Whilst this blog allows OSS Watch members and guest posters to express personal opinion we don’t usually use this blog for personal items. However, I’m making an exception today to remind myself, and hopefully some others, that whilst life can sometimes be horrible it is more often than not wonderful

. 

On Sunday at 17:17 (GMT) March 7th my wife gave birth to a beautiful and healthy baby girl, Saskia Frances Gardler at 7lb 10.5 oz. Mum and baby are doing very well and are now home with a proud Dad.

I’d like to publicly acknowledge the superb  care that my wife and I received during this pregnancy. We only truly appreciate the National Health Service when we really need it, and Heidi and I have  needed it on far too many occasions over the last few years. The care we have received has been exceptional when compared to what I have seen in other countries.

I should also mention Oxford University Computing Services. I could not have hoped for a more understanding employer, it was clear from the first day that as long as I worked hard when I was able OUCS would respond by giving me as much space and time as I needed to support my family during this difficult period. I’m truly grateful to my boss Lou Burnard and to my exceptional team here at OSS Watch.

As for extended family and our friends - we hope they already understand how appreciative we are of their combined efforts in recent years.

Like I said in the intro, sometimes life is horrible, but more often than not life and the people around us are wonderful. We should never forget that in the difficult times.

This post is by Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz, Director for European institution studies at Unisys Belgium (Brussels). His team is in charge of the www.OSOR.eu (Open Source Observatory and Repository), the Free/Libre/Open Source information platform and forge launched by the European Commission for public sector projects.

Combining freedoms and copyleft in the Gnu GPL license (invented by Richard Stallman) was the cornerstone of free software. This is now questioned due to the proliferation of incompatible copyleft licenses.

After counting 1,800 free software licenses used in hundreds of thousands of projects, the Black Duck company patented (Patent US 7,552,093 B2) the technology for controlling the use of open source licensing in a multi-source development process (meaning combined works, elaborated from multiple free components under different licenses).

No need to say that patenting proprietary technology to solve copyleft licenses incompatibility may not be seen by everyone as a major achievement!

Lamenting on license proliferation or blaming new license authors – who all call upon the best reasons of the world, looks useless. It would certainly be reasonable, as recommended by Bruce Perens, to deal with only four permissive and copyleft licenses, but this is wishful thinking. New licenses are presented every week by FLOSS authors and communities, and no benevolent dictator will limit human innovation regarding licensing.

The heart of the problem does not lie in the number of licenses, but in their incompatibility. I do not think that license proliferation is a failure of the FLOSS movement, it is rather the entire contrary: a testimony of the attractiveness of FLOSS models. In reality, license proliferation illustrates the failure of a certain model of strong copyleft, as it was initiated by the GPL in the 80’ and – unfortunately - reproduced by nearly all subsequent copyleft licenses. Once necessary and successful, this model looks not adapted anymore because it was copied and - seeing the Black Duck patent - one may question (like Ernest Park has done) if the way copyleft is applied does not generate today more jails than freedom.

According to my first study for the European Commission, the Gnu GPL v2 was used in 85% of the FLOSS projects in 2001. With a copyleft that was – maliciously – said “viral” by some, meaning that compatibility is always “upstream” (to itself) and never “downstream” (to other licenses), the adoption rate of the GPL should have been universal in 2010, confirming analysts’ assumption that “it is good for the community if people use a single copyleft license [1]”. However, the exact reverse happened: the GPLv2 (reducing) is still used in 50% of projects, the new GPLv3 reaches little more than 5% and other licenses are proliferating.

The fact a dozen of licenses are used by 90% of the FLOSS projects does not help very much, as the implementation of free solutions (which are often combined works) is done through integrating many components. It is enough to find only one incompatible license to compromise the distribution of these solutions.

The current situation is damaging for other reasons: it creates endless discussions on what could be considered as integration in combined works (dynamic or static linking) and it feeds disputes. To preserve their communities from schisms, gurus and acolytes urge followers not to use any other copyleft licenses, whatever their specific merits or advantages could be. It is time to admit that the strategy of keeping a “captive asset” of license users was not successful for avoiding proliferation, and that it is not the most appropriate way to reinforce the freedom, collaboration spirit and consistency within the fragmented FLOSS world.

