Slashdot Mirror
EU Report Advocates Pooling Open Source Software
bnoise writes "'European administrations should share software resources, a report published by IDA says'. IDA stands for 'Interchange of Data between Administrations' and is an European Commission initiative promoting the use of ICT in the exchange of information between EU administrations. The report extensively (147 pages) describes and comments Open Source Software licenses and promotes the use of source sharing among administrations and beyond. Its 'Legal Framework analysis' section alone is worth reading if you (still) don't know what license to choose for your next software development. Also from one of the authors: 'Study into the use of Open Source Software in the Public Sector' (June 2001)." ZDNet has a summary of the report, and the report is also available in non-PDF formats.
Its nice to see a government doing what I have learned in Kindergarden.
Sharing.
And here's The Register's take on the story from this morning.
Sounds like Europe is getting way more of a clue than us in the US are. OK so most of us reading slashdot have a clue, but 99% of the sheeple here don't. Maybe those terrible treaties that make us abide by european laws would work in our favor when europeans decided that proprietary software in the goverment is a no-no and they make it illegal!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/26102.html
n.b:
"The study does not recommend any specific software platform or open source licence variant. But it does seem to take the view that pooled software should be exchanged between administrations, rather than being available to all and sundry, which suggests that the GPL won't be the way European goverment goes. It also considers the BSD licence and MPL, whereby "the code and the executable binary may be disassociated." This would allow the executable to be distributed with a proprietary licence, and hence would allow it to be restricted."
As everyone knows, Open Source software is the wave of the future. With the market share of GNU/Linux and *BSD increasing every day, interest in Open Source Software is at an all time high.
Developing software within the Open Source model benefits everyone. People can take your code, improve it and then release it back to the community. This cycle continues and leads to the creation of far more stable software than the 'Closed Source' shops can ever hope to create.
So you're itching to create that Doom 3 killer but don't know where to start? Read on!
2. First Steps
The most important thing that any Open Source project needs is a Sourceforge page. There are tens of thousands of successful Open Source projects on Sourceforge; the support you receive here will be invaluable.
OK, so you've registered your Sourceforge project and set the status to '0: Pre-Thinking About It', what's next?
3. Don't Waste Time!
Now you need to set up your SourceForge homepage. Keep it plain and simple - don't use too many HTML tags, just knock something up in VI. Website editors like FrontPage and DreamWeaver just create bloated eye-candy - you need to get your message to the masses!
4. Ask For Help
Since you probably can't program at all you'll need to try and find some people who think they can. If your project is a game you'll probably need an artist too. Ask for help on your new Sourceforge pages. Here is an example to get you started:
Thousands of talented programmers and artists hang out at Sourceforge ready to devote their time to projects so you should get a team together in no time!5. The A-Team
So now you have your team together you are ready to change your projects status to '1: Pre-Bickering'. You will need to discuss your ideas with your team mates and see what value they can add to the project. You could use an Instant Messaging program like MSN for this, but since you run Linux you'll have to stick to e-mail.
Don't forget that YOU are in charge! If your team doesn't like the idea of giant robotic spiders just delete them from the project and move on. Someone else can fill their place and this is the beauty of Open Source development. The code might end up a bit messy and the graphics inconsistant - but it's still 'Free as in Speech'!
6. Getting Down To It
Now that you've found a team of right thinking people you're ready to start development. Be prepared for some delays though. Programming is a craft and can take years to learn. Your programmer may be a bit rusty but will probably be writing "hello world" programs after school in no time.
Closed Source games like Doom 3 use the graphics card to do all the hard stuff anyhow, so your programmer will just have to get the NVidia 'API' and it will be plain sailing! Giant robot spiders, here we come!
7. The Outcome
So it's been a few years, you still have no files released or in CVS. Your programmer can't get enough time on the PC because his mother won't let him use it after 8pm. Your artist has run off with a Thai She-Male. Your project is still at '1: Pre-Bickering'...
Congratulations! You now have a successful Open Source project on Sourceforge! Pat yourself on the back, think up another idea and do it all again! See how simple it is?
An important factor in Linux' cost is its maintenance. Linux requires a *lot* of maintenance, work doable only by the relatively few high-paid Linux administrators that put themselves - of course willingly - at a great place in the market. Linux seems to be needing maintenance continuously, to keep it from breaking down.
Add to this the cost of loss of data. Linux' native file system, EXT2FS, is known to lose data like a firehose spouts water when the file system isn't unmounted properly. Other unix file systems are much more tolerant towards unexpected crashes. An example is the FreeBSD file system, which with soft updates enabled, performance-wise blows EXT2FS out of the water, and doesn't have the negative drawback of extreme data loss in case of a system breakdown.
