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.

Comments

sharing

[Jonny Ringo]

Its nice to see a government doing what I have learned in Kindergarden.
Sharing.

The Register

[GothChip]

And here's The Register's take on the story from this morning.

Wow

[Vader82]

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!

Re:Wow

[larry bagina]

It is interesting, that Europe, home of 2 world wars, (and plenty of agression before that), multiple languages and multiple cultures is coming together to share currency, and now source code.

Of course, Europe is (currently) much more socialist than the US, and doesn't believe in software patents, fertile breeding ground for Open Source.

Re:Wow

[pe1rxq]

the freedom to protect yourself with firearms

The horror, I have lived my entire live without the FREEDOM of getting shot by a trigger-happy firearm owner....

Firearm owners tend to play judge a little to easy (else they didn't need a gun, do they?). In a good society guns are controlled, and the controllers are controlled by an elected government and thus are controlled by the people themselfs.... You are using guns protecting yourself, you just don't give them to people who don't need them.

he freedom from having lawyers sue on your behalf without your consent

Thats a right I can live without, if somebody really needs sueing on my behalf surely I will know best...

Jeroen

Re:Wow

[Ami Ganguli]

Ewww, must not feed the troll, must not feed the troll, must not... oh, what the hell...

Or things like the freedom to protect yourself with firearms,

A right nobody else in the world seems to care about. Indeed, I've never met a European who wishes he could carry a gun. I, on the other hand, would be really upset to give up my right to drink alchohol in public spaces. Don't you miss having a some wine when you go on a picnic? Don't you find it strange that 18-year-olds in the U.S. can vote, carry weapons, and fight for their country, but can't go into a bar?

the freedom from having lawyers sue on your behalf without your consent,

I think that's Germany you're talking about. Yeah, there are plenty of quirky laws out there. But even with that strange one, Germany doesn't come close to the level of litigation enjoyed by the U.S. I suppose you could say that Europeans enjoy the right not be sued by idiots who hurt themselves doing stupid things.

or any sembalance of abiding by the will of the people.

This one baffles me. Especially given your current government. Care to give an example of what you're talking about? The only Western European country with more surreal politics than the U.S. is Italy (but then, these are the same people who pick fights with bulls). The rest of Europe is pretty sane.

Open Source Development HOW-TO

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Introduction

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:

"Hi there! Welcom to my SorceForge page! I am planing to create a Fisrt Person Shooter game for Linux that is going to kick Doom 3's ass! I have loads of awesome ideas, like giant robotic spiders! I need some help thouh as I cant program or draw. If you can program or draw the tekstures please get in touch! K thx bye!"

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?

Unisys

[hatter3bdev]

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?

Re:Unisys

[kigrwik]

Well they provided us with a good laugh by hosting the site on a BSD box, so maybe they're really on our side ! :)

Re:Unisys

[Subcarrier]

Grass grows towards the sun no matter which way the wind blows on top of it.

Re:Unisys

[Subcarrier]

oderators are obviously metaphor challenged :)

I have noticed that as well. Sarcasm also appears to be difficult to grasp. And never try black humour. ;-> [Attention moderators: the term black humour does not refer to racial issues]

Grass? Sun? Wind? We're talking about Unisys making a profit here!

Certainly. They sells their expertese to whoever is willing to pay for it.

What I have noticed, however, is that in many companies the number of people who really do get opensource has been increasing rapidly. The university nerds who grew up with Linux projects have real jobs now. In some case the management hasn't woken up to it yet. I think we're going to see some interesting developments in the future.

Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[gentlewizard]

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.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[Lord_Slepnir]

Which country will want to spend money creating applications, if the rest get them for free?

Easy, if country A could put in a backdoor to some peice of, say, financial software that would allow them to look into country B's or country C's internal finances, then it would be well worth country A's time to develop that software.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[ch-chuck]

Which country will want to spend money creating applications, if the rest get them for free?