In Europe, the recent - OSI approved and copyleft - European Union Public License (EUPL) meets some initial successes due to its compliance with Member States’ law and because it has equal value in the 22 languages of the Union. It has been selected by the German Federal Agency for Information Technologies, it is the license of choice in schemes published by the Dutch NOiV (see on the www.OSOR.eu site an English version of this scheme, translated by a member of the Swiss administration), a dedicated EUPL site was created in Italy, etc. In Spain, the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce (where the public agency Red.es is located, in charge of information technology) provides the following in call for tenders (software specifications):

“In case the contractor integrates in the development that is the object of the contract with modules or elements owned by third parties, he must first obtain from the legal owners the licenses and rights necessary to transfer the ownership of the development to , which will submit it, including the elements that are performed under the contract (such as fonts, dll, scripts, etc..) to the public license EUPL. In any case the total and final result of the development and the overall project will be subject to a license EUPL.”

Applying such provisions excludes strong copyleft components from the delivered combined work: all original developments are allowed; all “permissive” components are allowed (BSD, MIT, etc.); all “weak copyleft” components are allowed (i.e. LGPL), but no Gnu GPLv2 (or V3) components (except if the copyright owner is entitled to dual license the component under LGPL-like terms, for the purpose of addressing the contractual specifications).

The EUPL itself has an innovative approach to solve copyleft licenses conflicts: it publishes a downstream compatibility list (to other licenses). It is allowed to integrate EUPL components in a combined work that will be distributed under a compatible license. The concept is not new, as the FSF applied it with the LGPL a long time ago. The LGPL (now LGPLv3) is convenient for software libraries aimed to produce combined or derivative works: if the library is propagated on its own, it must be under the provision of its original license (LGPL), but if the library components are part of a derivative work, this work can be licensed under another license, while the original library remains LGPL. The EUPL compatibility is exactly the same, but its copyleft effect is stronger than in the LGPL (because compatibility is restricted to a limited and published list of other copyleft F/OSS licenses). Therefore it is not a weak but – say, a “tolerant copyleft”.

Such flexibility removes incompatibility barriers and restores developers’ freedom, while keeping it in the limits of the desired copyleft effect.

While the EUPL solution may be considered as a conceptual progress, its tangible impact will stay very limited as long other copyleft licenses will not give some reciprocity: the quantity of available EUPL-ed material is quite small today, compared to the mass of components that are already available under the GPL terms. Extending the list of EUPL compatible licenses (i.e. by adding the still missing GPLv3) will not change the issue resulting from the Spanish specifications, where the government requires the facility to distribute the received combined work under the single license of its choice (the EUPL in this case).

Solving problems related to the proliferation of copyleft licenses requires setting up interoperability provisions between these main licenses. It will create, and focus attention, on a kind of “circle of trust” where the original copyleft licensing condition of a software will never be changed, but where – just to take an example – a GPL component could be part of a combined work that the recipient (let’s say the French or the Spanish government) could distribute as a whole under the provision of the copyleft license of its choice (i.e. CeCILL or the EUPL) provide these licenses are allowed in the compatibility list.

The Gnu GPLv3 includes (in its section 13) the exact provision corresponding to the above need, but it is directed to the AGPLv3 only. The intellectual effort to extend this provision in direction of a small list of interoperable licenses seems easy to deliver. The reciprocal condition must be added: in the example above, the combined work could be also (as the need may be) distributed under the provisions of the GPLv3.

This could be a way out to the deadlock where we are, due to the proliferation of incompatible licenses.

Looking for alternative? Pay a Black Duck patent license!

Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz – www.OSOR.eu

[1] R.T. Nimmer, Legal issues in Open Source and Free Software distribution, The Law of Computer technology, Ch. 11 (1997, 2005 Supp.) (“Two different copyleft licenses are usually “incompatible”, which means it is illegal to merge the code using one license with the code using the other license; therefore it is good for the community if people use a single copyleft license (GPL)”).

Introduction

Moore's Law, Disk Law, and Fiber Law have created an economic engine for growth, promising exponentially improving computing, storage, and networking performance for the foreseeable future. And yet according to a 2003 UNCTAD report, "there has been no Moore's Law for software," and indeed it is because of software that computer systems have become more expensive, more complex, and less reliable.

read more

One of the most satisfying aspects of working for OSS Watch has been observing the outcomes from introducing people and then encouraging them to collaborate on new ideas. Outcomes such as personal development and new or improved projects. The recent Dev8D event was a real highpoint in several strands of OSS Watch activity and I was inspired to have been able to observe what happened and be part of the action. Dev8D is about developers getting together and seeding new project ideas, something that is an important aspect of open development, and so is important to OSS Watch. The Dev8D team, led by Mahendra Mahey, along with everyone who participated over the 4 days made Dev8D a fantastic event. Much developer happiness was expressed both during and after the activities, not to mention the many new project ideas that were hatched.

