Open Source experts are unusual people. They think differently from those who live in the frames of proprietary software, since the basic quality of Open Source (ability to improve and modify it) force them to discover over and over again new dimensions of already known. One of the most interesting speakers is Georg C. F. Greve, president of Free Software Foundation Europe, who is recognised as one of the greatest open source experts in Europe. Physicist by profession, who, as a representative of German civil society cooperates at the World summit on informational technology organised by OZN, do not fit in the stereotype of computer freeks, imprisoned among four walls and “in-love” with computer screens. On the contrary, he likes to drive a motorcycle, practices aikido and is a bridge expert.

Free Software Foundation supports free software (free as in freedom) and not cost-free software (free as in beer?). What's the difference?

Free Software has nothing to do with cost-free or gratis software, which is often also called "freeware". The two should not be confused, as they have nothing in common:
Free Software is defined by four essential freedoms, the freedom of unlimited use for any purpose, the freedom to study, the freedom to modify and the freedom to distribute. If software gives you these four freedoms, it is Free Software: That is why Free Software translates into "Logiciels Libre" in French, "Software Libero" in Italian or "Freie Software" in German.
Economic freedom -- including the freedom to charge for your work and services and the distribution of software -- is one of the freedoms upheld by Free Software. If you try to take away this freedom, the software becomes unfree, also referred to as proprietary software.

Provided that you respect these freedoms of others, it is perfectly legitimate to make a profit from Free Software, to base your business upon it, to become very rich, if that is your goal.
Not everyone has this as their goal and many people offer gratis downloads of Free Software, but that is not something these people have to do: They do it for various motives from enjoying the technical dialog over helping others to wanting to spread their software, which is a carrier for their business model.

Can all Open Source software be understood as free software or are there any Open Source licences disrupting rules of your organisation? Why?

The original definition of Free Software was published by the Free Software Foundation in January 1989 and is essentially based upon the four freedoms that I explained above.
The second meaningful definition of Free Software are the Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG), which were adopted 1997 and are used to determine which software is acceptable for the Debian distribution: its goal was to describe the same software that is defined by the Free Software Definition, but do it in a more technical way, as that was considered more useful for the purpose of evaluating packages.
When the Open Source Initiative (OSI) proposed "Open Source" as a marketing term for Free Software in 1998, they chose the Debian Free Software Guidelines for their definition, changing "Free Software" to "Open Source" in the text. And while there have been disputes about fringe-licenses, these only cover very small amounts of code. In terms of source code covered, all three definitions are 99.99% identical.

So yes, if it is Open Source acceptable according to the Open Source Definition, it will most likely also qualify as Free Software. Unfortunately, the term Open Source is also used for software that does not meet the criteria of the Open Source Definition, and many other terms with "source" have been created, some of which as proprietary as the Microsoft Shared Source license.
So if someone tells you something is "Open Source" that means very little these days, as you hardly know by which definition they have gone. Many people even use the term in different meanings, sometimes even in the same sentence. All that makes the term useless if you wish
to have a term that transports meaning and allows to differentiate.
Because of that, we strongly recommend to go with the originally published term, Free Software: It has remained the strongest over the years, is clear and understandable to people in most parts of the world, especially where English is not the first language, and refers
to what is central: freedom.

According to your opinion, should companies and government institutions use free software and if so, what are the advantages?

Yes. Free Software should be the first choice for companies and governments and for much the same reasons: The freedom of Free Software gives independence and sustainability, economically as well as politically.

Our infrastructures and economy increasingly depend upon software, access to software determines our ability to communicate, to educate ourselves, and to work. It is the software that determines what our computers do, not the users. And proprietary software is fully under control of its proprietor, the vendor.

So if any government wants to protect its political independence, Free Software becomes a necessary choice. The same goes for any company that wishes to remain independent of the interests of shareholders of another company.

There are no more forced upgrades: The freedoms of Free Software also guarantee that the user determines the life cycle of their own software, they get to decide when a solution needs maintenance, when it should be replaced and how. As you can never lose the right to use your investment into Free Software to the fullest, Free Software is
the most sustainable form of IT investment.
As both governments and businesses should maximise the sustainability of their investments, Free Software becomes the first choice. And while investments in proprietary software usually leave the country immediately, funneling your capital into the US economy, Free Software enables growth of a local IT industry, creating jobs in your country. This should be a major strategic reason for governments to use Free Software.