Because they're not in the software for profit business? Say I want to build a house a certain way, but there are no pre-existing blueprints for one just the way I want it. So I hire an architect and we work and work and make up exactly what I want and then built it. Does it really detract from my life just because someone else can use the same blueprints, obtained for the cost of duplication, if it just happens to work for them as well? If I have a software need, I can either 1) purchase a license for an existing product and since I'm only purchasing a license, not the rights to the software, am left dangling at their whims like a marionette (Msft: "We want you to upgrade now, be a good customer and buy our latest or greatest or we can make things difficult for you!") or 2) use existing freeware and live with the warts or 3) get into the open source game and a) use what exists and modify it to your needs or b) wait for someone else to make a version that fits your needs.

Now one can easily complain, "Hey, we spent X amount of France's taxpayer money developing this app and Belgium gets it for free!" but the country or company that hires developers to create and maintain software the way they want it gets exactly what they want, and the freeloaders have to life with that or hire their own developers. In a way it's like the software market anyway, you can only purchase off the shelf what the majority want or what Msft research decides you shall want.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[CaffeineAddict2001]

No, it would be better to hire someone to audit the code rather than develop the same thing.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[sheldon]

Say I want to build a house a certain way, but there are no pre-existing blueprints for one just the way I want it. So I hire an architect and we work and work and make up exactly what I want and then built it. Does it really detract from my life just because someone else can use the same blueprints, obtained for the cost of duplication, if it just happens to work for them as well?

Let's say the architect cost $20,000.

In your world, one person spends $20,000 and everybody else benefits for free.

Now the other world view is to have 200 people get together and chip in $100 each, and all get to benefit equally from the resulting work. If you get 400 people it's only $50 each.

Are you losing anything in life? I don't know, I guess it all depends on how charitable of a person you are.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[roalt]

The EU has a large budget on their own, of course paid by all member states. So, if they decide to make an "open source software pool", the EU as a whole will probably donate money for it.

A lot of EU money is spent on letting EU members work together in european projects. Open source is an excellent way to cooperate internationally. Even if it's just for drowning...

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[PatientZero]

But you may not know ahead of time. When you pay the architect $20,000, maybe none of your friends wants to build a house. Then, five years later, someone comes to your door and says they love your house and want to build one just like it.

If you dismiss them, you gain nothing. If you give them a copy of the plans, you gain nothing. So what's the difference? True, maybe they would be willing to pay you $500 for the plans, but you can't claim to lose $20,000 if they don't because you already paid it and got what you wanted.

It's sad, but our (U.S. for me) culture has such a strong desire to strive for awards that we don't do anything without the possibility of a payment of some sort. I get odd stares on the street if I pick up someone else's trash and throw it in the trash can, like, "You're not being paid to do that; why did you do that? How strange!" Maybe I did it just because I like a clean street rather than a dirty one? It's a similar impulse with creating Free Software.

Luckily, some people really do like to give.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[sheldon]

But you may not know ahead of time. When you pay the architect $20,000, maybe none of your friends wants to build a house.

This is absolutely correct.

But now let's look at it from the point of view of the Architect. He has to provide a income for his business, his family and his new car. Now he can go about this many ways.

One way, he can market himself as building the ideal unique home for those of taste. For only $20,000 he will design a custom home that will amaze your friends and make your coworkers envious. It's all custom work, and let's assume he can complete 8 house designs a year this way. So this pulls in $160k in revenue a year.

Or there is the other way, where the architect spends the same amount of effort but designs a good house with a good layout and would appeal to a broader population. He spends a year designing 8 such homes, same as before. But instead of marketing it as unique, he markets them to large scale home development companies across the country. Let's say it's a royalty basis, $200 per home built using the plan.

But in this case, from those 8 plans, he's able to attract 1,000 people as customers per year, all across the country. That's $200k in revenue a year, far more than he received the other way.

Now the free software advocates claim this second method is immoral and unethical. But I have to ask why? From the customer perspective, they got what they wanted... a nicely designed house for a very low cost. From the architect's perspective he got paid for his work, and even made a little extra profit. Next year he uses that profit to hire more people and expand his business.

