program; second, users must be allowed to obtain the source code and modify the program according to their own needs; third, it must be permitted to use this free software to help the people around them; fourth, there is the freedom to form communities based on this software, including by using the source program or modified programs. As long as it conforms to these four meanings, we can call it free software.
Free software talks interests
Gao Wen:
I think software is a product of human culture. For example, with the written characters we use, no one would say that writing one Chinese character entitles them to so much money, but if you write a beautiful article or publish a book, your article or book can be sold for money. Software is the same, especially platform software such as operating systems and tools. Once it has developed to a certain extent, it becomes some of the basic building blocks of human culture, and these building blocks ought to be open and shared by everyone. But for higher-level things created on top of this platform, they become works.
From the perspective of business models, I think the whole open source code approach is also a business model, though of course some may disagree with me. I think today’s software business models can be viewed from two angles. One is the typical model like Microsoft’s, conducting business by selling commercial copies; while free software may actually have two profit-making methods: direct profit and indirect profit. Direct profit is actually made through after-sales service, publishing and distributing teaching materials, and providing training. Indirect profit may be even more important: because the source code is opened and widely recognized and spread by society, the author’s fame rises sharply, thus giving them very high value. But it must be admitted that quite a number of people are actually volunteers, what you might call “enthusiast”-level software hobbyists. These people have relatively stable sources of income and in their spare time put their works on the Internet, allowing their creative urge to be fully exercised. At present there are still quite a number of such people.
Hong Feng:
How should we view the relationship between the interests of free software and commerce? Free software obviously does not reject commercial operation; it respects commercial operation, on the condition that the commercial operation is free, namely the four levels I mentioned above. If a commercial company can provide users with this kind of freedom, free software will succeed in the market. Many American enterprises have obtained recognition on the Nasdaq market of Wall Street through the free software model. The Free Software Foundation and free software communities all hope such companies will succeed, as long as they remember to continue providing users with such freedom in the future. Although there are still not many domestic free software companies, as long as everyone can clearly understand this startup model, corresponding companies will become more and more numerous.
Free software lowers the transaction costs of society as a whole, so it itself contains tremendous social wealth. This requires every company in society to fully understand the meaning of the freedom contained in software, and to obey the rules of the GPL game, turning this “freedom” into even greater social wealth.
Gong Min:
Can free software talk about interests, and is exploring the profit space of free software beneficial to the development of free software? On this question, the founder of free software had a saying. He said the “Free” in “Free Software” should not be understood as free of charge, but rather emphasizes its “freedom,” and money should not be too entangled in this matter. But at the same time he said, I did not forbid you to make money, because free software itself can be distributed, and in the process of distribution, if you want to charge money I do not forbid it, and if you do not charge money I have no objection. But there is one rule you must understand: the recipient of your distribution enjoys the same rights as you. You can sell the software to Zhang San, and Zhang San likewise has the right to sell it to Li Si. This is the so-called GPL rule of free software.
Now let us look again at how free software developed from nothing to what it is today. I cannot name a single profitable company; from compilers to kernels, not one item was done by a profit-making institution. So I think that, in a certain sense, the concept of free software has no direct relationship with profit. As for whether there is room for profit, I do not think this is a question scientists and software developers should consider. If you want to make money, there are plenty of ways; there is no need to insist on making money from other people’s work. That is my personal view.
Sun Yufang:
Nowadays when people talk about software they often mention “copying.” I think that buying a piece of software does not mean you have bought the entire software, only its right of use. On this point, commercial users should be given a good explanation. For businesses, making free software can bring benefits through providing knowledge services. Of course, at present there are still some mistaken ideas in China, such as the belief that services should not cost money, and that software itself is a kind of service, so there may be obstacles in this respect in the future. But before attitudes are completely changed, we still need to continue supporting services, otherwise people will not dare use the software you develop. I think the areas that can truly gain benefits should be high-end servers and embedded systems, because embedded systems are very complex, such as mobile communications, network infrastructure, information appliances, and now WAP and so on.
