domenica 23 dicembre 2007
domenica 28 ottobre 2007
European Open Standards: EU enjoys standards on Discriminatory terms
Microsoft withdrawn two remaining appeals before the European Union's Court of First Instance against European Commission antitrust decisions.
As reported by Slashdot an article in Australia's IT News mentions that under its antitrust agreement with the European Union:
Microsoft will publish an irrevocable pledge not to assert any patents it may have over the interoperability information against non-commercial open source software development projects.
While I understand that Erich Andersen, European General Counsel for Microsoft, said that:
We believe it’s important at this stage to focus all of our energies on complying with our legal obligations and strengthening our constructive relationship with the European Commission.
I don't understand why Neelie Kroes, EU's Competition Commissioner, said that:
I have always said that open source software developers must be able to take advantage of this remedy: now they can.
Despite Georg Greeve (FSFE President) seems happy about the news, and Dana Blankenhorn believes that open source developers found a greater protection in Europe, I am concerned.
Answering a Dana's post, I stressed the importance of the real meaning of the expression RAND, Reasonable And Not Discriminatory.
As a matter of fact even if you have to ask a single dime for each copy of a software, that it simply can't be free software. In this respect perspective any (open) standard and protocol has to be royalty-free, unless you want to keep out open source. I totally agree with John McCreesh, the EU has worked for three years to produce a mouse, and no one is really taking advantage of if it. Did interoperability win? I am afraid not.
I see FFII, Stefano Maffulli sharing my concerns, and I really hope that the Samba Team will soon take a position on this matter. Benjamin Henrion, FFII representative said:
Kroes has ensured that EPO software patents - which the EU rejected in 2005 - will now strengthen the monopolist's grip for years to come.
I totally agree with Benjamin, a patent covenant for non commercial open source developers is a small blanket. At the end of the day "free software" might cost a lot to end customers and open source firms, from now on.
[tags] Commercial Open Source, Non Commercial Open Source, FFII, StefanoMaffulli, DanaBlankenhorn, HenrionBenjamin, NeelieKroes, JohnMcCreesh, RAND, Europe, FSFE, GeorgGreeve[/tags]
mercoledì 18 luglio 2007
Open Source Government: good-will needed
Every Government is supposed to function for the benefit of its citizens, delivering services that help economic growth and enable social activities. Since IT is just a cost center, and considering the possible multiplying effects, many see Open Source as the natural choice.
Looking at the North-American experiences, or European ones, I am wondering what did they miss, and how possibly the new ones could eventually be really successful.
Matt calls for leadership, I think that first we need politicians with good-will, willing to put their intellectual potential to work for the overall desires of the general public.
What do you think?
[tags] Open Source Government [/tags]
Open Source Government: SoftwareTech news
David Wheeler kindly suggested me to read the last number of the DoD Software Tech news - a periodic published by the Data & Analysis Center for Software - entitled "Open Source - The future is Open" (registration required), and it really worths reading.
Before talking about why FAR, the Federal Acquisition Regulation, demands agencies to look at open source software when procuring software, I wish to report Gen. Charles Croom priority list for how DISA - the Defense Information Systems Agency - will acquire technologies and capabilities in the future. Defined by the acronym "ABC", as explained below:
The “A” on that list stands for adopt. The general maintains that his agency will do what it can to take advantage of past investments by adopting both what is in the marketplace and what is in the U.S. Defense Department inventory. This approach is at the heart of providing network connectivity to the warfighter.
The “B” is for buy. If the agency cannot adopt something already on the shelf, then it will go to the marketplace and buy what is needed. While this lacks the economic savings of using what is at hand, it nonetheless takes advantage of the efficiency in commercial developments.
If neither A nor B can help DISA carry out its mission, then the agency will employ its “C”—create. Only if all other avenues fail to produce the needed goods or services will the agency generate its own customized solution.
