FLOSS Research

Give Generously! Seven Ways To Help Open Source

Open Source Initiative - Sat, 2017-08-05 16:20


Should you donate money to the open source projects you use? Or is there a better way to help?

Your business most likely depends on open source software. But are you playing your part to make sure it will still be there in the future? For that to happen, the projects where it is both maintained and improved need to flourish.

How can you contribute to that goal? The first thought most of us have — donate money — is unlikely to be the best way to support the open source projects that are most important to you. While proprietary software companies want your money in huge quantities to pay their shareholders, executives and staff, in open source communities most of the people who develop the code are paid elsewhere. As a consequence, there’s only a modest need for cash and a little goes a long way.

So what is the best way to support open source if communities don’t primarily need your money? Here are seven ways your company can support and strengthen the open source projects you depend on.

1. Buy from community members

Open source communities typically comprise many of the people whose business interests most depend on the sale of services and extensions of the project. They are trainers, contract developers, support companies, integrators and more. The very best way most of us can support open source is by trading with those people and businesses.

So when you buy training, or service level agreements or contract development, check your supplier is an active community member. Ask them about their commits to the project, their attendance at community conferences, their participation in governance. Some communities even have a way for members to prove their participation, such as official membership or even certification. There are a surprising number of companies — especially offering level 1 and 2 support services — which don’t meaningfully participate in the community. In many ways, those companies are the real freeloaders and it’s better not to encourage their existence.

2. Promote the project

Open source projects aren’t like commercial products. There’s no-one with a vested interest in publishing marketing information about them, so it’s easy to believe they are of marginal interest if you just look at the press where content is driven by marketing actions. The very fact your company uses a particular set of open source software is interesting, and sharing the details in public is valuable.

So don’t keep it a secret. Add information to your web site about the open source projects you use and how you use them. Encourage staff to contribute articles and case studies for publication. If you make you open source usage public, you’ll discover other people using the same software who can also be encouraged to share their experiences. In fact there’s a word for them: community.

3. Participate in the community

As a user of an open source project, you have a role to play in the community. One direct and valuable way to support the projects upon which you depend is to participate. As simple an act as asking your staff to attend a local meet-up or even a regional conference helps. These events build the community and in some cases are the main source of funds to pay for the small staff and infrastructure costs for a community. Participating does not have to mean directly contributing to the code and documentation; just showing up is of value. Of course, you can go further and contribute in a more concrete way.

4. Contribute to the project

Obviously this is going to help! But you may be surprised by how welcome even small contributions can be. An open source project is the overlap of the interests of many participants. Not every community participant is involved to the same degree; in fact a community has a “long tail” participation curve, with many participants making smaller contributions and only a few making large ones. Your contributions will be welcome, no matter how small.

As a user of open source software, you can contribute bug reports — possibly through the service company you have hired — and even patches to fix defects you’ve found if you’re actively developing in and around the code. One great way to contribute is to offer your own internal how-to documents and implementation case studies. And of course you can make larger contributions of code and new functions.

5. Commission improvements

Perhaps there is a feature you need in the software you’re using. It won’t write itself, and the community is not there to meet your needs; they are mostly there to meet their own. You could complain about it, or you could invest some money in addressing it. You’re probably not the only company with the need.

You might be able to use the approach a group of German and Swiss public administrations are using to address their need for LibreOffice to have better interoperability with Microsoft Office. They’ve teamed together through the Open Source Business Alliance to commission community core developers to do the work they need and contribute them to the community. The result is that LibreOffice now has much better capabilities in both reading and writing Microsoft’s OOXML format.

6. Hire committers

You depend on the project. Why not hire the developers who created it or who keep it running? You can make a significant contribution to a community by directly employing core developers of the software that you most need tuned or customised to your business needs. When you hire them, make sure you’ve left enough room in their lives to continue to meet their community commitments.

Hiring core community developers is a great way to ensure your company’s needs are met! You can also participate in the governance of the community. Help with the administration, make staff available for infrastructure or marketing work, stand in Board elections.

7. Make cash donations

OK, I said not to do this — but I meant as an only or first step. As a community member, you do have a role to play helping pay a share of the the bills. This might include the cost of the infrastructure and the sysadmins who run it or perhaps the cost of an executive director and a small staff. It is very unlikely to pay for the actual development of the code itself — that’s the community’s responsibility. You could become a sponsor, or even an advisory board member, as a way to channel funds into the shared coffers of the community.

There are other ways to support open source, but these seven steps provide a path for many companies to ensure that the software running the business remains available, debugged and innovative over time. It needn’t cost much money, and most of these steps flow directly out of your business needs and practices. Give it a try!

This article was originally published in InfoWorld in September 2013. A revised version appeared on "Meshed Insights" and was made possible by Patreon patrons.
Image credit: "Bridge" is a derivative of "The Little Bay Bridges span the mouth of Little Bay, seen from Dover Point." by JayDuck (own work), used under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikipedia. "Bridge" is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 by The Open Source Initiative

Categories: FLOSS Research

Sharing "The Faces of Open Source"

Open Source Initiative - Tue, 2017-08-01 09:42


A few weeks ago we learned about some great work underway by Shane Martin Coughlan: putting a face to the vibrant open source community, and the fascinating discussions happening within it, through a series of interviews—we thought we'd share them here in a new series.

"I've been enjoying 'The Faces of Open Source Law.' It's excellent to hear the voices and see the faces behind the famous names in this space as they are usually detached far behind a screen. I feel a real connection to them.”
— Chris Lamb, Debian Project Leader

Shane's first series, focused on open source law, included several current and former OSI Board Directors--so obviously we were interested in featuring those--yet, the conversations with others working in and with open source software proved just as valuable: personal motivations and interests that drive participation, insights on licenses and licensing, opinions on current legal issues, and even community related activities that help foster collaboration and build projects. Shane was kind enough to share his work and we're very pleased to post it here. Shane will also be providing some additional content for us through his "production notes", which offers his thinking behind the topics covered, some insights gleaned from the discussions, and even take-aways for the reader/viewer from his own experiences.

Again, we're very excited to offer these to you here, and thank Shane for all his good work.

Enjoy..