In the future we do have a positioning, which is to develop high-end applications and provide users with a real choice. Of course this does not mean we must keep making money. We hope to integrate our work into free software or put it into the shareware alliance, and at the same time I hope to manage it well, so that after everyone uses it, they can acknowledge our work. I hope these software projects can be well organized and managed so they can truly develop.
Yang Zhenkun:
Free software products are promoted in society by companies, but I have never understood how free software companies make money. The profits from operating systems are actually relatively low, and free software would be even lower. Also, I used to regard free software as free operating systems, with very high technical content, so it requires close cooperation. For example, Windows 2000 test source code, while Linux was put together rather loosely by many people. How does it achieve rigorous coordination?
Gong Min:
I think free software companies probably cannot make money. It is said that worldwide, except for one company that made a little money, the others basically do not make money. But if people praise you, you might get some money from the capital market. Perhaps you can also make money by developing application systems and providing services.
Free software and “communism”
Li Mingshu:
I have this idea: I often compare free software with the communist movement. I think the free software movement is a little like the communist movement in the West. It was once very popular to a certain extent, but it may also enter a period of decline. But I believe in communism, and I think the communist ideal is absolutely good, so from this I judge that the free software movement will also enter a downturn for a time. I have several reasons for this. First, what really makes money is not free software itself, but companies like Unix, which have made a lot of money under the banner of free software. Second, the GPL rules: I very much agree with Mr. Hong Feng’s view—Unix is not at all a complete representative of free software, but I feel that in the eyes of many people now, GPL equals Unix, and this is one sign of a downturn. Third is the issue of commercialization. The current development of the free software movement has a certain conflict with the values of commercial society. Lenin once made a judgment about socialism: socialism would first achieve victory in part of the countries. And China is a country that achieved a breakthrough first. This is my basic conclusion.
I have some views about China’s situation that I would like to discuss with everyone. First, I believe that none of those present here today are so poor they cannot keep the pot boiling; if your family were waiting for rice to cook, I believe none of you would be attending this forum. Second, economic conditions have shaped the development of free software.
I think the support point of free software is belief. Like communism, in the end it can only truly develop by relying on belief. The analogy may not be entirely appropriate, but discussing it this way may be more thought-provoking.
Gao Wen:
Communism is actually the idealized realm proposed by Marx that we ought to pursue. In that society there are neither classes nor gaps between rich and poor; everyone is completely equal, and distribution is according to need. My view is that free software is a kind of communist society for software: just as when material goods are extremely abundant, everyone takes whatever they want, and then uses it to build the applications they want to make. But why has China’s software development not advanced? Aside from all kinds of management-related reasons, the most important thing is that we have lacked earlier accumulation, which makes it very hard for us to do deep work. But free software changes the whole rules of the game. If everything is open, everyone stands on the same starting line, then everyone can compete again from the beginning. This is of relatively great benefit to China. In addition, for the state, enterprises, or research units, the initial investment may be very large. We need to use a lot of manpower to do the foundational work well. With free software, most of this problem can be solved. For those developers with software talent, I think there will be a bigger stage and greater room for them to fully display their abilities.
Who will drive free software
Gao Wen:
The advantage of free software is that the intelligence of developers can be pooled, and this pooling and sharing of intelligence has grown together with the Internet. Free software is software of genius, a paradise of idealism. But its drawback is that the cost of management is relatively high, because no organization takes full responsibility for it, and providers of open source code assume no responsibility at all.
Free software will certainly lead to changes in the entire structure of the software industry. In today’s software industry it is easy for giant companies like Microsoft to appear, but if things shift toward free software, such giant companies would actually find it hard to exist. The free software industry does not rely on huge organizations backed by considerable funds to operate the market; instead it is completely decentralized, relying on education and training to support development. Therefore free software is better able to bring out the creativity of young individuals and small groups. For example, if someone wants to be hired by Microsoft, they must first pass all kinds of tests Microsoft gives them, including ability, quality, programming level, and so on. But after being hired, that does not necessarily mean they will produce very good software. Under the free software model, however, as long as they write a piece of software and throw it onto the Internet, no one will test them at all. If the software is really useful, it will spread widely, and at the same time the person who wrote it will also gain recognition. Such an open environment will allow some genuine software experts to gather together and tackle difficult problems, and will make the software culture of society as a whole advance rapidly. In this game, the real protagonists should be young students, not highly experienced software engineers in big enterprises.