According to Linux advocates, an alternative to EXT2FS would be ReiserFS.
Unfortunately, ReiserFS is still in beta stage. This means it is not intended for production use (although according to many Linux advocates this shouldn't be a problem, which makes me wonder how (little) valuable they find your data).
The other proposed 'solution', EXT3FS, is nothing more than an ugly hack to put journaling into the file system. All the drawbacks of the ancient EXT2FS file system remain in EXT3FS, for the sake of 'forward- and backward compatibility'. This is interesting, considering that the DOS heritage in the Windows 9x/ME series was considered a very bad thing by the Linux community, even though it provided what could be called one of the best examples of compatibility, ever. When it's about Linux, compatibility constraints don't seem to be that much of a problem for Linux advocates.
Back to Linux' cost. Factor in also the fact that crashes happen much more often on Linux than on other unices. On other unices, crashes usually are caused by external sources like power outages. Crashes in Linux are a regular thing, and nobody seems to know what causes them, internally. Linux advocates try to hide this fact by denying crashes ever happen. Instead, they have frequent "hardware problems".
The steep learning curve compared to about any other operating system out there is a major factor in Linux' cost. The system is a mix of features from all kinds of unices, but not one of them is implemented right. A Linux user has to live with badly coded tools which have low performance, mangle data seemingly at random and are not in line with their specification. On top of that a lot of them spit out the most childish and unprofessional messages, indicating that they were created by 14-year olds with too much time, no talent and a bad attitude.
I could go on and on and on, but the conclusion is clear. Linux is not an option for any one who seeks a professional OS with high performance, scalability, stability, adherence to standards, etc.
This report has been prepared under the sole responsibility of the contractor (Unisys Management Consulting Team).
Wasn't Unisys the ones that partnered with MS for the We Have the Way Out thing which advocated Windows over any UNIX? And now they're recommending Open Source software?
This was yesterdays news, slashdot, old news for ancient nerds, stuff that mattered 50 years ago!
Just creating a pool of open source applications doesn't guarantee that a specific country's administration will decide to use applications in the pool. There is always a "not-invented-here" factor to consider in any human endeavor.
There is also the matter of recouping the cost of development. Which country will want to spend money creating applications, if the rest get them for free? A chargeback/share model of some kind would have to be developed to provide an incentive for countries to contribute to the pool.
As usual, the biggest problems to solve are not technical ones, but human ones.
But the motivation does : they seem to want applications restricted to administrations. If the software can't be looked at by independant programmers, a great opportunity of control by the public is lost. To know that anyone could peek at your code is a great motivation to do it right.To know exactly how the administration comes to some decision is important (why do I pay so much taxes ?)
I live in a small country which will be in the EU by the end of 2004 (probalby) and our gov is just thinking of singing the agrrement with M$ for the next two years and for now they didn't want to hear about the Open SOurce, may be now they will be willing to listen... I'm going to scream loud and clear...
Management Summary
Pooling Open source Software?
The Feasibility Study
The present Study is a feasibility study about pooling (or sharing, exchanging) software and knowledge between public sector administrations across Europe.
A condition for greater re-use of software of the public sector is that software is available as open source. To encourage the sharing of software, the feasibility of creating a common software pool is considered. This would be a service combining a European knowledge centre and best practice. The legal, functional and technical constraints are evaluated within the present Study.
OSS Notion
Open source software is software where the author (the "licensor") gives some fundamental freedoms to the user (the "licensee"), inside a license agreement:
The freedom to study how the programme works, and the freedom to adapt the code according specific needs. Access to the source code is a precondition for this;
The freedom to improve the programme (enlarge, add functions);
The freedom to run the programme, for any purpose and on any number of machines;
The freedom to redistribute copies to other users.
What software, and why "Open source"?
Examples of open source software (OSS) are well known [The Linux operating system (or more exactly, the Linux kernel of the "GNU/Linux operating system") is the most famous OSS by far but is only the flagship of a numerous army of more or less illustrious representatives.], but the aim of the study is not to focus on these "stars". The object of the study is the specialised software produced by the public authorities across Europe, to respond to the administration or more generally to eGovernment needs: administration of roads, hospitals and public health, education, tax payment and recovery, justice, territory management [This is a selection of best practice presented at the eGovernment Conference (Brussels, 29 November 2001)].
So why "Open source" then? Because the software produced by or for administrations are usually not "industry packages" that can be used "as is" by other users. In particular, Europe is a territory of diversity (languages, regulations, cultures etc.), and a software developed in France for example, will not be usable as is in UK or in Sweden: the French administration's remit is to respond to the needs of its own citizens and not to make business with a generic product that can be sold "out-of-shelf" across the world. As a consequence, the reuse of such software is depending on the revision and the adaptation of its source code.