I had the idea for producing a series about the faces of open source law about five years ago. The developers in open source had a lot of events and - compared to the legal people - lots of international exposure. Yet the people driving both communities were fascinating, approachable and generally awesome. So what if we gave the legal people more exposure, tied names and email addresses to real stories, and built a new community bridge? At the time I was pretty busy scaling the Open Invention Network community of patent non-aggression and working on policy issues via OpenForum Europe so I put the idea on my “to-do” list.

Fast forward to 2017 and I had a little more bandwidth, the idea still seemed valid, and a large number of the faces behind open source law were gathering for a conference in Barcelona. On final last day of the event I set up my camera in a quiet(ish) section of the networking zone and sat down between presentations to record the entire season. The egotistical version is that I pre-planned to capture a great series of interviews in one afternoon. The real version is that we had space in the last hours of the last day and I rolled a dice to see what we got. What we got was something pretty special.

First up in “The Faces of Open Source Law" was a figure who has quite literally acted as a bridge between the technical and legal side of open source for many years: Armijn Hemel. He has been involved in extensive community engagement in gpl-violations.org, extensive business engagement as a consultant, and less visible but immensely valuable networking between all types of people and organizations across our field. This is his story.

Armijn Hemel:

"Armijn Hemel - The Faces of Open Source Law - Season 1 - Episode 1" is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution license.

Categories: FLOSS Research

Public Domain Is Not Open Source

Open Source Initiative - Fri, 2017-07-28 08:45


Open Source and Public Domain are frequently confused. Here’s why it’s a mistake to treat the two terms as synonyms.

Plenty of people assume that public domain software must be open source. While it may be free software within your specific context, it is incorrect to treat public domain software as open source or indeed as globally free software. That’s not a legal opinion (I’m not a lawyer so only entitled to layman’s opinions) but rather an observation that an open source user or developer cannot safely include public domain source code in a project.

First let’s look at the two terms and what they mean to individuals.

  • Open Source” describes a subset of free software that is made available under a copyright license approved by the Open Source Initiative as conforming with the Open Source Definition. Having a standards body for licenses — one which ratifies the consensus of an open community of license reviewers — saves individuals from needing to each seek out a legal advisor to tell them whether a given license does in fact give them the rights they need to build or deploy the software they want. By providing easy certainty, open source gives people permission in advance to meet their own needs and innovate with technology.
  • Public Domain” means software (or indeed anything else that could be copyrighted) that is not restricted by copyright. It may be this way because the copyright has expired, or because the person entitled to control the copyright has disclaimed that right. Disclaiming copyright is only possible in some countries, and copyright expiration happens at different times in different jurisdictions (and usually after such a long time as to be irrelevant for software). As a consequence, it’s impossible to make a globally applicable statement that a certain piece of software is in the public domain.

The community goes to great efforts to ensure things called “open source” are under an OSI-approved copyright license even though some regard it as obstructive bureaucracy. Many would prefer to simply say their code is “public domain” but that doesn’t deliver the key benefit open source offers: certainty over the core freedoms of free software. That leaves doubts about there being sufficient permission-in-advance for some collaborators.

It’s easy to get overwhelmed by all the details of the many open source licenses, losing sight of the reason they are important. They’re important because every open source license guarantees the freedom to innovate without seeking permission first. OSI approval means you have the unconditional right to use the software in question for any purpose (sometimes called “freedom zero”). You also have an unconditional right to make new software based on that software for your own use, and a conditional right to share the software — modified or not — with other people. That final case comes with some complexities, but they are considered elsewhere.

Public Domain software may come with the rights delivered by those “four freedoms”, but you can’t be sure. It will depend where the software was written, where you are located, who the author is and where the people you are sharing the software with are located. A deployer or developer will need to at very least ask for advice before proceeding, and most likely will need to secure the services of a legal professional with experience in copyright law in each affected country. Even asking the author is unlikely to be conclusive. That’s why public domain software may be free software but is not certain to be.

A solution would be to create a form of words to be used by the author to dedicate something to the public domain. It could simply disclaim ownership for the jurisdictions where that is possible, and then grant a copyright license that has the same practical effect as a public domain dedication for jurisdictions where ownership of copyright can never be disclaimed. Such a formulation has been published by the Creative Commons. They call it “CC0” and it is widely used and well respected.

There’s an issue though; it has not received OSI approval. Many reviewers believe it should, but its authors withdrew it from the approval process during a complex discussion about patent rights and it remains unapproved. The matter has recently been re-opened; lets hope OSI and CC can work together to bring the certainty on which open source thrives. In the mean time, it’s probably safer to use a license like MIT instead.

This article originally appeared on "Meshed Insights" and was made possible by Patreon patrons.
Image credit: "Only Only" is a derivative of "Right & Left Turn Only Arrow Sign" by Linnaea Mallette used under CC0 / Public Domain via PublicDomainPictures.net. "Only Only" is licensed under CC-BY 4.0 by The Open Source Initiative

Categories: FLOSS Research

Assume Good Faith

Open Source Initiative - Fri, 2017-07-21 10:03


You feel slighted by a comment on a mailing list, or a forum post has failed to be moderated live. How should you react?

A recent exchange on a user forum caught my eye, one that’s typical of many user interactions with open source communities. Someone with a technical question had apparently had the answer they needed and to help others in the same situation had posted a summary of the resolution, complete with sample code. When they came back later, the summary was gone.

I’ve no idea why this happened. It may have been a system issue, or an administrative error, or the user himself may have accidentally deleted it without realising. It’s even remotely possible an intentionally malicious act took place. Without more information there is no way to know. For the self-aware mind, responding to this situation is a matter of choice.

So how did the user in question respond? Well, he decided the only possible explanation was malicious deletion. He posted an angry demand that his account be deleted and assumed more malice when this was “ignored” (after 3 days, including a weekend, having posted the demand at the end of a comment in a user forum…)

No matter how you look at it, I don’t think that was a very smart choice. Given he was posting in a busy user forum managed by volunteers, and that this was his first post, the chance any action would be intentionally directed at him is vanishingly small. He would have been far smarter to put his ego on hold and take a lesson from driving principle of Wikipedia. “Assume Good Faith“.

That’s great advice in all communities of volunteer strangers. The things that happen usually have a great explanation, and the motivations of volunteers are almost always to make things better. So when a thing happens, or something is said, that you don’t understand or can’t explain, the best assumption to make is that it has happened “in good faith”. More significantly, when you think you do understand the motivation, over-ride your instinct and choose to respond as if it was good faith!