It's sad, but our (U.S. for me) culture has such a strong desire to strive for awards that we don't do anything without the possibility of a payment of some sort.

This striving for awards is a large part of what makes this country great. It encourages innovation, growth, trying new things, making things better. If instead you get everything handed to you without any effort, you become lazy. This has always been one of the fundamental problems with Communism. That and the corruption because human nature desires one to seek a better life, and the only mechanism for that under Communism was corruption.

I get odd stares on the street if I pick up someone else's trash and throw it in the trash can, like, "You're not being paid to do that; why did you do that? How strange!"

Now this I don't see at all. Perhaps it is the state I live in(Minnesota), but we have still have a strong sense of community and many here donate time and money to worthwhile causes. I see people out on the highways cleaning up all the time.

It's a similar impulse with creating Free Software.

Perhaps. But I don't see very many people advocating that all roads should be cleaned for free, and that anybody who wants to be a paid Janitor is immoral and evil. But that's the viewpoint the Free Software Foundation promotes.

Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming

[PatientZero]

But now let's look at it from the point of view of the Architect. He has to provide a[n] income for his business, his family and his new car.

Honestly, that's the architect's concern -- not his customers'. In a capitalist society, each person must provide for their own lifestyle. It is not the responsibility of the government to support the software industry. The government, like a business, needs software to perform various functions. And like a business, it must make choices that are in its best interest.

If each government in the EU agrees to join this collective commons and share software with each other, then who pays for what will balance itself out. One may supply software for budgeting; another writes software for distributing welfare; and so on.

True, this will decrease the market for custom software firms, but it will increase the market for custom software developers. In the end it may be a wash, with the added bonus that the governments -- and thus the EU citizens -- are better off. I don't see where the moral argument comes into play, but let's address that anyway.

Now the free software advocates claim this second method is immoral and unethical. But I have to ask why?

First, I'd ask why you assume that "the free software advocates" -- which seems to imply all or a majority -- "claim this second method is immoral and unethical." I'm a free software advocate, and I don't see any moral or ethical problem with commercial software. Capitalism lets the market decide. If there weren't companies that felt they were deriving advantages from using free software, it wouldn't survive. Clearly, people want free software, there are developers willing to create it, and there are even some companies willing to pay for it.

Where some people, including Bill Gates, raise an issue is with governments declaring that they will focus on using free software or open source. They claim that it is improper for a publicly-funded institution to discriminate about what type of software they will use. However, this isn't discrimination but merely choice. Most companies want to use well-written software that meets their business needs rather than something buggy that barely satisfies their goals [this is not a comparison of free vs. proprietary software]. It's another business decision. If a government decides that proprietary software doesn't meet their needs, what's the problem?

This striving for awards is a large part of what makes this country great. . . . If instead you get everything handed to you without any effort, you become lazy.

I didn't say all rewards are bad. I said that many people tend to do things only when they expect a reward. There certainly is altruism in the world -- I just wish there was a lot more of it.

But I don't see very many people advocating that all roads should be cleaned for free, and that anybody who wants to be a paid Janitor is immoral and evil.

And I don't see the majority of free software people advocating that all software "should" be free, as that implies forcing the freedom by banning all proprietary software. Similarly, I haven't seen anyone saying paid software developers are immoral. I certainly wouldn't claim that, being one myself.

I believe that if this goes over in the EU, the governments will end up hiring a lot of developers to create software that will be shared among the governments. How is that any different than hiring a bunch of trash collectors and sharing any new learning that comes out of that?

Love quote from ZD page

[josh crawley]

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?

A few thoughts

[PHAEDRU5]

1. Bill's out of his gourd if he thinks telling the Europeans that OSS is anti-capitalist will get him anywhere. If anything it'll ensure the Europeans go more into the OSS camp.

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?

