Leading article published in the danish newspaper "Information" february 18., 2000, 1st section page 18

By Robin Engelhardt and Christian Madsbjerg

Anarchists where right. Volunteer cooperation for a common good, without governmental force or right to private property, can easily be a [rear wheel] for other [forms of society]. At least when it comes to Internet and the software industry. The decision made by SF [the Socialist People's Party] to support free and non-patented software seems driven by this new insight. The defacto monopoly of Microsoft on computer programs for the [governmental/public] sector has proven to be expensive and inflexible, and now that it turns out there are a proper and stable alternative - and gratis as well - it it reasonable to reconsider the situation. When discussing software, one usually think about patented programs, bought and installed in the computer, and then hope that it all works. copying to others is not allowed, even when the software is paid for in an orderly way. If the software has flaws one can do nothing but wait for the next version to be released. Free software is different. usually it is gratis, is to be copied endlessly, can be changed and improved as one sees fit, and in case of flaws there's quick advice on the Internet.

Compare the concept of software patents with the [language council] starting to make big bucks on new words entering the dictionary. A patent for the word "computer" probably would make the council consider [going on the] stock market, but most likely wouldn't be useful for the language. Similarly with software for computers. It is not a case of free programs, but of free words. Patents that secure the supplier of even the simplest tools, programming techniques and software algorithms, will stop a free and democratic society based on knowledge, know-how and accessibility of digital technology. The IT business is in many ways extreme. But it points in the direction of a series of new culturel and economic battles possible to see the shapes of today. The change in IT business lies in the fact that one cannot quite as before earn money on producing goods. The core competences of the IT market will instead be the handling of knowledge processes. It sounds pretty much like smartness, but nevertheless contains a revolution so obvious. It is the very principle of the market being under attack. Throughout the last 20 years we have become used to the fact, that it is the producer who knows what is best. Software packages has been rented from the heacquarters of big software companies that has seen themselves competent to define the needs of computer users throughout the world. In the time to come, software budgets increasingly will be spent on local consultants able to grasp the software on the Internet, freely available and gratis to everybody. This [myriade] of IT-guides and web strategists get paid by their customers for their competence in knitting together software to fit the needs of the customer. So the money is transfered from the center to the [circumference], from product to process and from giant companies to local consultants.

This development is worthy of applause for two reasons. First reason is there are some reliefingly amok-like in David not only strikes Goliath of the software industry right between his eyes, but he simply thinks - or innovates - down the super. It is but democratic for the power and money to be spread. Second reason is the deveopment enhancing the products. The operating system Linux is the first example of these many local computer consultants simply producing better products than the big monopolies. Inspired by France who decided to dump traditional software in favor of free software, there is now in Denmark a proposal to be [heard] on monday [before] the [folketing] about giving free software a chance. Only problem is that the politicians and the press, including the SF proposal in [Folketinget], concetrates on open source and not free software. The open source definition sadly has become a weakened concept, given that lots of companies have started offering open source, which is in fact only semi-free software, in order to [lure] customers back to using the patented products. If the proposal from SF is not to [slip away like sand], it is important to hold on to the concepts of freedom and accessibility and that the patents are the true barrier for the realization of a democratic information society. As laid out by Information a majority for free software in on the rise, and with that a move towards democracy of the software market. So it is extremely important that the discussion of the SF proposal does not end in buzzwords, but in a sincere attempt in giving anarchy a chance.

rob & mad