And finally, espionage -- be it industrial or political -- has an increasingly large part in our lives. Looking at what happened to Airbus in their bidding against Boeing is a good example. With proprietary software you can never be sure whether there is a
backdoor into your most private data, and who holds the key. Free Software allows you to check for backdoors yourself or hire someone _you_ trust to do this for you. Free Software at all times allows to check what is happening and control what your computer does.

That is why Free Software has a much higher potential for security and why the German foreign ministry is using a Free Software based encrypted communication system to communicate with its embassies around the world. Airbus has not yet understood this, but you can be smarter than them.

What is the driving force of free software development? Are those corporations or is it free software community?

The reasons for Free Software development are as diverse as people are on this planet. Some develop software for fun, some to improve their skills, some for scientific purposes, some to help others and some to help themselves. The stereotype is that Free Software is mainly developed by Universities, and that is not entirely false. But considering the 2001 study of Boston Consulting Group (BCG) and the recent findings, it should be safe to assume that more than 50% of all Free Software is written for commercial purposes, in other words corporations.
So the most important driving force for actual development these days are probably the corporations.

About month ago European parliament voted against software patents. What does it mean for companies in IT business?

It means that a great danger was avoided because software patents were not officially introduced, but also a great chance was missed, because the directive failed to take a strong stand against software patents. Let me explain: The current legal status is based on the 1973 European Patent Convention, which clearly says that software is not patentable.

Unfortunately, the European Union left interpretation of that policy up to the Eurpean Patent Office (EPO), which had to decide whether they wanted to accept or decline money for software patent applications. As they are not held politically responsible for the decisions they make, accepting that money bore no risk for them, all the risk was with European economy and competitiveness. When asking any person whether they want more money without any risk, what do they say? So the EPO started granting software patents against the legislative situation and their mandate, arguing that these were not "software patents" but rather "patents on computer-implemented inventions". Naturally, all software is running on a computer and therefore "computer-implemented." And any patent that is granted by the EPO is lawful by definition -- which is how we got to the interesting number of 30.000 software patents, 20.000 of which are held by companies outside the European Union.


As there was no political power and will to stop the EPO on this path, the directive on "computer-implemented inventions" sought to legitimise that practice and expand the scope of patentability even
further.


This is what was avoided.


The directly could have also put the line back where it was and tried to put an end to the EPO practice of granting software patents.


That is what was missed as a chance.

Do you assume that similar proposition will apear in time, which will be a bit friendlier towards european economy?

It is highly likely that this issue will reappear on the political agenda. Unfortunately, it seems that it will be the same group drafting it. So we must be very wary of the things to come.


When this becomes a hot topic again, we will need all your support to go up against it again.

Your organisation did a lot for raising public consciousness by informing about negative consequences that the mentioned proposition on software patents cause. Could something similar as software patent be in compliance with the principle of FSF?

I am not sure how to understand the question: patents are artificial monopolies established for a limited period of time. Software is the implementation of ideas and logic.
So if you ask me whether monopolies on software ideas and logic can ever be a good thing, my answer is clearly no. The cost outweighs any potential benefit by orders of magnitude.


There are many reasons why software patents harm innovation and economy, which were explored by institutions such as the Massachussetts Institute of Technology (MIT), the Boston University School of Law, Price Waterhouse Coopers, US Federal Trade Commission and Deutsche Bank Research.


We have put these reasons together in open letters that explain in simple words the effects of software patents, which you can find at



http://fsfeurope.org/projects/swpat/documents.en.html


But for now let me simply say that software patents harm all areas of economy that depend on software, which means 80% of all German exports according to Fraunhofer, they make computers less secure, including computers in critical systems, such as electric infrastructure or airplanes, and reduce the level of innovation.


All of this comes at a high price and incalculable risk for all economically active parties that rely on software, insurances and banks amongst them. But money can only be spent once.


So in the end, software patents cost jobs across all of economy.

And finally; how would you comment the benefits of events dedidacated to Open Source and Free Software?

The most important benefit of these events is to spread knowledge
about Free Software, to let people understand why this is important and why freedom is crucial to the digital age. Also, they provide a good opportunity to meet and make contacts and talk to each other.

So I wish you good luck with your event and all participants a good
time.