Archive for August, 2011

Open Source Junction 2 – video feedback

We asked a few speakers and participants at Open Source Junction 2 about the benefits they saw in building a community of industry and academic folks interested in mobile technologies.

The answers varied, but people seemed to perceive the diversity of points of view involved in this cross-cultural exercise as beneficial. The delegates with an industry background praised the deep thinking and creativity of researchers, while academics were impressed with the down-to-earth revenue-generating mindset of their industry colleagues.

The early feedback we got from the first event of the series was equally positive.

Open Source Junction 3, due later this year, will continue to facilitate the encounter between the academic and business cultures focused on open development in the mobile sector.

Watch this space.

———————————-

Camille Baldock, Softwire

YouTube Preview Image

—————————————————–

Steven Gray, University College London

YouTube Preview Image

————————

Julian Harty, ebay

YouTube Preview Image

——————————

Samuel Carlyle, Sukey

YouTube Preview Image

————————————

Nick Allott, NquiringMinds

YouTube Preview Image

———————————————-

Tim Fernando, University of Oxford

YouTube Preview Image

————————————————

Philipp Breuss-Schneeweis, Wikitude

YouTube Preview Image

——————————————

Yuwei Lin, University of Salford

YouTube Preview Image

————————–

Dave Raggett, W3C

YouTube Preview Image

—————————————

Gabriel Hanganu, OSS Watch

YouTube Preview Image

Standard alchemy

One of the questions that comes up over and over again when we talk to software authors about licence choice is: “what is each type of licence especially good for?” Personally, when discussing permissive licences I tend to point to the imperative of pushing an open data standard as a prototypical use case. Luckily for me, computer graphics industry giants (and competitors) Lucasfilm and Sony Pictures Imageworks have just released v1.0 of their 3d scene format Alembic to prove the point.

Anyone who has dabbled in 3d computer graphics, perhaps using the FOSS modeller and renderer Blender, will have noticed just how many competing object and scene description formats there are out there. While this is a minor inconvenience for amateurs like me, it becomes a massive and expensive problem for visual effects production houses and their clients. Complex animated objects and scenes created in one application have to be laboriously exported frame by frame and reconstructed in the target application, often requiring duplicated effort to complete the import. Alembic avoids this by allowing the compression and exportation and importation of entire complex animated sequences.

So for CG professionals there is a clear need for something like Alembic (the name is taken from the piece of chemistry glassware which distills products and delivers them to another container). However for the creators of the individual software packages the idea of a simple interchange format is not a high priority; after all, why should they make it easier for clients to use another company’s software? It’s natural, therefore, that it is the clients themselves who have produced the standard and software which ’scratches this itch’. Indeed there’s a precedent in the same industry. Back in 2003 Industrial Light and Magic release OpenEXR, a data standard and implementing software that allowed the interchange of so-called ‘HDR’ images (images with a greater range of luminance than standard image formats can store). In eight years OpenEXR has become a widely-used standard. With any luck, Alembic will follow in its footsteps.

Top 10 IP and licensing tips when licensing open data and open content

This guest post has been contributed by Naomi Korn and is based on a series of 10 Minute Blog entries that Naomi has written for the JISC funded OER IPR Support project, for which she is the Project Director. Naomi is the co-author, together with Charles Oppenheim of Licensing Open Data: A Practical Guide.

Editor’s note: This post addresses IP issues surrounding open data and open content rather than open source software. Whilst open data and content is outside OSS Watch’s remit it is, of course, pertinent to the world of open source software and we welcome Naomi’s thoughts and expertise.

1.    Identify the IPR and other legal issues which maybe associated with the data and content you wish to license. For example, even if there are no underlying IPR issues in your data and content, you may be constrained by contractual terms and conditions underpinning the supply of data etc. from third parties to you. You can read more about this at http://www.jisclegal.ac.uk/Projects/TransferandUseofBibliographicRecords.aspx

2. Don’t forget to identify all the layers of rights. There may be more than one layer of copyright materials, other types of IP (such as Performers’ rights) as well as other legal issues (such as Data Protection etc) which will need identifying and managing.

3. Decide how ‘open’ you wish to license your data and content. Issues that may need to be addressed include: – controlling use for non commercial uses only vs. allowing commercial exploitation by third parties and encouraging BCE etc – requirements for attribution vs. the resulting possibility of attribution stacking – controlling reuse and repurposing but sacrificing potential interoperability when blending with content, data as well as software licensed under more open terms.

4. Remember that the more ‘open’ the use and repurposing of your content and data, the greater the risk if you have not cleared all the rights.  This is particularly pertinent for in copyright materials for which the rights holders are either unknown or cannot be traced (so called ‘orphan works’). In these situations, the OER IPR Support Risk Management Calculator can be used to establish an indicative risk score which can be used to help inform decisions relating to risk management.