The Gongchuang Software Alliance will play an organizing role: whoever makes the best software, the organization will provide some funding. This is most beneficial to students in universities. Young people should be encouraged to innovate, so as to align with the broader trend of open source.
Li Anyu:
As far as I know, Microsoft’s development costs for all its developers account for only 15% of its total budget, while 85% is spent on supporting service facilities. The Gongchuang Software Alliance is meant to let everyone stand on the shoulders of giants. But how to raise the software application level of the entire country—in this most expensive part, there is actually still not much of a solution. How to promote it nationwide, and how different parties should coordinate with each other, remains a big problem. In the previous 10 years, companies like Microsoft and Novell produced many products, and thus earned a lot of money; now they can use that money on sales and services. We are a developing country. Our software products have not yet earned money, and to rely on services to accumulate capital right from the beginning is not very realistic for newly established companies.
Hong Feng:
If services are to be treated as an industry, then a system should be established. And to establish a system requires transaction costs. The biggest challenge for free software to operate in China lies in whether such a system can be established. When Microsoft spends most of its budget on market promotion, what they are actually handling is the relationship among IQ, EQ, and social quotient. For a person, the ratio of these three should be: IQ 5%, EQ 10%, and the remaining 85% should be whether that person can establish an interface with society; the ability to communicate with society is very important. Enterprises are the same. But with free software and the Internet, the cost of this part—the so-called transaction cost—is greatly reduced.
Gong Min:
I believe that up to now, the main channel by which free software has spread is that it spreads of its own accord; it is absolutely not promoted by businessmen. Its future development is also unlikely to break away too much from this pattern.
Sun Yufang:
Free software is not developed for freedom’s sake; in the end its commercial application value must be realized. That is the real fundamental purpose of free software, so users’ problems absolutely must be solved. Commercial application is definitely the key factor in driving a software product’s development.
Wang Yangsheng:
I have two questions. First, is the “Red Flag Linux” product free software or commercial software? If it is free software, what does the company rely on to maintain its operations? If it is commercial software, then how is the software copyright handled? Second, under China’s current environment, should commercial software be promoted, or should free software be promoted? In the process of developing free software, developers need guarantees for their livelihood, and in China at present, there are not many cases where people support themselves while independently developing products.
Sun Yufang:
This is a very sensitive issue, namely the issue of the business model. On this issue, I should say I still do not have a final conclusion. As a company, making money is part of its corporate culture. Even in research institutes or universities, producing achievements also requires money. But for a company, legally striving for greater turnover and profit is success.
Hong Feng:
In fact everyone encounters such issues in China; survival is the first thing that must be solved. But from another angle, a person who writes free software can itself gain a great deal of enjoyment from it, and for developers that is also a kind of return. You can rely on it to accumulate social reputation. From the perspective of Western economics, this kind of reputation is intangible assets, and intangible assets can in certain circumstances be transformed into wealth.
Chen Rong:
Our company is making an operating system, and I hope to talk about one issue: respect for knowledge. As for development, I think free software is very useful for software education. Looking at it from another side, at the present stage free software may be beneficial to China’s software development, and we can promote this matter; this is a matter of winning the country. But governing the country afterward depends on how you want to govern it—you cannot go too far in what you say, kill off all the rich people, and then when you turn back around and want to find capitalists again, none can be found!
Cai Jianjun:
What I want to say is, do not stir up the state into putting all its money into free software, because our country has been deceived too many times on many key investment issues. As for free software, I actually feel that for things like OS, it is enough for a small number of groups to do them, and application software can also borrow the ideas of free software to develop a bit better. For example, a lot of software could adopt something like the concept of freelance contributors, with a small number of people making a particular specialized piece of software, and then some organization able to evaluate that software. When companies are doing large-scale applications, they can take the source code and integrate it, thus reducing society’s waste in software.