How to assume good faith

The chain of assumptions to make if you assume good faith might go like this:

  • The thing was probably your mistake.
  • If it wasn’t, then it was an unintentional defect.
  • If it wasn’t, then it was the act of someone with more information than you acting correctly.
  • If it wasn’t, then the person was acting in the belief they were correct but with imperfect information.
  • If not, then they were inexperienced.
  • But whatever the explanation, in the unlikely event you ever find out, don’t assume it was an act of intentional malice!

Maybe you can’t let any of the assumptions in that chain go. Maybe the person really is an idiot; it happens. All the same, an angry response is still not helpful, either to you or to the Community. Open source communities only thrive when a critical mass of participants choose to assume good faith in every interaction. The assumption is very occasionally misplaced, but even when that’s so it’s almost always better to respond by assuming good faith anyway.

That doesn’t mean it’s wrong to apply corrections. Good intentions do not guarantee good actions. But correcting a thing done in good faith has a distinct character of good faith itself. The original choice to act is welcomed and valued. The explanation of the flaw in the act is good-natured, clear, never patronising. The correction is generous. The whole thing is warm and seeks to build the confidence of the contributor.

It’s a lesson the detail-oriented among us need to remember (I include myself in that). The overwhelming majority of community actions are intended well. Treating them as such — even when they are wrong — will grow individuals and the community with them.

This article originally appeared on "Meshed Insights" and was made possible by Patreon patrons.
Image credit: CC0 / Public Domain via Max Pixel

Categories: FLOSS Research

Why OSI License Approval Matters

Open Source Initiative - Fri, 2017-07-14 10:59


Individual judgment about the presence of software freedom in a license is not the same as community consensus expressed through OSI approval.

Does it really matter if a copyright license is OSI Approved or not? Surely if it looks like it meets the benchmark that’s all that matters? I think that’s the wrong answer, and that OSI license approval is the crucial innovation that’s driven the open source revolution.

“Open Source” describes a subset of free software that is made available under a copyright license approved by the Open Source Initiative as conforming with the Open Source Definition. Having a standards body for licenses — one which ratifies the consensus of an open community of license reviewers — saves individuals from needing to each seek out a legal advisor to tell them whether a given license does in fact give them the rights they need to build or deploy the software they want. By providing easy certainty, open source gives people permission in advance to meet their own needs and innovate with technology.

The only arbiter of OSD compliance is the license review process conducted collaboratively by the open source community and summarized and ratified by the OSI Board of Directors. Others have no role outside this process and are not entitled to assert that a non-approved license satisfies the OSD. As such, licenses that have not received OSI approval don’t satisfy the process and can’t be considered open source.

The strength of OSI’s approach is that it is objective; a license is either on the approved list or it is not. Licenses on the list are known to give permission in advance and unlock software freedom; those not on the list cannot be guaranteed to do either. The FSF uses a subjective approach that encourages speculation about whether a license is “free”. Meanwhile there are many with vested interests in diluting free and open source software who want a subjective approach where every individual may act as their own arbiter. Despite these pressures, it’s the OSI’s approach that has made open source succeed.

That’s not because a legalistic tick-in-the-box is really interesting. Rather, it’s because developers can gain certainty as to whether they can use a project simply by checking its approval status. No-one has to be asked for permission or clarification. Significantly, there’s no need to retain a lawyer just to check the license is in fact safe to use.

It’s easy to get overwhelmed by all the details of the many open source licenses, losing sight of the reason they are important. They’re important because every open source license guarantees the freedom to innovate without seeking permission first. OSI approval means you have the unconditional right to use the software in question for any purpose (sometimes calls “freedom zero”). You also have an unconditional right to make new software based on that software for your own use, and a conditional right to share the software — modified or not — with other people. The final case comes with some complexities beyond the scope of this article, especially for copyleft licenses.

That freedom to innovate, unlocked by the permissions the OSI-approved license guarantee in advance, is the powerhouse of open source. Developers know they can incorporate open source components without seeking legal advice. Users know they can deploy the software with the confidence that they have a license and won’t be persecuted by rent-seeking proprietary software companies. Together, this liberty has realized the potential of free software and propelled open source to dominance over the course of the last decade.

(A variant of this article was published in the Linux Voice section of issue 199 of Linux Magazine, June 2017)

This article originally appeared on "Meshed Insights" and was made possible by Patreon patrons.
Image credit: CC0 / Public Domain via Max Pixel

Categories: FLOSS Research

Permissive and Copyleft Are Not Antonyms

Open Source Initiative - Fri, 2017-07-07 13:16


Using the term “permissive” as an antonym to “copyleft” – or “restrictive” as its synonym – are unhelpful framing. Describe license reciprocity instead.

Some open source licenses implement a clever hack invented by Richard Stallman where, as a condition of the copyright license, anyone creating derived versions has to agree they will license the new version the same way as the original. In a play on words, this concept is called “copyleft” and many open source licenses implement this hack.

In its strongest form, the “copyleft” idea can place a condition on the licensing of all the other code compiled together to make the eventual binary executable program. Complying with this requirement can prevent use of business models that deny software freedom to the end user; as a consequence, many commercial software developers avoid the strongest forms of copyleft licensing.

There are less stringent forms of copyleft. Licenses like the MPL (Mozilla Public License) only require individual files that are modified to be licensed under the same license as the original and don’t extend that requirement to other files used to build the executable. The Eclipse Public License (EPL) has a copyleft provision that’s triggered by distribution of the source code. These scope-restricted variants are all described as “weak copyleft.”

In discussing these licensing approaches with clients, I’ve often found that these terms “strong copyleft” and “weak copyleft” lead to misunderstandings. In particular, developers can incorrectly apply the compliance steps applicable to one “weak” license to code under another license, believing that all such licenses are the same. As a consequence, I prefer to use different terms.

Instead of “copyleft” use “reciprocal licensing”

First, I try to address the challenges introduced by the clever, often unfamiliar term “copyleft.” The demonisation of copyleft by certain factions in the open source movement — who may even erroneously term such licenses “restrictive” — has made it appear more problematic than it really is. Instead, I explain that the communities involved have norms based of reciprocal behaviour and expect those working with their code to share with others the same freedom to innovate as they have received.