From these two prerequisites, the supposed absence of commercial purpose regarding license fees and the necessity to deliver the software with his code in order to adapt it to local realities prior to implement and redistribute it, the idea to adopt the "Open source Model" comes naturally.
The study purpose is therefore not of the advantages or disadvantages of open source and proprietary software. It is not to recommend any operating system or application, as the software developed for administrations run on multiple platforms (MS/ Windows, proprietary Unix, Linux etc.). It is not to take position in the commercial or sometimes ideological conflict between the advocates of free software distribution and the advocates of reinforcing intellectual and industrial property on software.
It is just to examine the pre-requisites and conditions (functional, legal, technical) of a pan-European pooling service.
The Ideas behind pooling
The ideas behind pooling software belong to three groups: Economy, Quality, Philosophy.
Economy
When acquiring existing software for new applications (licensee point of view and interest): obtaining the best value for citizen's money by reusing and adapting best practice software done by other administrations.
Reducing costs related to maintenance (licensor point of view and interest): existing applications are costly and difficult to maintain and to develop according to new standards. "Giving" their software as open source to a developers community may perhaps provide maintenance and new versions for free...
Sharing new software developments when no solution exists (common point of view): rather than to develop nearly identical solutions separately, why not adopt the open source development model to share the cost between a broader (trans-border) development team?
Quality
The sharing objective is not necessarily to spend less but to obtain a higher quality for the same amount of money:
Speed up innovation by using funds to develop really new applications and not to re-invent parts that have been already developed by others.
Allow countries to benefit from the advance of other countries: comparative studies showed "leading countries" having made significant advances in one or several specific domains.
Philosophy
Promote collaboration between European administrations;
Optimise the cooperation with the private sector, by concentrating investment on really innovative sectors and by promoting new support services;
I just love the quote that ol' billG said.... here it is.
"The so-called (Free Software Foundation)... says that these other countries other than the US should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialise that software," said Gates.
Well, umm, no shit BillG. As a government, would you spend your miney on a company in another country for proprietary software for internal matters, or put the money in developing better GPL/FSF type of software (where there is already base). So yes, the GPL keeps money (and code) out of your pocket.
By the way billy, nice job on the DeToqueville (whatever) essay. You didnt pay much for it, did you?
2. Is anyone worried about this tendency within the EU towards standardization and centralization? I mean, the French definitely want things back as they were in 1680, or thereabouts, with France in control of the continent. Does anyone think it's time for Europe to acquire a Bureau of Sabotage?
668: Neighbour of the Beast
Vorwärts! Vorwärts! Schmettern die hellen Fanfaren.
Vorwärts! Vorwärts! Jugend kennt keine Gefahren.
Slashdot, du wirst leuchtend stehn,
mögen wir auch untergehn.
Vorwärts! Vorwärts! Schmettern die hellen Fanfaren.
Vorwärts! Vorwärts! Jugend kennt keine Gefahren.
Ist das Ziel auch noch so hoch,
Jugend zwingt es, doch!
Unsre Linux es brechen uns voran..
In die Zukunft ziehen wir Mann für Mann.
Wir moderieren für Michael durch Nacht und durch not
Mit der betriebssystem für Freiheit und Brot.
Unsre Linux es brechen uns voran.
Unsre Linux ist die neue Zeit.
Und Linux führt uns in die ewigkeit!
Ja, Linux ist mehr als der Tod!
Jugend! Jugend! Wir sind die Zukunft Arschspielwaren.
Jugend! Jugend! Träger der kommenden Taten.
Ja, durch unsre Fäuste fällt,
wer sich uns entgegenstellt.
Jugend! Jugend! Wir sind die Zukunft Arschspielwaren.
Jugend! Jugend! Träger der kommenden Taten.
Führer, wir gehören dir,
wir kameraden dir!
Unsre Linux es brechen uns voran.
In die Zukunft ziehen wir Mann für Mann.
Wir moderieren für Michael durch Nacht und durch not
Mit der betriebssystem der Jugend für Freiheit und Brot.
Unsre Linux es brechen uns voran.
Unsre Linux ist die neue Zeit.
Und Linux führt uns in die ewigkeit!
Ja, Linux ist mehr als der Tod!
Open Source Software in the Public Sector is better than open sores in the private sector.
-1, Offtopic !
:)
What about poetry and metaphor ?
Now stop pretending to be insensitive geeks and mod parent up.