Re:A few thoughts

[ElMiguel]

1. Bill's out of his gourd if he thinks telling the Europeans that OSS is anti-capitalist will get him anywhere.

Bill didn't say that to the Europeans (I'd expect Bill is clever enough to avoid making such a mistake). Rather, he said it to leaders of developing countries. The quote is from a conference in April.

2. Is anyone worried about this tendency within the EU towards standardization and centralization?

I believe standardization and centralization are not only good but necessary for the future of Europeans.

I mean, the French definitely want things back as they were in 1680, or thereabouts, with France in control of the continent.

Why only France? It seems to me that Germany also has a lot of influence. And even for the smaller countries, being in the EU gives them more control on their future, not less.

Dammit Moderators !

[kigrwik]

-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.

Or better yet, some quotes from the study

[ubbe]

The study (pdf) is pretty level-headed about the "viral nature" of the GPL-style licenses, check out this quote:

"At the contrary of some declarations, this "copyleft effect" does not touch or affect other software, or software interoperating with the GPLed software. But if you really INCLUDE
significant parts of copyleft code (e.g. GPLed components) in your software, this software must be distributed under the same license (e.g. GPL license)."

And this paragraph:

"As was said in the "copyleft" comments, the viral effect of a license like the GPL is a myth in the sense that it will not constraint a
publisher to release his software as GPL if some lines of open source code where introduced in it by accident."

The study (pdf) compare the different licenses, the pros and cons for the developer/end user. I haven't had the chance to read it all, but from what I can tell It's good reading. Great education for 'Open Source' enthusiasts.

Shaking my head

[theolein]

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.

Re:Shaking my head

[elandal]

[...] then that someone is immediately either communist (the EU in general), fascist (anything to do with Germany) or incompetent (usually some comment on France)

But that's mostly correct!
OK, Europe is not communist, but socialist. The various center-leftist socialist parties pretty much rule over Europe..
And fascism, right-wing neo-nazism, and such is on the rise in Europe - has been for a while.
And the French are bloody incompetent idiots - that's a no-brainer.

have a fairly good record of not blowing too much money on things

And spending most of the EU budget to pay the French farmers. I eagerly await the shit-wars of French vs. Polish farmers - You can't imagine the amount of shit the French can drive on the EU Parliament house stairs..

No, the EU parliaments and cabinets definitely don't have a good record on using the tax-money wisely. Do You follow the news? How about the Italian budget? The French budget (and broken promises)? Even Germany has trouble keeping spending down when they lower the taxes (not that lowering the taxes is bad, but spending should go down as well).

However, on footing the bill of OSS developed in the future for the purposes proposed in the study, those bureaous that need software will pay. Whether proprietary or open source makes no difference in who pays, just that in time there should be a pool of software available which can be customized for the purposes of various bureaus instead of commissioning new, proprietary software written from scratch every time. I think it should lower costs for every party later on - it's the same as with any kind of software re-use (modularization, componentatization, and so on) done a little differently. And, as currently the software is written by hundreds or thousands of private companies which don't share source between eachother, even if the same companies continued to work on the programs required, having a source pool should speed up the development and thus make it a little cheaper.

Disclmaier: as a European I have all the rights to make fun of Europe and Europeans. But I still reserve the right to make fun of Americans, too ;)

Re:Shaking my head

[theolein]

Good thing no one mentioned the UK then, isn't it?

Re:Shaking my head

[elandal]

I will - in about two hundred years when the islanders notice that they have been considered part of Europe for a while..

Remember that whatever happens, the pound, the mile, and the pint stay. (I don't remember the exact words, but that was the promise of the prime minister of UK some years ago.)

I would agree about the pint.

Re:Shaking my head

[npsimons]

While I must apologize for my fellow country men and women's responses that have offended, I would please ask that you do not lump us all together, lest you become as convinced of your own stereotypes of Americans that you accuse us of having of Europeans.

Also, the only reason some of us are American is that we were born here.

Several thoughts . . . .

[Aliks]

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?