Leading licensing lawyer Eben Moglen (key co-creator of the modern GPL) explains that open source licenses embody the norms of the communities that use them. They are in many ways the “constitution of the community,” so the embodiment of norms of reciprocity is to be expected. I refer to this aspect of the license as “reciprocal licensing” in an effort to acknowledge the use of copyleft to express the community expectation of reciprocity. I’ve found this term leads to less confusion.

Instead of “strong” or “weak” copyleft, describe the reciprocity scope.

Second, I have found that the terms “strong” and “weak” are not well understood and less well defined. What really matters to developers is the expected scope of the reciprocity by the community that’s involved. This does not always mean contributing code to a project; for example, the GPL only requires that a developer offers to make code available on the same terms as the original, for a limited time per release. But reciprocity does mean that consistent licensing must be maintained.

This concept helps my clients in the case of the LGPL. That license is often described as a “weak copyleft” license since it allows combination of the resulting binary with non-GPL-licensed works (unlike the GPL itself). But the “weak” categorization is unhelpful as it means different things in different contexts.

LGPL is not “weak” in the same way MPL is, for example. Code from an LGPL project itself is fully reciprocally licensed at a project level. Any code borrowed from it for other uses as well as any alternative uses of the project itself are expected to be fully licensed under the same LGPL. Within the project itself, LGPL is “strong copyleft” just like GPL code, but the resulting executable does not necessarily have “strong copyleft” requirements – it’s effectively non-reciprocal in many uses.

I prefer to categorize reciprocal licenses by the scope and nature of the expected reciprocity. Licenses like GPL and EUPL set the scope of the expected reciprocity to include any code needed to create the resulting project binary, so I describe these as “project-scoped reciprocal licenses.” This categorization proves helpful with LGPLv3, which is a project-scoped reciprocal license with an exception limiting the boundary of the project.

Licenses like MPL set the scope of the expected reciprocity to the individual source files within the project, not the whole project collectively. If you change a file that’s part of the project, or reuse code from a file in the project in a new codebase, the resulting file must be licensed the same way as the original file, but there are no requirements placed on other files combined together to create new executables. I refer to these as “file-scoped reciprocal licenses.”

Instead of “permissive” use “nonreciprocal”

Thirdly, licenses like the MIT, BSD, and Apache licenses are sometimes described as “permissive.” That’s a bad word to use to differentiate any open source license. All open source licenses are predominantly permissive as they permit unconditional use, unlike proprietary licenses. Just as with reciprocal licenses, the communities involved have different expectations and embody them in their licenses. While they may not include reciprocity, they may still include burdensome terms.

For example, so-called “permissive” licenses may still include specific actions regarding attribution, or grant expansive patent licenses. They may also fail to include any terms concerning patents, creating risk. These attributes may also affect the business models a client can use, just in different ways to reciprocal licenses. Consequently, I find it more helpful to describe them as “non-reciprocal licenses” so that the classification is clearly limited to just the reciprocity characteristics of the licenses.

In practice, I have found that these three terms — project-scoped reciprocal, file-scoped reciprocal, and nonreciprocal –- highlight what matters most to developers and avoid unintentionally confusing the issue. I recommend their use instead of “permissive” and “weak/strong copyleft” or “restrictive”.

(A shorter version of this article was first published in InfoWorld, November 2013)

This article originally appeared on "Meshed Insights" and was made possible by Patreon patrons.
Image credit: CC0 / Public Domain via publicdomainpictures.net

Categories: FLOSS Research

OSI extends support to OW2 as Associate Organization.

Open Source Initiative - Sun, 2017-07-02 21:43


OW2, the global community for open source infrastructure software and application platforms, and the Open Source Initiative (OSI), the global steward of the Open Source Definition, announced at OW2con’17 that OSI has extended our support to OW2 as an associate member.

While both the OSI and OW2 have been working for yeas to promote software freedom, extending the partnership between the two organizations now, signifies several recent developments in shared initiatives:

  • This year's OW2con’17 central theme was “New Challenges of Mainstream Open Source Software”, focusing on open source software as a viable and a mature option for corporate and government end-users. Both OW2 and OSI are increasing their efforts to help interested and adopting organizations understand the benefits of open source software, and to support decision makers through identification, and implementation.
  • Simon Phipps, Board Director of the Open Source Initiative, is providing a keynote at OW2con’17 highlighting Open Source in its the Third Decade. OSI was established in 1998, and with it the term "open source software" to describe software licensed to enable collaboration around free software. 2018 consequently sees the start of the third decade of open source. What changes will we see? What principles can guide us?
  • Cedric Thomas, CEO of OW2 offered, “As OW2 is celebrating its 10th anniversary, the Open Source Initiative is about to celebrate it's 20th. I’m looking forward to see our teams, members and communities working more closely. Together, we can address more market needs while developing new synergies”.
  • Patrick Masson, Director and General Manager of the Open Source Initiative, acknowledges: “If indeed, as many now say, "open source has won", then we all should thank OW2 for playing their part over the past 10 years as a visionary, innovator and leader. All the best for the next ten”.
  • This partnership will bring OSI and OW2 members the benefits of a greater technical alignment of the two organizations, joint workshops and community events. For the latest opportunities, please visit our websites.

    About the Open Source Initiative

    The Open Source Initiative (OSI) is a California public benefit corporation, with 501(c)3 tax-exempt status, founded in 1998. The OSI is the stewards of the Open Source Definition (OSD) and the community-recognized body for reviewing and approving licenses as OSD-conformant and is also actively involved in Open Source community-building, education, and public advocacy to promote awareness and the importance of non-proprietary software. OSI Board members frequently travel the world to attend Open Source conferences and events, meet with open source developers and users, and to discuss with executives from the public and private sectors about how Open Source technologies, licenses, and models of development can provide economic and strategic advantages. You can learn more about the OSI at opensource.org or by emailing, osi@opensource.org

    About OW2

    OW2 is an independent industry community dedicated to developing open source code infrastructure (middleware and generic applications) and to fostering a vibrant community and business ecosystem. The OW2 Consortium hosts some one hundred technology projects, including ASM, Bonita, Chameleon, CLIF, DocDoku, Easybeans, Emerginov, Fractal, FusionDirectory, JOnAS, JORAM, JOTM, LemonLDAP:NG, Lutece, PetalsESB, Prelude, ProActive, SAT4J, Spagic, Spago4Q, SpagoBI, Talend Studio, Telosys, WebLab, XWiki. Visit www.ow2.org

Categories: FLOSS Research

Bicho 0.9 is comming soon!

