So, what was OLPC all about in the first place? While capitalizing on Free software, OLPC was in some sense a tool (with surrounding infrastructure) for connecting and delivering information. It was not a case of preparing children for life at the office, so utility of such laptops shouldnt be equated to what we know as business-class laptops. A direction as such would just beg for a let them have cake parody. It would be a harsh scenario. Originally, OLPC XO was seen as somewhat of a book equivalent, a communication and exploration tool. It was about embracing and absorbing knowledge, not products.
To use an analogy, OLPC might as well be seen as the equivalent of setting up an electrical framework before departing from a colony, thus jump-starting development. On the other hand, if put in hands of a proprietary software vendor, it might, if anything, perpetrate a cycle of practical dependency, a state of digital imperialism if you like.
The understanding of dependency goes a long way back and Bill Gates reference to copyrights infringement of software in China was very revealing. He explained: Theyll get sort of addicted, and then well somehow figure out how to collect sometime in the next decade. Therein lies the danger of introducing and permitting any centralization of control inside OLPC.
For educational purposes, one must not be treating the target audience like customers. One should never be providing lessons (training) in a particular user interface that prepares the children for dependency on a limited set of products they can neither afford nor control.
Getting as many laptops out there as possible, no matter the means, was perhaps the projects mission once it had been revised. The collaboration with Microsoft was praised by some adults to whom computers are probably synonymous with Windows. Nonetheless, adults existing skills can be blinding. Its hard to envision oneself in the shoes of a brand-new user, so options may not be assessed correctly.
After changes were made to the projects direction, things got a little confrontational, which is truly a shame. Those who support the projects original goals were at times labeled open source fundamentalists, which is a religious equivalent of some more political slurs such as communists. Its a demonization technique that lacks reasonable logic.
Free software is neither politics nor a religion. Its an engineering practice that prevailed in the industry long before proprietary software came about. Todays principal backbones, including the Internet, are largely based on Free software.
In the context of education, closing of source code can be equated to deprivation of rights at a young age and passing of control (technical and financial) while compromising system security. That too can be considered as rather fundamentalist, so hypocrisy springs to mind immediately. Such characterizations widened a gap and put more cracks in OLPC.
Isolated claims of contradictory goals have always seemed baseless. There is nothing that makes Free software + pragmatism an oxymoron unless the pertinent tools which are sought and chosen are themselves constructed to restrict, spy, or shift balance of control. Such tools are rarely needed owing to increased standardization that ensures seamless operation across different platforms. As an example of this, one might consider the success of the GNU/Linux-based Eee PC. It demonstrated good assemblage of Free software for day-to-day use.
In conclusion, failures that have thus far been found in OLPC ought to be attributed, at least in part, to lesser-visible and external factors. It might also be useful to look back and ponder the following questions: Why can for-profit business leverage the value of Free software while OLPC cannot? Are there inherent deficiencies or just perceptual ones? Is blame being diverted to the wrong direction? Were the goals of the projects subverted? Moreover, how could moral and ethical aspects of this fine project be conceded by those most dedicated to them, given that this project is a human responsibility and not just an ordinary business?