In terms of the “A,” DOD is a large-scale adopter of Open Source as results from what observed Brigadier General Nick Justice, the Deputy Program Officer for the Army’s Program Executive Office, Command, Control and Communications Tactical:
Open source software is part of the integrated network fabric which connects and enables our command and control system to work effectively, as people’s lives depend on it. When we rolled into Baghdad, we did it using open source.
With respect to the “B,” Chuck Reichers, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Acquisition and Management, said:
We want to pay for unique intellectual property when it’s best of breed, but not succumb to code and vendor-specific lock-in situations. Acquisition of proprietary solutions needs to be a conscience choice, not an assumption.
Last but not least the “C,” with the living example of the Navy’s SHARE (Software, Hardware Asset Reuse Enterprise) repository. James Shannon, program manager for future combat systems open architecture, observed:
But the fact that today we are putting systems that were solely owned or thought to be solely owned by other companies and the fact we have shared them with other companies, I will tell you OA (open architecture) has arrived. We are definitely working to change our Navy business model and we are seeing industry change their business models as a result.
I am among them thinking that Open Source software shouldn't be mandatory, but at the same extent I firmly believe that Open Source has to have an official seat at every Public Administration table.
Getting back to the FAR issue, considering that the FAR requires government agencies to conduct market research to determine if commercial items or non-developmental items are available, Wheeler wrote that:
An agency that fails to consider OSS options is in direct violation of the FAR, because it would be failing to consider commercial items.
Another reason that most extant OSS is commercial is because U.S. law says so. U.S. Code Title 17, section 101 defines “financial gain” as including “receipt, or expectation of receipt, of anything of value, including the receipt of other copyrighted works.” Most OSS projects are specifically established to encourage others to contribute improvements (which are copyrighted works), a form of financial gain and thus commercial.
I keep citing David's work because it is really important that people get acquainted with the idea that "Commercial is not the opposite of Free-Libre / Open Source Software", hence the name of my blog: Commercial Open Source.
The Software Tech News is published quarterly by the Data & Analysis Center for Software (DACS). The DACS is a DoD sponsored Information Analysis Center (IAC), administratively managed by the Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC). The DACS is technically managed by Air Force Research Laboratory, Rome, NY and operated by ITT, Advanced Engineering and Sciences Division.
[tags]Open Source Government, Wheeler, SoftwareTech news, Commercial Open Source[/tags]
Open Source Government: FCC rules could negatively affect the market
The Federal Communications Commission responding to a petition for clarification filed by Cisco, asking about the policy on the confidentiality of software controlling security in Software Defined Radios. The Freedom Software Law Center concluded that the rules do not restrict the activities of independent developers and distributors of FLOSS designed for use with SDR devices.
FCC position about the open source concept doesn't harm me really, neither I am worried by the (false) assumption about open source insecurity, due to the inherently public nature of source code. It is just the obsolete "security by obscurity" statement (read also Jeff Kaplan "FCC: Open Source Idiots" on the subject).
But as the SDR Forum, I am concerned about the following issues:
In particular, the SDR Forum is concerned that the policy may discourage standardization of security methods that would be in the public interest. For example, an SDR Forum member might decide to withhold its security approach from the Forum’s membership because doing so might reveal aspects of the approach that “could be defeated or otherwise circumvented.”
Common based peer-production can really foster industry collaboration in order to develop the best security practices, and the new policy could prevent this to happen.
The policy may also discourage new business models that would improve the quality of SDR security and lower its costs. Seemingly implicit in the Commission’s order is that the radio manufacturer and security mechanism developer are vertically integrated – i.e., one company provides both functions. However, for the most effective techniques to be implemented across SDR and cognitive radio markets, they need to be shared across multiple manufacturers.
Hence firms need to share many aspects of their security techniques, the businesses requires so, otherwise the Commission won't take advantage of the benefits of a competitive marketplace.
Technological clubs are not an easy game to play, making them not compliant with FCC rules would greatly help large integrated firms just like... Cisco, I am afraid.
[tags] Open Source Government, FCC, Cisco, technological club[/tags]
Iscriviti a:
Commenti (Atom)