LibreSoft Planet - Thu, 2011-06-09 10:06

During last months we’ve been working to improve Bicho, one of our data mining tools. Bicho gets information from remote bug/issue tracking systems and store them in a relational database.

Bicho

 

The next release of Bicho 0.9 will also include incremental support, which is something we’ve missed for flossmetrics and for standalone studies with a huge amount of bugs. We also expect that more backends will be created easily with the improved backend model created by Santi Dueñas. So far we support JIRA, Bugzilla and Sourceforge. For the first two ones we parse HTML + XML, for sourceforge all we have is HTML so we are more dependent from the layout (to minimize that problem we use BeautifulSoup). We plan to include at least backends for FusionForge and Mantis (which is partially written) during this year.

Bicho is being used currently in the ALERT project (still in the first months) where all the information offered by the bug/issue reports will be related to the information available in the source code repositories (using CVSAnaly) through semantic analysis. That relationship will allow us to help developers through recommendations and other more pro-active use cases. One of my favorites is to recommend a developer to fix a bug through the analysis of the stacktraces posted in a bug. In libre software projects all the information is available in the internet, the main problem (not a trival one) is that it is available in very different resources. Using bicho against the bts/its we can get the part of the code (function name, class and file) that probably contains the error and the version of the application. That information can be related to the one got from the source code repository with cvsanaly, in this case we would need to find out who is the developer that edit that part of the code more often. This and other uses cases are being defined in the ALERT project.

If you want to stay tunned to Bicho have a look at the project page at http://projects.libresoft.es/projects/bicho/wiki or the mailing list libresoft-tools-devel _at__ lists.morfeo-project.org

 

Categories: FLOSS Research

ARviewer, PhoneGap and Android

LibreSoft Planet - Thu, 2011-06-09 05:44
ARviewer is a FLOSS mobile augmented reality browser and editor that you can easily integrate in your own Android applications. This version has been developed using PhoneGap Framework. The browser part of ARviewer draws the label associated with an object of the reality using as parameters both its A-GPS position and its altitude. The system works both outdoors and indoors in this latest case with location provided by QR-codes. ARviewer labels can be shown through a traditional list based view or through an AR view a magic lens mobile augmented reality UI.    The next steps are: 
  • Testing this source code in IOS platform to check the real portability that phoneGap provide us.
  • We plan to add the “tagging mode” with phoneGap to allow tag new nodes/objetcs from the mobile. 
  Are very very similar the next images, right? We only have found a critical problem with the refresh of nodes in the WebView using PhoneGap. We will study and analyze this behavior.  

ARviewer PhoneGap

 

ARviewer Android (native)

  More info: http://www.libregeosocial.org/node/24  Source Code: http://git.libresoft.es/ARviewer-phoneGap/  Android Market: http://market.android.com/details?id=com.libresoft.arviewer.phonegap
Categories: FLOSS Research

Finding code clones between two libre software projects

LibreSoft Planet - Thu, 2011-05-12 09:05

Last month I’ve been working in the creation of a report with the aim of finding out code clones between two libre software projects. The method we used was basically the one that was detailed in the paper Code siblings: Technical and Legal Implications by German, D., Di Penta M., Gueheneuc Y. and Antoniol, G.

It is an interesting case and I’m pretty sure this kind of reports will be more and more interesting for entities that publish code using a libre software license. Imagine you are part of a big libre software project and your copyright and even money is there, it would be very useful to you knowing whether a project is using your code and respecting your copyright and the rights you gave to the users with the license. With the aim of identifying these scenarios we did in our study the following:

  • extraction of clones with CCFinderX
  • detection of license with Ninka
  • detection of the copyright with shell scripts

The CCFinderX tool used in the first phase gives you information about common parts of the code, it detects a common set of tokens (by default it is 50) between two files, this parameter should be changed depending on what it is being looked for. In the following example the second and third column contain information about the file and the common code. The syntax is (id of the file).(source file tokens) so the example shows that the file with id 1974 contains common code with files with id 11, 13 and 14.

...
clone_pairs {
19108 11.85-139 1974.70-124
19108 13.156-210 1974.70-124
19108 14.260-314 1974.70-124
12065 17.1239-1306 2033.118-185
12065 17.1239-1306 2033.185-252
12065 17.1239-1306 2033.252-319
12065 17.1239-1306 2141.319-386
...

In the report we did we only wanted to estimate the percent of code used from the “original” project in the derivative work, but there are some variables that are necessary to take into account. First, code clones can appear among the files of the same project (btw this is clear sign of needing refactorization). Second, different parts of a file can have clones in different files (a 1:n relationship) in both projects. The ideal solution would be to study file by file the relationship with others and to remove the repeated ones.

Once the relationship among files is created is the turn of the license and copyright detection. In this phase the method just compares the output of the two detectors and finally you get a matrix where it is possible to detect whether the copyright holders were respected and the license was correctly used.

Daniel German’s team found interesting things in their study of the FreeBSD and Linux kernels. They found GPL code in FreeBSD in the xfs file system. The trick to distribute this code under a BSD license is to distribute it disabled (is not compiled into FreeBSD) and let the user the election of compiling it or not. If a developer compiles the kernel with xfs support, the resulting kernel must be distributed under the terms of the GPLx licence.

Categories: FLOSS Research

OpenBSD 4.9 incorpora el sistema /etc/rc.d

LibreSoft Planet - Wed, 2011-05-04 17:23
Algo de historia  

Como cualquier administrador de sistemas Unix sabe, init es el primer proceso en ejecución tras la carga del kernel, y da inicio a los demonios ("servicios") estándar del sistema. En el Unix original de Bell Labs, el proceso init arrancaba los servicios de userland mediante un único script de shell denominado /etc/rc. La Distribución de Berkeley añadió años después otro script denominado /etc/rc.local para arrancar otros servicios. 