Several coding challenges where made and our very own Sander won 2 of them with MuCoMaCo an interesting Google map mash-up of MLA library data. OSS Watch have provided continuing support services to the Apache Wookie (Incubating) project from the University of Bolton. Recently Sander recently organised a Wookie Training day at OSS Watch. This was led by Scott Wilson, Wookie project lead, and Ross, OSS Watch manager. Scott was with us at Dev8D, so it was no surprise that Sander’s winning entry was a Wookie served W3C widget. This enables it to be readily deployed in a range of contexts with little effort.

The other winning entry that OSS Watch had close connections with was Wookie BaLTI. BaLTI is a sample Moodle course by Mark Johnson and Dan Hagon and features the newly developed Twirlymol and CollabMCE widgets. These 2 widgets use the widget loading and collaboration facilities of Wookie to provide a shared 3D interactive view of a molecule model and shared WYSIWYG editing. Several threads came together to make this happen. Those familiar with OSS Watch and open development will not be surprised at how open collaboration has made this possible.

Since we spotted Mark’s announcement of his first small contribution to Moodle and subsequently invited him to present it at an OSS Watch workshop, he has gone from strength to strength. At the Dev8D awards dinner Mark deservedly one ‘Best newcomer’. An award that provided him with a small Lego car kit, which we ‘knocked up’ during the meal, and a rather handmade certificate. The point is that Mark’s enthusiasm for learning about and contributing to open development has been noticed and is sending ripples through the HE and FE communities. Mark attended the previously mentioned OSS Watch Wookie training day, which stood him in good stead for working on the challenge with Dan. Since the Dev8D fun, Mark has pledged on the Wookie lists to reimplement his editing widget without the current LGPL licensed code dependency and to contribute it to the project. Further evidence of Mark’s personal development and it’s far reaching affects comes from his recent blog post. He also supplied us with this comment.

My manager appreciates the opportunities that open development provide to us as a department and an institution, both internally and externally. By letting me go to events like Dev8D even though the things I did there don’t relate directly to my current job, she gave me the opportunity to develop new skills which will allow me to provide new facilities to the staff and students in our institution. We’ve just started an ILT working group with our teaching staff, so hopefully I’ll be able to apply some of my new skills and knowledge to the ideas that come from that.

Mark’s collaborator, Dan, was the first person I met at Dev8D, and as with Mark you can’t help but be affected by his friendly enthusiasm. When I discovered that he had created an interesting Google Wave widget I steered him towards Scott and Mark and watched the magic happen. Scott explain how trivial it was to port the widget to Wookie, and once they’d decided on the LTI challenge Scott added BasicLTI interfaces to Wookie in order to support the challenge work. These are now part of the Wookie project code. More great collaboration followed and someone gave them an Amazon cloud server to install Moodle on. I observed them working together, discussing ideas, fixing bugs and working on their ‘judgement’ presentation. I tried to muscle in on the action with another widget idea but got rather distracted and bogged down in practicalities. Still I do have some new ideas to add to Wookie at some point.

I also attended their pitch to the judges as moral support and I’m glad I did. Chuck Severance of IMS and Sakia and Steve Vickers where in the judging team. A soon as the pitch was over, Chuck and Steve rushed off to add the widget to Sakai, Blackboard and WebCT. Chuck made the point that by using Wookie and LTI it is now possible to have something running in all these platforms, and in a matter of minutes. He then distributed screen shots around various lists.

Dev8D saw many other collaborative ventures seeded or strengthened. New skills were learnt by motivated developers and new contacts made. For example I enjoyed watching Chuck and Tobias Schiebeck work on a tricky Sakai bug. Finally I’d like to mention GNOME who were running an overlapping event in London. After a bit of prodding for collaboration, Willie Walker and Brian Cameron came over and presented on accessibility and GNOME work. Both were very interested in the accessibility possibilities of “Mr gadget” Ben O’Sheen’s demonstration of software to talk to wiimotes. A representative from Dev8D also went over the to GNOME usability hackfest and I expect we will see fruitful cross pollination developing from this mutual interest. Not least is the opportunity for HE/FE developers to learn from a large, established and successful open source project.

