OLPC: The Open-Source Controversy

Posted by: Steve Hamm on June 05

Later today, BW Online will post a major story that I did along with colleague Geri Smith focusing on the challenges that the One Laptop Per Child organization has faced and where it goes from here. Originally, OLPC founder Nicholas Negroponte aimed at a big bang. He set a target of distributing 150 million $100 laptops to poor children by the end of this year. But the tasks of developing the computers and convincing countries to adopt them have proven far more difficult than he expected. Now, with the computer and software at last in the field, the pressure is on OLPC to help countries integrate the technology into their schools and communities.

I plan on doing a series of blogs that highlight some of the key issues and controversies that OLPC has faced. This is the first one. The topic is open-source software. While open source was a key ingredient in making the OLPC and its inexpensive laptop for kids possible, it has also turned into a major point of controversy that threatens the the organization at its very foundation. Please read on and comment vigorously…

From the OLPC's beginnings a bit over three years ago, the founders had a set of values that fit together tightly. The goal was to transform learning in the Third World through the use of an inexpensive computer. The strategy was to give a laptop to each child, so the computer could be an empowering device for the individual. The OLPCers believed in the Constructionist educational philosophy of retired MIT Media Lab prof Seymour Papert: Kids learn best by doing, and a computer can aid them in self-directed learning and collaboration with others. The organization decided to focus on the open-source development method partly because it fit with their believe in the power of collaboration and partly because by harnessing the volunteer efforts of many they thought they could develop their hardware, software, and content better, faster, and with much less expense than it would have otherwise required.

They were right about the less expensive part. Aided immensely by a network of volunteers, a core team of about one dozen hardware and software engineers developed the XO computer, a version of Linux, the Sugar user interface, and a bunch of new applications in a relatively short time. The hardware, especially, turned out really well. And, while the current version of Sugar has some serious flaws, overall, it's a remarkable piece of software--designed from the ground up for a networked world and for collaboration.

But OLPC's open-source approach has put it in conflict over the years with Microsoft and with government and educational leaders who want to use tried-and-true software such as Microsoft's Windows.

This spring, Negroponte provoked a revolt in the ranks of his employees and the open-source community when he agreed to produce a version of the XO that runs Windows XP in addition to Linux. Also, he criticized the Sugar software and referred to open-source advocates as "fundamentalists" in press interviews.

Walter Bender, the long-time president of OLPC, essentially quit in protest. He wrote me in an e-mail: "Microsoft has said that XP is not a product that is going to undergo any further development--it is being phased out (it was recently give an extended life of two years?), whereas GNU/Linux has a vibrant and expanding development community. So I am not convinced that an XP port adds much value. I also belief that the culture of freedom and self-determinism that comes part-and-parcel with free and open-source systems is synergistic with the culture of learning that OLPC is trying to espouse." Here's former OLPC security chief Ivan Krstic's most recent essay on the whole bag of OLPC controversies, including open source.

Since leaving OLPC on April 1, Bender has set up a new organization, Sugar Labs, aimed at improving the Sugar project and getting it on other computers.

Chuck Kane, the new OLPC president, is working hard on improving the morale and winning the loyalty of the organization's coders and open source volunteers. But he's not apologizing for breaking bread with Microsoft. "We're getting a lot of flak for the Microsoft hookup, but the mission isn't about open source. It's about transforming education with technology."

Even though I see the logic and philosphical consistency of making open-source one of the key pieces of the OLPC project, I tend to agree with the pragmatists. Several foreign government officials I spoke to said it was very important to them to have Windows and thousands of Windows-based applications on computers for their students. Other countries had turned their backs on OLPC earlier because it didn't run Windows. Under pressure from OLPC, Microsoft has offered a $3 pricetag for Third-World schools for Windows and a package of educational and productivity applications. So, when you strip all of the religious debates away, the decision by OLPC to go with Windows was a response to customer demand. That's how business works, and, if social enterprises want to have major impacts, that's how they'll have to work, too.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.businessweek.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/