5. Risk Management is increasingly important in the provision of access to open content where it may not be clear who created what and who owns what rights (if any). An organisation’s relationship to risk management should be supported from the bottom-up, by a realistic understanding of the nature of the work and its proposed use, and by the top-down recognition that an organisation’s understanding and acceptance of necessary risks, needs to be agreed, captured in policies and where possible, mitigated. This is an important component in the development of an appropriate corporate governance framework to support the delivery of open content and open data.

6. Consider how the licensing of your data and content relates to the licensing of other types of materials such as open source software, and whether one broader licence, such as the Open Government Licence which covers data, software, content etc might be more beneficial than multiple licences.

7. Clear permissions with any third parties (as per 1 above), making sure that permissions that are sought are either the same or more than the permissions that you then grant under your selected open licence – never less! The support video profiled on the OER IPR Support webpages can provide more insight about this issue.

8. Remember, open licences are often irrevocable, global and in perpetuity, so make sure that you are happy with what you intend to do with your data and content before you licence it out. Worst case, openly licensed resources can be removed from the web etc., but permissions granted up to that point cannot be revoked.

9. Get permissions in writing, such as emails etc from any third party rights holders. Verbal permission is not adequate.

10. Extract key information relating to third party permissions and store in a suitable system which is centrally accessible to prevent the ’siloing’ of core rights management information. This is particularly important if projects are funded for a specific period time, such as JISC Projects, but where the permissions to use the materials may be subject to certain limitations and/or crediting requirements etc, as well as ensuring that there is a place to record rights holders contact details in case further contact is required.

“Recipe for Rip-Offs”

Here in the UK the Public Administration Select Committee has been looking into the poor record government has in procuring IT systems. The title of their report “Government and IT- “A Recipe For Rip-Offs”: Time For A New Approach“ serves as a neat summary of the content. Stating the problem, the report says

The UK has been described as “a world leader in ineffective IT schemes for government“. There have been a number of high cost IT initiatives which have run late, under-performed or failed over the last 20 years including: the Child Support Agency’s IT system, the IT system that would have underpinned the National ID Card scheme, the Defence Information Infrastructure Programme, the implementation of the Single Payments Scheme by the Rural Payments Agency, and the National Offender Management System (C-Nomis).

The main problem, the report says, is that the Government does not have the internal skills to specify and procure IT systems. As a result they tend to rely on large external contractors to manage the process of developing IT systems (and to subcontract to smaller businesses where necessary) . Naturally this involves handing over very large amounts of both cash and power to the ‘head’ contractors, and it is this complete externalisation of the ‘IT customer’ function that the report points to as the key failing in previous large government IT procurements. The answer, therefore, is to get better IT management skills within departments and take on the management of the smaller subcontractors themselves.

This is not the only failing identified. It seems that Government also tends to ‘gold-plate’ (over-specify) security requirements even on systems that do not require it. The report also criticises the tendency to see IT projects as a distinct kind of problem rather than an exercise in change management like any other. Nevertheless, it is the ‘externalisation’ problem which looms largest in the report’s somewhat gloomy findings, and it is in this context that the issue of open source arises.

Early on the report identifies the creation of ‘a level playing field for open source software’ as one of the approaches to solving the problem of Government IT that had already been suggested. In the recommendations, we find that open source is mentioned in the context of providing an open data platform for Government-held data which could be developed upon by third parties to provide analysis and manipulation applications. While both of these suggestions are sound in themselves, I think it is in the core recommendation that we can see the best opportunity to realise value for the UK taxpayer from open source software and development.

While there are very large scale corporations offering open source solutions, the majority of bidders for Government IT contracts offer closed source solutions, often with the bidder themselves retaining ownership of the IPR in the resultant code and licensing it under very restrictive terms. If the current reforms succeed in getting departments to break down IT procurements into smaller interoperating sections and invite bids for these from smaller, more agile developers, the opportunity for existing successful open source projects to be the bases for Government IT solutions expands. Assuming that the newly-acquired IT experts within departments are able to meaningfully engage with the communities around these projects – both through their hired developers and as users themselves – then huge amounts of value in terms of code, user requirements and expertise which are currently locked into closed, non-functioning projects will be available for the good of the community at large. The projects themselves will learn how to interact with Government clients, and software components of general application will find their way back into the public space to benefit other large-scale users.

All of these benefits, though, depend both on an openness to the use of open source software but also on expertise in managing the relationship with that software’s community. So while I welcome heartily the proposal that Government acquire the IT skills to take a hands-on role in managing their IT procurements, I hope that those IT skills will include expertise in exploiting the unique benefits of joining an open source community.