Comments for OSS Watch team blog http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org open source software innovation support centre Sun, 05 Jul 2009 01:17:05 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=wordpress-mu-1.2.5 Comment on Oxford barcamp - first impressions by Marcus Povey http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/08/oxford-barcamp-first-impressions/#comment-25649 Marcus Povey Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:18:25 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/08/oxford-barcamp-first-impressions/#comment-25649 You may be interested to know that we have confirmed a venue and funding for Barcamp Transparency! It will be held in the Oxford Club (same venue as barcampapache oxford) on the 26th of July. All are welcome, and you can find further details over at http://www.barcamptransparency-uk.org You may be interested to know that we have confirmed a venue and funding for Barcamp Transparency!

It will be held in the Oxford Club (same venue as barcampapache oxford) on the 26th of July.

All are welcome, and you can find further details over at http://www.barcamptransparency-uk.org

]]> Comment on Software Patents: Follow The Leader by Ross Gardler http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2008/04/21/software-patents-follow-the-leader/#comment-23625 Ross Gardler Fri, 19 Jun 2009 11:47:08 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2008/04/21/software-patents-follow-the-leader/#comment-23625 Ray,given your line of work it is no surprise that you want to see software patents. However, your final statement "I believe software creators should be able to make money on their creations just like anyone else in this country!" shows a deep lack of understanding about how software development, in particular open source software development works. Whilst there is a debate to be had about the merits of software patents, the fact is that they prevent any business model that is built around open source software. To gain a better understanding I suggest you read: http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/businessofopensource.xml http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/softwarepatents.xml http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/sustainableopensource.xml Ray,given your line of work it is no surprise that you want to see software patents. However, your final statement “I believe software creators should be able to make money on their creations just like anyone else in this country!” shows a deep lack of understanding about how software development, in particular open source software development works.

Whilst there is a debate to be had about the merits of software patents, the fact is that they prevent any business model that is built around open source software.

To gain a better understanding I suggest you read:

http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/businessofopensource.xml
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/softwarepatents.xml
http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/sustainableopensource.xml

]]> Comment on Google’s Video Games by stevelee http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/06/11/games/#comment-23600 stevelee Fri, 19 Jun 2009 05:50:02 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/06/11/games/#comment-23600 Thanks for a very informative post. As a point of information and for anyone who wants to play with the new HTML 5 media tags, Firefox's and element support lands in 3.5 and the accessibility team have been working on the accessibility of the video and built in player controls. See http://is.gd/15YcO and get Firefox 3.5 RC1 at http://is.gd/15Ynd Thanks for a very informative post.

As a point of information and for anyone who wants to play with the new HTML 5 media tags, Firefox’s and element support lands in 3.5 and the accessibility team have been working on the accessibility of the video and built in player controls. See

http://is.gd/15YcO

and get Firefox 3.5 RC1 at

http://is.gd/15Ynd

]]> Comment on Software Patents: Follow The Leader by Ray Subs http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2008/04/21/software-patents-follow-the-leader/#comment-23018 Ray Subs Sat, 13 Jun 2009 21:53:54 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2008/04/21/software-patents-follow-the-leader/#comment-23018 I strongly feel that software should be able to be patented and that strong patents help to minimize patent infringement and improve patent enforcement. I believe software creators should be able to make money on their creations just like anyone else in this country! I strongly feel that software should be able to be patented and that strong patents help to minimize patent infringement and improve patent enforcement. I believe software creators should be able to make money on their creations just like anyone else in this country!

]]> Comment on Open Development embraced by OMII-UK projects by Mario Antonioletti http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/06/02/open-development-embraced-by-omii-uk-projects/#comment-22217 Mario Antonioletti Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:14:58 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/06/02/open-development-embraced-by-omii-uk-projects/#comment-22217 I think it was invaluable to have Steve at the collaborations workshop. As his article states we, OGSA-DAI, are in the progress of moving to use Source Forge in order to enter an open development model that will hopefully provide a long term sustainability model for the product (assuming that we can attract and grow a community to do this). We have our source forge account and we are slowly populating it: http://sourceforge.net/projects/ogsa-dai/ We need to refactor code to make it easier to build and manage. Once this is done we will put it up on the Source Forge SVN (it is currently available from the OGSA-DAI web site: http://www.ogsadai.org.uk or CVS http://cvs.ogsadai.org.uk). It proved valuable to have someone from OSS Watch at the meeting to bounce ideas of and ask for advice. If someone is thinking of taking this route I would highly recommend getting in touch with OSS Watch for advice. I think it was invaluable to have Steve at the collaborations workshop. As his article states we, OGSA-DAI, are in the progress of moving to use Source Forge in order to enter an open development model that will hopefully provide a long term sustainability model for the product (assuming that we can attract and grow a community to do this). We have our source forge account and we are slowly populating it:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/ogsa-dai/

We need to refactor code to make it easier to build and manage. Once this is done we will put it up on the Source Forge SVN (it is currently available from the OGSA-DAI web site: http://www.ogsadai.org.uk or CVS http://cvs.ogsadai.org.uk). It proved valuable to have someone from OSS Watch at the meeting to bounce ideas of and ask for advice. If someone is thinking of taking this route I would highly recommend getting in touch with OSS Watch for advice.