Esto funcionó así durante años, hasta que Unix se fue fragmentando y, con la aparición del software empaquetado de terceros, la versión System V del Unix de AT&T introdujo un nuevo esquema de directorios en /etc/rc.d/ que contenía scripts de arranque/parada de servicios, ordenados por orden de arranque, con una letra-clave delante del nombre de fichero (S- arrancar servicios y K- detener el servicio). Por ejemplo: S19mysql inicia [S] el servicio mysql. Estos scripts (situados en /etc/init.d) se distribuyeron en niveles de ejecución (runlevels, descritos en /etc/inittab), asociando los scripts con enlaces simbólicos en cada nivel de ejecución (/etc/rc0.d, rc1.d, rc2.d, etc.). Los niveles de ejecución en cada directorio representan la parada, el reinicio, arranque en monousuario o multiusuario, etc. Este esquema, conocido como "System V" (o "SysV"), es, por ejemplo, el que adoptaron las distribuciones de Linux (con algunas diferencias entre ellas en cuanto a la ubicación de subdirectorios y scripts). Tenía la ventaja de evitar el peligro de que cualquier error de sintaxis introducido por un paquete pudiera abortar la ejecución del único script y por tanto dejar el sistema en un estado inconsistente. A cambio, introdujo cierto grado de complejidad en la gestión y mantenimiento de scripts de inicio, directorios, enlaces simbólicos, etc. 

Otros sistemas de tipo Unix, como los BSD, mantuvieron el esquema tradicional y simple de Unix, con solo uno o dos únicos ficheros rc y sin niveles de ejecución[*], si bien fueron incorporando algunos otros aspectos del esquema SysV de inicialización de los servicios del sistema. Por ejemplo, NetBSD incluyó un sistema de inicio System V similar al de Linux, con scripts individuales para controlar servicios, pero sin runlevels. FreeBSD, a su vez, integró en 2002 el sistema rc.d de NetBSD y actualmente cuenta con decenas de demonios de inicio que funcionan de forma análoga a SysV: 

$ /etc/rc.d/sshd restart

 

OpenBSD incorpora /etc/rc.d

 

OpenBSD, sin embargo, no había adoptado hasta ahora el subsistema de scripts individuales para controlar los servicios, lo que a veces causaba cierto pánico, como si les faltase algo esencial, a quienes desde el mundo Linux (u otros Unices)

entraban por primera vez en contacto con este sistema (aunque luego la cosa tampoco era tan grave, es cuestión de hábitos). La actual versión OpenBSD 4.8, publicada en noviembre de 2010, todavía utiliza únicamente dos scripts de inicio (/etc/rc y /etc/rc.local). En OpenBSD 4.9, que se publicará el próximo 1 de mayo, se ha implementado por primera vez esta funcionalidad mediante el directorio /etc/rc.d

Como suele ser habitual en OpenBSD, no se implementa algo hasta que se está seguro que se gana algo y que hay un modo sencillo y fiable de utilizarlo para el usuario final. El mecanismo es análogo al de otros sistemas de tipo Unix, pero más sencillo y con algunas sutiles e importantes diferencias que vale la pena conocer. Veámoslo. 


Descripción del nuevo subsistema /etc/rc.d de OpenBSD  

En /etc/rc.conf (donde se incluye las variables de configuración para el script rc)  nos encontraremos una nueva variable denominada rc_scripts: 

# rc.d(8) daemons scripts # started in the specified order and stopped in reverse order rc_scripts=

Incluimos en esa variable (o mejor, como se recomienda siempre, en /etc/rc.conf.local, un fichero opcional que sobreescribe las variables de /etc/rc.conf) los demonios que deseamos arrancar de inicio, por orden de arranque:

rc_scripts="dbus_daemon mysql apache2 freshclam clamd cupsd"

Los scripts de inicio de servicios residirán, como suele ser habitual, en el directorio /etc/rc.d. Pero una diferencia clave es que, aunque los scripts estén ahí situados, no arrancará nada automáticamente que no esté listado en la variable rc_scripts, siguiendo el principio de OpenBSD de evitar presumir automatismos predeterminados. Cada script responderá a las siguientes acciones:

  • start    Arranca el servicio si no está ya corriendo.
  • stop     Detiene el servicio.
  • reload   Ordena al demonio que recargue su configuración.
  • restart  Ejecuta una parada del demonio (stop), y a continuación lo inicia (start).
  • check    Devuelve 0 si el demonio está corriendo o 1 en caso contrario. 

Actualmente, este sistema solo se usa para demonios instalados desde paquetes, no para el sistema base de OpenBSD. Por ejemplo, para gestionar los estados del servicio "foobar", que habremos antes instalado desde ports o paquetes, basta ejecutar:

/etc/rc.d/foobar reload /etc/rc.d/foobar restart /etc/rc.d/foobar check /etc/rc.d/foobar stop

La última orden ("stop") se invoca también en un reinicio (reboot) o parada (shutdown) desde /etc/rc.shutdown, en orden inverso al que aparece en la variable en rc_scripts, antes de que se ejecute la orden "stop/reboot" para todo el sistema. No es necesario preocuparse por el orden de ejecución o por el significado de S17 al comienzo del nombre de los scripts.

Otra ventaja de esta implementación es lo extraordinariamente sencillos que es escribir esos scripts, frente a otras implementaciones que precisan scripts de decenas o incluso cientos de líneas. En su forma más simple:

daemon="/usr/local/sbin/foobard" . /etc/rc.d/rc.subr rc_cmd $1

Un ejemplo algo más complejo:

#!/bin/sh # # $OpenBSD: specialtopics.html,v 1.15 2011/03/21 21:37:38 ajacoutot Exp $ daemon="${TRUEPREFIX}/sbin/munin-node" . /etc/rc.d/rc.subr pexp="perl: ${daemon}" rc_pre() { install -d -o _munin /var/run/munin } rc_cmd $1

Como puede observarse, el script típico solo necesita definir el demonio, incluir /etc/rc.d/rc.subr y opcionalmente definir una expresión regular diferente a la predeterminada para pasársela a pkill(1) y pueda encontrar el proceso deseado (la expresión por defecto es "${daemon} ${daemon_flags}").

El nuevo script debe colocarse en ${PKGDIR} con extensión .rc, por ejemplo foobard.rc. TRUEPREFIX se sustituirá automáticamente en el momento de instalarlo.

