the i-witnesses

Can open source convert the software world?

Think back to the last time you used a commercial desktop software product – like Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop. Did it come in a language other than English? If you had the technical know-how, would you have been able to customise the way it worked to suit your needs? Perhaps most importantly of all, was it cheap or even free?

I would be pleasantly surprised if you’ve said yes to any of those questions.

Software is an essential ingredient of the information society. But it is mostly limited to proprietary formats, with code that can’t be tampered with and licenses that can be prohibitively expensive for users in developing countries.

IBM reckons that US$697 billion was spent on software and related services in 2004. Of course, software developers say they spend huge sums of money on research and development, and need to recoup their investments. But is there an alternative?

Advocates of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) say the tools of information and communication should be in the public domain. Instead of being restricted to a few commercial enterprises, software is freely redistributed with no royalties or licensing fees. What’s more, the source code is also made available for anyone to modify.

For more information about this – and how these opposing views can be reconciled in the interests of millions of software users in the development world – check out Panos London’s latest briefing for journalists: Giving away secrets.

A new era for journalism?

Media houses are increasingly welcoming – with apparently open arms – their readers’ contributions on anything from food to travel to politics.

Whether it’s a question of publishing their correspondents’ email addresses, providing online comment facilities, or running interactive blogs, newspapers and news service providers (particularly in the West) have suddenly become more accountable to their readers.

The BBC calls it ‘citizen journalism’. But it’s not surprising that many journalists find this proximity to their readers a little too close for comfort. The LA Times columnist Joel Stein can’t bear the idea of making himself available to readers:

“[The email at the bottom of my column] is the pathetic, confused death knell of the once-proud newspaper industry, and I want nothing to do with it… Here's what my internet-fearing editors have failed to understand: I don't want to talk to you; I want to talk at you... Not everything should be interactive.”

Stein’s complaint exposes the dilemma of traditional journalism in the interactive information age. But others are more proactive in listening to their audiences. For example, Reuters editor-in-chief David Schlesinger says:

”We’re living in a world where readers expect a conversation and a high degree of interaction with their news providers.”

He acknowledges that the ascendance of new information and communication technologies is shrinking the distance between the supposedly ‘holier-than-thou’ journalists and us common old readers. It’s an uneasy relationship but, like it or not, it’s something that journalists will have to learn to put up with.

Tackling African poverty through the media

This week saw the launch of a study on the state of media actors in sub-Saharan Africa. The summary of findings (I have yet to read the whole report) is not especially path-breaking if you’re a media practitioner or media activist in Africa: major issues include weak media institutions, state monopoly over the media, a need for regulatory reforms, and equipping the sector including financial sustainability.

But the report does endorse the view of many media-related civil society organisations that donors and other international agencies need to support media and development activities in Africa, which are presently in decline. The summary also notes the ‘spectacular’ adoption of mobile telephony, which far exceeds the internet when mapping Africa’s emerging media landscape.

The report was published by the African Media Development Initiative – a venture by the BBC World Service Trust which was set up in response to the Commission for Africa’s recommendation that a stronger media is needed to tackle poverty. Its findings will be harmonised with a separate initiative run by the UN Economic Commission for Africa and other African stakeholders later in this year.

My organisation, Panos London, hosted a meeting to discuss the findings with UK-based media and communications NGOs. Executive director, Mark Wilson, said “the findings may not be new, but establishing a basis for a collaborative and African-led process can be a good reference point for international donors and agencies”.

The world’s library on my desktop

An article in this month’s Prospect magazine about Google’s online library project deserves serious attention.

In just three years’ time, Google.com is set to reveal the world’s largest online library, which will make 15 million books available in a digital format. Using web searching techniques, these books can be cross-searched, citations can be linked etc etc. In fact, a prototype – called the ‘google book search’ – is already available.

Sounds great, I hear you say. No more trudging to the library, only to discover the book you want is out on loan. But there’s a catch: these services don’t come cheap.

Although Google is making much of its collaborative ‘digitisation projects’ with Stanford and Oxford Universities, users will ultimately have to pay expensive subscriptions to get full access to the online books. Some revenue will go back to the original source. But I wonder if these venerable institutions have really thought through the implications.

While, in principle, making the world’s libraries available online is an incredible idea, I fear it may only serve to limit access to knowledge to those who can afford it.