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.

15 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. The Register by GothChip · · Score: 3, Informative

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

  2. Open Source Development HOW-TO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny
    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?

  3. Unisys by hatter3bdev · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Unisys by Subcarrier · · Score: 3, Funny

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

      --
      "I have opinions of my own, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them." -- George H. W. Bush
  4. Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming by gentlewizard · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming by ch-chuck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
    2. Re:Creating a pool doesn't guarantee swimming by PatientZero · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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?

      --
      Freedom to fear. Freedom from thought. Freedom to kill.
      I guess the War on Terror really is about freedom!
  5. Love quote from ZD page by josh+crawley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  6. Re:Wow by pe1rxq · · Score: 3, Insightful
    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

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  7. A few thoughts by PHAEDRU5 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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?

    --
    668: Neighbour of the Beast
    1. Re:A few thoughts by ElMiguel · · Score: 3, Interesting
      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.

  8. Re:Wow by Ami+Ganguli · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    It is tempting, if the only tool you have is a hammer, to treat everything as if it were a nail. - Abraham Maslow
  9. Or better yet, some quotes from the study by ubbe · · Score: 4, Informative
    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.
  10. Shaking my head by theolein · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  11. Several thoughts . . . . by Aliks · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?