There are many interesting open source projects that can be beneficial to academic research. As OSS Watch’s recent article on e-Research by Gabriel Hanganu shows there are social and organisational problems in adopting open source for e-Research, but there are many open source software projects there to be joined. Some projects are suited very well to be used in scientific research and I feel that this is especially true in the realm of big data databases.

Google showed the way, really, with the MapReduce paper in 2004. They published their programming model for processing large amounts of data in parallel and although publishing it, they did not neglect to apply for a patent as well, which was recently granted. Hadoop, which originates from a project at Yahoo!, also implements the MapReduce pattern, but is completely open source being a project of the Apache Software Foundation. And now recently Apache Cassandra has joined the mix. Cassandra originates from Facebook, but has become open source in July 2008. It recently promoted from the Apache Incubator and is now an official top-level Apache project.
Work has been initiated to facilitate integration between Cassandra and Hadoop, which simplified means the Hadoop database HBase is replaced with Cassandra. There has been discussion of this on the list and a feature has recently been implemented. So there’s Yahoo! working on Hadoop and Facebook working on Cassandra, and recently also Twitter has announced that it is working towards using Cassandra for their backend. Also worth mentioning is the open source implementation of Amazon’s Dynamo database which is named Voldemort. This project is used and actively developed by LinkedIn and is therefore another example of how you can benefit from the work this large company is investing by engaging with this project.

To me, this all shows that there will be large investments in NoSQL databases from major companies in the coming years, and it will all be in open source software. This means that there is a lot of opportunity for anybody who has to deal with big data to profit from this investment. All you have to is try out the software and engage with these projects. Researchers also have to cope with more and more data, so I think they have good reason to follow these developments closely and step in to benefit.

During the last couple of months some interesting things have happened in my research group (libresoft.es) related with software metrics and its application to collaborative environments. One of our dearest data mining project (FLOSSMetrics) has achieved a great added value in terms of procedures to get data from libre software projects and some of its small features have been applied OSOR.eu, the biggest collaborative environment we maintain. With the background we have in this topic (see the links below) we are in a great position to contribute with something interesting in this area to the libre software community so .. there we go.

It is often said that open source software will reduce costs.

Those with little or no experience of implementing computer systems assume these savings come from the fact the free and open source software does not carry a license fee. However, this is not usually the case.

Anyone who has rolled out an software solution, even in a small organisation, will tell you that there are hidden costs. These include training, support,  customisation and maintenance.

In 2005 BECTA published “A study of the spectrum of use and related ICT infrastructure costs” which concluded that training and support costs accounted for 60% of total cost for any software solution. The report also found that open source software reduced these costs by 40-50%.

Further to reducing training and support costs, open source can reduce the cost of customisation for specific environments.

It is extremely rare for a back-office software solution to be a perfect fit for any specific organisation straight out of the box. Consequently, the software needs to be customised to suit specific needs. In a closed source environment there is a single provider, or a limited set of approved providers, who can make these modifications. However, in an open source environment anyone with the appropriate skills can make these modifications, including internal staff.

As a result of this competition, market forces can often result in a lower cost for a tailored product. Just how much can be saved here depends on the customisations you need to make.

Finally, the open source culture of code sharing results in lower development costs for the software in the first instance. That is, once one user has commissioned a specific feature or configuration option the results of that work is available to all. As a result, the more a product is used and developed within any given domain, the more widely the development costs are shared. In addition to a reduction of costs open development can significantly increase the rate of innovation as it brings together great minds to collaborate on shared solutions.

Where there is no pre-existing solution to match ones needs the open developent model can be an extremely cost effective way of reducing cost. This process is examined in more detail in our document “Meritocrats, cluebats and the open development method: an interview with Justin Erenkrantz.”

Welcome to the third part of  our little analysis of OSS business models (first part here, second part here). It is heavily based on the Osterwalder model, and follows through the examination of our hypothetical business model reaching the “key resources” part. After all the theoretical parts, we will try to add a simple set of hands-on exercises and tutorials based on a more or less real case.