Note to parent poster:
in the future, to add some geek appeal, add a fake "-- Larry Wall in <1234567890@wall.org>" signature. Anyway, he said so many things you might even get it right.
-- don't discount flying pigs until you have good air defense
I sometimes think you Americans deserve a company like Microsoft: You complain long and loud how monopolistic, evil etc they are, but the minute someone outside the US actually does something about it, then that someone is immediately either communist (the EU in general), fascist (anything to do with Germany) or incompetent (usually some comment on France). This says more about stereotypes in American consciousness than anything else.
The EU is definitely not paradise, but they have a fairly good record of not blowing too much money on things which the tax payers have to foot, and OSS makes a lot of sense for me as a tax payer(cost), me as a citizen(the source code) and me as a programmer(the development stays here in Europe and not in Redmond).
The person who asked which country will pay for this: They will obviously have to work some agreement out on sharing of costs, but I see that being a lot easier to get through the various parliments than explaining that our tax money goes to a company in Washington State.
First off
there is a LOT of bespoke software running in UK government departments, and a lot of it was developed by third parties. Consultancies involved in this work have generally retained the IP to the work and in many cases have reused code, templates, and skills elsewhere for profit.
Nothing wrong with this in principle. The government doesn't really want to be in the software development business so it should be keen for others to reuse work as widely as possible. The larger the pool of users of a piece of code the more likely the govt will get some benefit back. The downside has been that not only does the govt pay through the nose for the initial development, they also pay a premium for future upgrades because they are now a captive user.
Avoiding this pain far outweighs the possible profit that could be made from retaining IP and selling to the highest bidder. (I've not seen many success stories coming out of Qinetiq which I believe is the UK agency responsible for commercialising apps that the govt owns. Correct me if I'm wrong on this one!)
Second off
The UK civil service is a passionate defender of the UK national interest. Trouble is that they often narrow the definition down to the interest of UK companies and do things that penalise UK citizens. There is a possibility that someone unaccountable will make an decision that using common apps across Europe will disadvantage UK software developers who will have to compete for govt business with equally skilled Europeans. It is also possible that someone will decide that the UK should be closely tied to US interests and that Microsoft is the only platform to work with.
The same debate has been heard many times on a wide range of issues such as banking law, European air traffic control, and even common weapons across the armies.
THE GOOD NEWS is that Open Source has the potential to be a different debate. The first government to develop or mandate sharable code has the best chance of establishing a standard for whatever app it is and therefore will avoid some later redevelopment costs. By opening the source code to scrutiny they also get the chance to check that the code does what they want it to do and nothing more. Less chance of hidden back doors, spyware etc.
And finally, it seems to me the big question is the ease or difficulty of identifying components which are truly sharable. Has anyone got any comparisons with major multi nationals that have tried to do this across their divisions?
Link
"Don't forget, it just so happens that all of those countries have nothing to lose and everything to gain by simply copying American drug patents. Third World countries, who are often run by tyrants and thieves, have nothing now nor on the visible horizon. Some countries who aren't considered Third World but are bankrupt and cheap will embrace open source pharmaceuticals (and open source computer systems). Others will embrace this kind of theft against 'The Great Satan' out of spite. Unfortunately an 'eye-for-an-eye' reaction policy (they steal our stuff; we steal theirs) doesn't work for the West because the countries that take from the West don't have anything worth taking."
Promis?
They make Ferrari's, Alfa Romeo's, Ducati's,...
Ceci n'est pas un sig
The findings of the "Pooling Open Source Software" study are available from the IDA website at http://europa.eu.int/ispo/ida.
Italian budgets are not the EU - The EU has a absolutely tiny, miniscule budget of 75 billion dollars which is 1% of gnp - compared with, say, the UK's 35% (and about 500 billion dollars)
... sheesh, the right of centre rules in UK, France, Germany, Spain, Holland, Italy - I am sure I have forgotten a few.
As for left of centre
Facts, please.
It is great that this kind of initiative is being brought through even it is only words. It shows people who would like to change that they won't be alone if they do. Compare this to the Tony Blair/Bill Gates love in that occurs here one a year.
people complaining about other people's stereotypes should be more careful about throwing around their own.
I do agree with the point you make though.
Roland
Common sense once told people that putting butter on a burn would prevent scarring, but it turned out that when the evidence was in that ice is better. Just like the evidence says that "common sense" is wrong here.
It would be nice to have a real HOW-TO that was not a joke. I am sure people have written these up. I would start at the *successful* open source sites: *.apache.org, mozilla.org and mozdev.org, openoffice.org, kde.org, gnome.org, about 10 others, and maybe a "top-ten best run" projects list on SF if there are even ten...