]]> Comment on One less open source licence to worry about by MJ Ray http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-20756 MJ Ray Tue, 19 May 2009 11:46:30 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-20756 The Debian process does have lawyers looking at licences, but by referral from the maintainers or managers, rather than routinely (because that would quickly get expensive and/or slow and 99% of licensing problems are obvious application goofs, rather than questions about the actual license). The OSI process described at http://www.opensource.org/approval and linked pages seems to encourage a lawyer only on the license-advocate side and not require one on the OSI side, unless I missed something? So while that means you've almost always got a lawyer involved (good), it means there's almost always a lawyer on the license-advocate side (bad). I thought that was why OSI has been such a proliferation catalyst for most of its life, because it's driven by "please approve our cool new licence" open-sourcer egoism rather than "should we accept this licence?" debianer pragmatism. Anyway, the recent changes are most welcome. Sinner that repenteth and so on. The Debian process does have lawyers looking at licences, but by referral from the maintainers or managers, rather than routinely (because that would quickly get expensive and/or slow and 99% of licensing problems are obvious application goofs, rather than questions about the actual license).

The OSI process described at http://www.opensource.org/approval and linked pages seems to encourage a lawyer only on the license-advocate side and not require one on the OSI side, unless I missed something? So while that means you’ve almost always got a lawyer involved (good), it means there’s almost always a lawyer on the license-advocate side (bad). I thought that was why OSI has been such a proliferation catalyst for most of its life, because it’s driven by “please approve our cool new licence” open-sourcer egoism rather than “should we accept this licence?” debianer pragmatism.

Anyway, the recent changes are most welcome. Sinner that repenteth and so on.

]]> Comment on One less open source licence to worry about by Ross Gardler http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-20679 Ross Gardler Mon, 18 May 2009 12:03:51 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-20679 MJ Ray, you note that Debian has been categorising licences for some time and I agree this is very useful. One advantage of the OSI lists is that the licences are scrutinised by Lawyers before they are published. The OSI job is to ensure a "so-called" open source licence is indeed open source (and thus free software). Furthermore, whilst approval of licences is dependent only on their legal status, the categorisation of licenses is based on actual use. Does the Debian process have lawyers looking at the licences? I agree that automated tools are not sufficient in IP management processes. They are helpful, sure, but nothing beats an understanding of the licence terms and a proper <a href="http://www.oss-watch.ac.uk/resources/versioncontrol.xml" rel="nofollow">audit trail and accountability</a>. OSS Watch are here to help projects based in the education sector <a href="mailto:info@oss-watch.ac.uk" rel="nofollow">manage their IP correctly</a>. MJ Ray, you note that Debian has been categorising licences for some time and I agree this is very useful.

One advantage of the OSI lists is that the licences are scrutinised by Lawyers before they are published. The OSI job is to ensure a “so-called” open source licence is indeed open source (and thus free software). Furthermore, whilst approval of licences is dependent only on their legal status, the categorisation of licenses is based on actual use.

Does the Debian process have lawyers looking at the licences?

I agree that automated tools are not sufficient in IP management processes. They are helpful, sure, but nothing beats an understanding of the licence terms and a proper audit trail and accountability.

OSS Watch are here to help projects based in the education sector manage their IP correctly.

]]> Comment on One less open source licence to worry about by MJ Ray http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-17736 MJ Ray Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:51:58 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-17736 I think it's very clever to educate development teams about licensing. It sounds like there's not much higher-level support for that yet - would that be accurate? We need to educate developers and education is part of my company's mission, right there alongside providing IT services, but it seems we're very unusual about that. Automation is helpful (again, look at things like machine-readable copyright control from the debian project, which are in their infancy but could be useful soon) but no substitute for education and vigilence. I think it’s very clever to educate development teams about licensing. It sounds like there’s not much higher-level support for that yet - would that be accurate?

We need to educate developers and education is part of my company’s mission, right there alongside providing IT services, but it seems we’re very unusual about that. Automation is helpful (again, look at things like machine-readable copyright control from the debian project, which are in their infancy but could be useful soon) but no substitute for education and vigilence.

]]> Comment on One less open source licence to worry about by Joakim http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-17733 Joakim Fri, 17 Apr 2009 14:38:22 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-17733 At the end of the day, keeping track of the licenses in a project manually is impractical. My developers do not understand (and some, frankly, do not care) about the nuances of licenses. As a project manager I have had to educate myself and my team about some basic aspects of the licenses. IP management automation (we use IP Analyzer from Protecode and run it weekly) is the only way we can find out what has crept into the repository, and if the license or copyright is ok for us. I expect continuous IP management will become as common (and necessary) as version control practice. At the end of the day, keeping track of the licenses in a project manually is impractical. My developers do not understand (and some, frankly, do not care) about the nuances of licenses. As a project manager I have had to educate myself and my team about some basic aspects of the licenses. IP management automation (we use IP Analyzer from Protecode and run it weekly) is the only way we can find out what has crept into the repository, and if the license or copyright is ok for us. I expect continuous IP management will become as common (and necessary) as version control practice.

]]> Comment on One less open source licence to worry about by MJ Ray http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-17721 MJ Ray Fri, 17 Apr 2009 13:17:27 +0000 http://osswatch.jiscinvolve.org/2009/04/16/one-less-open-source-licence-to-worry-about/#comment-17721 Since 1999 at least, debian project contributors have been categorising licences as common-licenses as part of the base-files maintenance. The debian list is better than OSI's because it's popularly compiled, based on actual use for actual software and not by studying licences in abstract. You can view one version of the list at http://www.uk.debian.org/legal/licenses/ It's nice that OSI have finally started doing something similar, but they're rather late to this effort after years of helping license proliferation by approving licences in abstract without regard to whether they're popular in either sense. Since 1999 at least, debian project contributors have been categorising licences as common-licenses as part of the base-files maintenance. The debian list is better than OSI’s because it’s popularly compiled, based on actual use for actual software and not by studying licences in abstract. You can view one version of the list at http://www.uk.debian.org/legal/licenses/

It’s nice that OSI have finally started doing something similar, but they’re rather late to this effort after years of helping license proliferation by approving licences in abstract without regard to whether they’re popular in either sense.

]]>