The argument of this part is “resources”. Key resources are the set of assets (material and immaterial) that are the basis of the company operations. There may be physical resources (a production plant for example), intellectual resources (previously developed source code), human resources (your developers), financial resources (capital in the bank, loans) and other immaterial assets (your company name as a recognizable mark, “good standing” in terms of how your customer see your products…)

In our OSS company example, at least part of the immaterial assets are shared and publicly available, that is they are non rival. In our model we have a company that provides under an open source license the community edition of the software, while provides an “enterprise edition” with additional stability tests, support and so on. It is not correct to say that just because the source code is publicly available it is not monetizable; on the contrary, especially when the code is wholly owned in terms of copyright assignments it is potentially a valuable asset (for some examples, look at JBoss or MySQL). Even when the code is cooperatively owned (as in a pure GPLv2 with multiple contributors, like Linux) the “default place” is valuable in itself, and it is the reason why so many companies try to make sure that their code is included in the main kernel line, thus reducing future integration efforts and sharing the maintenance activities. Other examples that are relevant for the OSS case are trademarks (that are sometimes vigorously defended), “brand name”, the external ecosystem of knowledge; for example, all the people that is capable of using and managing a complex OSS offering, creating a networked value that grows with the number of participants in the net. People becoming RedHat certified, for example, increases the value of the RedHat ecosystem other than their own.

One of the most important resource is human: the people working on your code, installing it, supporting it. Most of those people in the OSS environment are not part of your company, but are an extremely important asset on their own thanks to their capability of contributing back time and effort. In exchange, these resources need to be managed, and that’s why you need sometimes figures like “community managers” (an excellent example is my friend Stefano Maffulli, community manager extraordinaire at Funambol) because exactly as you have a financial officer to check your finance (another essential resource) you should have a community manager for… the community.

To properly analyse your key resources, we can extend the network model created for the channel analysis (the actor/action model) and extend it a little bit, including the missing pieces. For example, we mentioned that a potential customer may be interested in our product. Who makes it? Of course, as any good OSS company, you have some pieces coming from the outside (other OSS projects), part coded by your developers and part coming as contribution from external groups. All of them are resources: the other OSS projects are key resources themselves, simply obtained without immediate cost but managed by some developers that are themselves a key resources; your internally developed source code is another key resource, and if you have large scale contributions from the outside those should be considered resources too, maybe not “key” resources but important nevertheless.

The main concept is: a resource is “key” if without it your company would not be able to operate; and whenever you have a key resource you should have a person that manages it with a clearly defined process.

Next: cost structure!

A recent blog posting at The Guardian about the US "Special 301" rules has generated deep concern around the global open source community.

read more

A couple of months ago I had to find a solution to offer a single sign on service in a environment with PHP applications and Plone. I decided to use Pubcookie which is a good solution and has a good documentation although due to its small niche market its community is not very big.

In the closing chapter of this complex story, the intricacies of which have previously been explained in this blog, the parties in Jacobsen v. Katzer have filed a settlement agreement with the California district court. The ruling, which favours Jacobsen, is also seen as a significant victory for the FOSS community in that it establishes for the first time in the US a developer’s right to prevent their copyright and authorship acknowledgements from being removed from their code, and their right to collect damages if the terms of the licences they choose are violated. The implications for the UK are not yet clear, but there is no doubt that the outcome of this closely watched case strengthens the legal standing of open source licensing and could set an important precedent.

Este viernes 26 de Febrero comienza un seminario gratuito sobre software libre para PyMEs en las instalaciones de Madrid On Rails. El seminario tendrá lugar las tardes de los viernes 26 de febrero, 12 de marzo y el 26 de marzo de 2010, de 16:00 a 20:00 y será impartido por personal de Libresoft.

Este viernes 26 de Febrero comienza un seminario gratuito sobre software libre para PyMEs en las instalaciones de Madrid On Rails. El seminario tendrá lugar las tardes de los viernes 26 de febrero, 12 de marzo y el 26 de marzo de 2010, de 16:00 a 20:00 y será impartido por personal de Libresoft.

III Asamblea de la Comunidad Morfeo el próximo día 10 de marzo

III Asamblea de la Comunidad Morfeo el próximo día 10 de marzo

Durante la pasada semana Miquel Vidal, compañero de LibreSoft, publicó un artículo corto que enumera razones de peso por las que el término en expansión "Software de Fuentes Abiertas" no aporta sino que perjudica.

Jornada organizada por la red eMadrid donde se tratará el uso de juegos en entornos de e­Learning.

Jornada organizada por la red eMadrid donde se tratará el uso de juegos en entornos de e­Learning.