Is free software secure
Gao Wen:
One issue with free software is the issue of responsibility, which we can also understand as the credibility of the organization. When we buy Microsoft software, to a large extent it is because we have a certain degree of trust in that company; if problems occur, the company must use its reputation to take responsibility for the software. But open source is different: if problems occur, the provider of the open source code assumes no responsibility. This may be one weakness of open source.
Are operating systems based on free software secure? I think they are more secure. Why are our current operating systems insecure? Is it because passwords have been cracked? No. The main reason is some imperfect areas left behind by the designers when developing the system, and when systems are breached, it is often precisely at these imperfect points. No system can be extremely perfect the moment it is first made. But for hackers attacking systems, whether your system is public or not, they have ways to analyze it and try to get in. In a closed system, only the people who wrote the system can look at it and discover vulnerabilities, which is very limiting. Open source has one advantage: once software is put on the Internet, there may be thousands upon thousands of engineers looking at it. Once a problem is found, everyone will think of ways to solve it. The more people look at it, the more chances there are to discover problems, and the greater the possibility of patching the vulnerabilities, making it harder for others to attack.
Hong Feng:
I think first of all that security is not an absolute concept; there is nothing absolutely secure in the world. When the United States launches a space shuttle, so many scientists work together on it, and everyone thinks there definitely will not be any problem, yet one year seven astronauts lost their lives because of it. From this perspective, free software has a great advantage over commercial software, because it provides source code.
Gong Min:
We often hear that Unix has been breached, BSD has been breached, and so on, but have you ever heard that Linux has reserved back doors? It seems not. These are two problems of different nature. One is problems caused by oversight in work or programming errors that were not anticipated; the other is when some manufacturers leave some back doors for certain purposes.
The innovation model of free software has in fact already changed. From nothing to something, it was basically not planned by any one person or organization. Regarding the question of security, I suggest that China make extensive use of free software to raise the security of information infrastructure. Free software offers better security than commercial software. No organization is better than having organization; everyone shares a common ideal. In addition, the source code is open, so if you wish to add some security facilities of your own into it, that is also very easy.
Sun Yufang:
Speaking of security, I think one aspect is to consider commercial users, and another is to consider especially confidential users, that is, the military, or particularly sensitive government departments. People often think that if the source code is public, then you can add security things to it, but at the same time hackers or others can also add such things; this is what is meant by when virtue rises a foot, vice rises ten. My view is that open source will not be more insecure than the present situation where source code is not open, but you must do more rigorous work.
Gao Wen, head of the National 863 Intelligent Computer Expert Group, chairman of the Gongchuang Software Alliance
Hong Feng, CEO of Wuhan Rongshi Data Communication Co., Ltd.
Gong Min, research scientist at Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Sun Yufang, deputy director and researcher, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Li Mingshu, deputy director and researcher, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Yang Zhenkun, professor, Institute of Computer Research, Peking University
Li Anyu, director, E-Commerce Technology Research Center, Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Wang Yangsheng, researcher, Institute of Automation, Chinese Academy of Sciences
Chen Rong, general manager, Beijing Ketai Century Technology Co., Ltd.
Cai Jianjun, general manager, Beijing Disaipu Software Company
(Note: compiled from recordings by our reporters Cheng Hong and Yin Mingfang, not confirmed by the persons themselves)
Excerpted from：http://www.oso.com.cn
我完全同意设想建立DOS组织“DOS联盟” ，也就是说和Wengier、以及“起步”站长莫老师等DOS战友一起来建立这个“DOS联盟”，以发展我国自主OS（操作系统）的高度去完成我们共同的愿望。
------党委书记
------党委书记
So does Free mean free of charge, or freedom? Usually we judge the meaning of a word from the context, whether in English or Chinese. So “hot pot” at home or at Hai Pa Wang is something you can eat, while on a basketball court it means something you can block, and the English word china can mean China or porcelain.