Pfaffman (2008) stated that the FOSS movement began with Richard Stallman writing the GNU Manifesto.  The purpose of FOSS is to provide software that is based on the principle of freedom, not just cost.  This freedom comes from being given access to the software’s source code, the files used to create it.  Doing so allows users to not only use the program, but also to study it, change it, and even improve it (p. 26).

Pfaffman (2008) also argued that “FOSS promotes social justice in that it provides free software to end users and an efficient means to develop software for programmers” (p. 26).  Since FOSS is freely redistributable, all students may be given copies to use both at home and school (p. 26).

The Internet itself is built on a foundation of FOSS applications such as the Berkeley Internet Name Daemon (BIND) and the Apache web server (Pfaffman, 2008, p. 26).  Additionally, corporations such as Google make use of FOSS server operating systems to the benefit of the community when their programmers fix problems and give the solutions back to all (p. 26).

For schools, the benefits of FOSS applications go beyond monetary savings.  Not only can teachers and schools provide FOSS software for students to use in the classroom and at home, but FOSS applications also prevent teachers and schools from becoming a part of corporate marketing to students (Pfaffman, 2008, p. 27).  Pfaffman (2008) wrote “when teachers require students to turn in assignments using a proprietary file format like Microsoft Word’s, this implicitly suggests that in order to be a successful student one must buy, know, use, a particular software program” (p. 27).

Pfaffman (2008) went on to say that the FOSS movement is analogous to the development of scientific knowledge.  FOSS and science are both based on the concept of creating shared knowledge and having one’s work adopted by the community at large (p. 27).

Pfaffman (2008) suggested a number of FOSS applications for the science classroom and school in general.  Some of these suggestions included OpenOffice.org, GIMP, the OpenScience Project, and Celestia (p. 29).

The ramifications of FOSS for Lutheran education are significant.  First, the cost savings.  If a Lutheran school wanted to use only free software on their computers, it is very possible.  There are now numerous distributions of Linux that can replace Microsoft Windows and run on just about any computer hardware.  OpenOffice.org is a very mature project that can easily be used in place of other office productivity suites.  FOSS applications also exist for anti-virus, photoediting, video and audio production, servers, and so forth.  By replacing all proprietary software with FOSS, a school can easily save $100 or more per computer per year (based on annual software licensing fees).  Additionally, the school will save staff time previously spent ensuring compliance with software licensing agreements.  Even better, the school will be able to provide students and parents with the exact same software used in the classroom for use at home.

Unfortunately, while FOSS operating systems such as Linux can be used to replace Windows in a school environment, even Pfaffman (2008) admitted that doing so requires a substantial buy-in from someone with technical skills (p. 29).  The good news is that many FOSS projects can be run under a computer’s current operating system, which can still mean a substantial software savings for schools.

The major benefit that I see for Lutheran schools, though, is making sure that we are teaching students how to use technology and not becoming unwilling pawns of corporate marketing divisions.  I have met teachers who have told me in no uncertain terms that they felt teaching students a particular commercial software package was their duty because that is what students will be using in any future careers.  These teachers continued to insist this even when I pointed out that newer versions of the software packages often require complete retraining for users, so that teaching students to use one version of a program will not guarantee they can use future versions, whereas teaching the students a more general approach to computers and applications will ensure they can adapt to any specific software package.

Reference

Pfaffman, J. (2008). Transforming High School Classrooms with Free/Open Source Software: It’s Time for an Open Source Software Revolution. High School Journal, 91(3), 25-31. Retrieved from Academic Search Complete database.