La sencillez y limpieza es posible gracias al subsistema rc.subr(8), un script que contiene las rutinas internas y la lógica más compleja para controlar los demonios. Así y todo, es muy legible y contiene menos de 100 líneas. Existe también una plantilla para los desarrolladores de paquetes y ports que se distribuye en "/usr/ports/infrastructure/templates/rc.template".

Y eso es todo. Cualquier "port" o paquete que necesite instalar un demonio puede beneficiarse ahora de los scripts rc.d(8). Quizá el nuevo sistema no cubra todos los supuestos, pero cubre las necesidades de los desarrolladores de ports para mantener un sistema estándar y sencillo para arrancar servicios). En marzo de 2011, ya hay más de 90 ports de los más usados que los han implementado. Por supuesto, el viejo sistema sigue funcionando en paquetes no convertidos, pero es indudable que los desarrolladores de OpenBSD (especial mención para Antoine Jacuotot (jacuotot@) y Robert Nagy (robert@)) han logrado una vez más un buen balance entre simplicidad y funcionalidad. Por supuesto, para ampliar detalles, nunca debe eludirse leer las páginas correspondientes del manual: rc.subr(8), rc.d(8), rc.conf(8) y rc.conf.local(8) y la documentación web


Referencias


(*) Que BSD no implemente "/etc/inittab" o "telinit" no significa que no tenga niveles de ejecución (runlevels), simplemente es capaz de cambiar sus estados de inicio mediante otros procedimientos, sin necesidad de "/etc/inittab".

 
Categories: FLOSS Research

Brief study of the Android community

LibreSoft Planet - Mon, 2011-04-18 12:19

Libre software is changing the way applications are built by companies, while the traditional software development model does not pay attention to external contributions, libre software products developed by companies benefit from them. These external contributions are promoted creating communities around the project and will help the company to create a superior product with a lower cost than possible for traditional competitors. The company in exchange offers the product free to use under a libre software license.

Android is one of these products, it was created by Google a couple of years ago and it follows a single vendor strategy. As Dirk Riehle introduced some time ago it is a kind of a economic paradox that a company can earn money making its product available for free as open source. But companies are not NGOs, they don't give away money without expecting something in return, so where is the trick?

As a libre software project Android did not start from scratch, it uses software that would be unavailable for non-libre projects. Besides that, it has a community of external stakeholders that improve and test the latest version published, help to create new features and fix errors. It is true that Android is not a project driven by a community but driven by a single vendor, and Google does it in a very restricted way. For instance external developers have to sign a Grant of Copyright License and they do not even have a roadmap, Google publish the code after every release so there are big intervals of time where external developers do not have access to the latest code. Even with these barriers there are a significant part of the code that is being provided from external people, it is done directly for the project or reused from common dependencies (GIT provides ways to reuse changes done to remote repositories).


The figures above reflect the monthly number of commits done by people split up in two, in green colour commits from mail domains google.com or android.com, the study assumes that these persons are Google employees. On the other hand in grey colour the rest of commits done by other mail domains, these ones belong to different companies or volunteers.

According to the first figure (on the left), which shows the proportion of commits, during the first months that were very active (March and April 2009) the number of commits from external contributors was similar to the commits done by Google staff. The number of external commits is also big in October 2009, when the total amount of commits reached its maximum. Since April 2009 the monthly activity of the external contributors seems to be between 10% and 15%.

The figure on the left provides a interesting view of the total activity per month, two very interesting facts here: the highest peak of development was reached during late 2009 (more than 8K commits per month during two months). The second is the activity during the last months, as it was mentioned before the Google staff work in private repositories so until they publish the next version of Android, we won't see another peak of development (take into account that commits in GIT will modify the history when the code is published, thus the last months in the timeline will be overwritten during the next release)


More than 10% of the commits used by Google in Android were committed using mail domains different to google.com or android.com. At this point the question is: who did it?

(Since October 2008) # Commits Domain 69297 google.com 22786 android.com 8815 (NULL) 1000 gmail.com 762 nokia.com 576 motorola.com 485 myriadgroup.com 470 sekiwake.mtv.corp.google.com 422 holtmann.org 335 src.gnome.org 298 openbossa.org 243 sonyericsson.com 152 intel.com



Having a look at the name of the domains, it is very surprising that Nokia is one of the most active contributors. This is a real paradox, the company that states that Android is its main competition helps it!. One of the effects of using libre software licenses for your work is that even your competition can use your code, currently there are Nokia commits in the following repositories:

  • git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/external/dbus
  • git://android.git.kernel.org/platform/external/bluetooth/bluez


This study is a ongoing process that should become a scientific paper, if you have feedback please let us know.



CVSAnalY was used to get data from 171 GIT repositories (the Linux kernel was not included). Our tool allow us to store the metadata of all the repositories in one SQL database, which helped a lot. The study assumes that people working for Google use a domain @google.com or @android.com.

 

References:

Categories: FLOSS Research

AR interface in Android using phoneGap

LibreSoft Planet - Tue, 2011-03-29 06:51

Since 6 months ago we have evaluated the possibility to implement a new AR interface (based in our project ARviewer) using phoneGap. phoneGap is a mobile framework based in HTML5/JS that allow execute the same source code HTML5 in differents mobile platforms (iphone, android, blackberry). It seem a good way to create portable source code. Since 3 years ago I work in this project with Raúl Román, a crack coder!!

Currently using phoneGap is not possible obtain the stream camera in the webView widget. So, this part of the source code must be developed in the native platform. We find another problem. We could not put the webview transparent so it would look the camera in the background, and paint objects on top with HTML. In this case, we asked for this to David A. Lareo (Bcultura) and Julio Rabadán (Somms.net) and gave us some very interesting clues about this problem.

The solution is implemented in the source code that you can see below. It's necessary that our main view (R.layout.main) is the main view, for this we do 'setContentView' and later we add the main view of 'DroidGap' using 'addview' and 'getParent'. Once we have our view mixed with phonegap main view, we set the backgroundColor transparent.

@Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); super.init(); super.loadUrl("file:///android_asset/www/index.html"); setContentView(R.layout.main); RelativeLayout view = (RelativeLayout) findViewById(R.id.main_container); // appView is the WebView object View html = (View)appView.getParent(); html.setBackgroundColor(Color.TRANSPARENT); view.addView (html, new LayoutParams(LayoutParams.FILL_PARENT, LayoutParams.FILL_PARENT)); appView.setBackgroundColor(Color.TRANSPARENT); }  

  Currently, we have started this project so I will post the full source code in this blog
Categories: FLOSS Research

Amarok Code Swarm

Paul Adams: Green Eggs and Ham - Fri, 2009-08-21 06:52

In my previous entry it was commented that it would be nice to see a code swarm for Amarok's history in SVN. Well... go on then.

Code Swarm is a tool which gives a time-based visualisation of activity in SVN. Whilst code swarm are often very pretty and fun to look at for 15 minutes, they are not very informative. Much of what appears is meaningless (e.g. the entry point of the particles) and some of it is ambiguous (e.g. the movement of particles).

Anyhow, I was surprised to see that someone hadn't already made one of these for Amarok. So, here it is:

Amarok Code Swarm from Paul Adams on Vimeo.

Categories: FLOSS Research

Amarok's SVN History - Community Network

Paul Adams: Green Eggs and Ham - Thu, 2009-08-20 09:08

I did not include a "who has worked with whom" community network graph in my previous post on the history of Amarok in SVN. This was largely because that blog post was written quite late and I didn't want to wait ages for the community network graph to be generated.

Well, now I have created it.


Click here for the complete, 8.1MB, 5111x3797 version

So, just to remind you... SVN accounts are linked if they have both worked on the same artifact at some point. The more artifacts they share, the closer together the SVN accounts are placed. The result of this is that the "core" community should appear closer to the middle of the graph.

Categories: FLOSS Research

Amarok's SVN History

Paul Adams: Green Eggs and Ham - Tue, 2009-08-18 17:25

So, as you might have recently seen, Amarok has now moved out of SVN. This was SVN r1002747 on 2009-07-26. Amarok first appeared in /trunk/kdeextragear-1/amarok on 2003-09-07 (r249141) thanks to an import from markey. It was migrated the to simplified extragear structure (/trunk/extragear/multimedia/amarok) at r409209 on 2005-05-04.

So, to mark this event I have created a green blob chart and a plot of daily commits and committers for the entire time Amarok was in SVN.

Simply right-click and download the green blobs to see them in their full-scale glory. I'm sorry the plot isn't too readable. It is caused by a recent day where there appears to be about 300 commits in Amarok; way above the average. I assume this is scripty gone mad again.

Categories: FLOSS Research

Archiving KDE Community Data

Paul Adams: Green Eggs and Ham - Sun, 2009-08-16 08:23

So me and my number crunching have been quiet for a couple of months now. Since handing in my thesis I have been busier than ever. One of the things keeping me busy has been to make good on a promise I made a while back...

I have, for some time, promised to create a historical archive of how KDE "looked" in the past. To achieve this I have created SVN logs for each calendar month of KDE's history and ran various scripts that I have against them. Here's a few examples for August 1998....

Community Network

A community network graph is a representation of who was working with whom in the given month. You may remember that I have shown these off once or twice before. The nodes are SVN accounts and they share an edge when they have shared an artefact in SVN. The more artefacts that the pair have shared, the closer they are placed together. The result is that the community's more central contributors should appear towards the middle of the plot.

Your browser does not support SVG.

The Green Blobs

Yes, they're back! For the uninitiated the green blobs are representation of who committed in a given week. Read the chart from top to bottom and left to right. The date of the first commit and the % of weeks used are also given.

Commits and Committers

I have also gathered basic number of commits and committers per day and created plots, like this...

Your browser does not support SVG. So, I now have a few things to do:
  • Firstly, I need to find a place where I can store all these images and the source data where they are easily accessible. They will go online somewhere.
  • Secondly, I need to keep taking logs and keeping this archive up-to-date.
  • I also need to create a sensible means for generating SVG versions of the Green Blobs. This was an issue raised back at Akademy in Glasgow and still hasn't been addressed. I'm generally moving all of my visualisations to SVG these days.

In time I will add visualisations for things like email activity as well. If you have any ideas of aspects of the community you want visualised just let me know and I'll see what I can do. In particular, if you want me to run these jobs for your "bit" of KDE (e.g. Amarok, KOffice), just give me a shout and I'll see if I can make time. Better still, why not lend me a hand? Once I have hosting for the visualisations I will be putting all my scripts up with them. Finally.

Whilst the historical data has been visualised for interest, I hope that the new charts, as they are produced, will be helpful for all sorts of activities: from community management and coordination to marketing. Oh... and research, of course.

Categories: FLOSS Research

OSS, Akademy and ICSM 2009

Paul Adams: Green Eggs and Ham - Mon, 2009-06-01 16:15

I've just arrived in Sweden for the 5th International Conference on Open Source Systems - OSS2009. This year the conference is being held in Skövde, Sweden. This year's keynote speakers will be Stormy Peters and Brian Behlendorf. I'm particularly keen to meet with Stormy who I haven't seen since GUADEC in Birmingham; it would be good to talk before GCDS.

I like OSS. It is a friendly crowd who turn up and the conference always has a good mix of "the usual suspects" and new faces. One of those new faces for this year is Celeste Lyn Paul of KDE Usability fame. Her paper, "A survey of usability practices in Free/Libre/Open Source Software" is presented on Friday. My paper, "Reassessing Brooks' Law for the Free Software Community", will get its outing on Thursday.

In my paper I present a new approach to assessing the role of Brooks' Law and its relevance to Free Software development. This is really a "work in progress" paper. At least it was when I wrote it....

... and having subsequently finished this work I have recently received confirmation that my full paper on this topic has been accepted as a full paper to the International Conference on Software Maintenance. This gives me a great opportunity to start adding to my "I'm going to..." banners.

I'm putting together tentative plans to hold a workshop at Akademy on software quality issues. The idea is for this to be a joint workshop for both KDE and GNOME and a showcase for some of the more import results from SQO-OSS, FLOSSMETRICS and QUALOSS EC-funded research projects. If you are interested in this, please let me know. Unless there is enough up-front support, it will be hard to arrange this.

Edit: Co-Author Fail

One of my co-author's has correctly pointed out that I have used "I" where I should have written "us" and failed to give credit to my co-authors. I apologise unreservedly to Andrea Capiluppi and Cornelia Boldyreff. I am not worthy.

Categories: FLOSS Research
Syndicate content