OSS Watch, in collaboration with Open Directive, are providing licensing, development, community and sustainability support to the project, which is now getting very close to a new release.

Developers have frozen the code and are preparing beta versions of DataStage and DataBank, which will be available for testing as virtual machines. Please keep an eye on the project website and twitter channel for updates on when and where you will be able to access them.

We will hold a launch workshop in Oxford on 2 March with colleagues from the VIDaaS project, who are building an exciting cloud-deployable Database as a Service system.

Attendance is free but places are filling quickly, so book early to avoid disappointment.

Emerson’s non-quote does raise a question, however. How do we identify technology which is better? With mouse-traps there are some fairly obvious metrics relating to mouse mortality and cheese preservation, but not all inventions are as easy to benchmark. The last few weeks have seen anouncements of upgrades to the world’s two most commonly used smartphone operating systems: Apple’s iOS (version 5) and Google’s Android (version 4). Each brings a raft of new features, although in both cases it has to be said that these new features are no longer as core to the operation of the device as innovations in earlier versions. Voice-operated search and facial recognition are nice, but hardly essential elements of a mobile computer, at least for now. Perhaps lost in the combative comparisons deployed by proponents of each OS is the fact that a genuinely key ability – web browsing – is implemented on both platforms using essentially the same code: the Web Kit open source project. While newer functionality is added by Google and Apple to differentiate the competing products, it pays them to cooperate on key, unavoidable elements of their offerings. Given this, it’s fair to repeat the question – how do we identify real innovation? The newer differentiating features appear to be the cutting edge of endeavour, but their very newness is a demonstration that – up to now at least – they have not been essential elements of the technology in question. Some of them will die away despite their novelty, having never truly improved the invention that they embellish. Like a cheese grater on your mouse trap, it’s possibly a nice idea and undoubtedly novel, but how useful is it really? Only time will tell, and in the meantime better springs, and better browsers, are being developed.

So perhaps the question needs to be: “looking back at innovations that have proved to be key, how do they tend to develop?” Using the answer to this, we might be able to form some techniques for looking at our cutting-edge-but-possibly-pointless innovations and making guesses about their eventual utility. We might even be able to identify over-arching strategies for conducting and rewarding innovation…

Here we get into an argument that flared up earlier this month, when a video of Francis Gurry, the Director General of the UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) back in June was discovered by the internet commentating community. Gurry was speaking to sum up his views on a debate which had just taken place on ‘Accelerating Growth and Development’ in relation to invention and intellectual property. Gurry’s argument was seemingly  summed up by the headline on the BoingBoing article which drew it to the internet’s attention: “WIPO boss: the Web would have been better if it was patented and its users had to pay license fees”. Reading the article, though, even the quote that BoingBoing had pulled failed to use that emotive word ‘better’:

Intellectual property is a very flexible instrument. So, for example, had the world wide web been able to be patented, and I think that is a question in itself, perhaps the amount of investment that has gone into or would be able to go into basic science would be different. If you had found a very flexible licensing model, in which the burden for the innovation of the world wide web had been shared across the whole user community in a very fair and reasonable manner, with a modest contribution for everyone for this wonderful innovation, it would have enabled enormous investment in turn in further basic research. And that is the sort of flexibility that is built into the intellectual property system. It is not a rigid system.

Reaction to the video from proponents of open content and open source across the internet was voluble and aggravated. Gurry was accused of being ideologically indoctrinated and blinkered, tied to anachronistic models of IP registration and exploitation even in the face of the incredible growth and success of the web largely without the intervention of these models. In fact though, the most that Gurry says is that the web would have been ‘different’. Taken in the context of the statements which preceded it (and which you can hear by downloading the video), in which the value of the traditional IP systems had been questioned repeatedly, Gurry’s statements do not really support the distillation they were given, and which caused so much anger. He is trying to argue that the web could have grown within more traditional licensing structures. Whether he is right about this or not, he is not claiming here that it would have been ‘better’ under those circumstances.

The anger and confusion here are natural, though. The battle lines between proponents of the traditional and the more ‘open’ approaches to innovation (and here we should note that the buzz phrase ‘open innovation’ often itself refers to deeply traditional IP exploitation patterns) have long been drawn, and the forces on both sides are keen to tackle and destroy the arguments of their opponents wherever they see them. The web is often perceived  - with much justification – as a triumph of innovation outside the traditional IP exploitation framework. To hear someone perceived as being part of the old-guard even discussing it can seem presumptuous to some ears. Yet in reality the implied dichotomy here is simplistic. The open licensing movements themselves are underpinned by the arcane operations of traditional licensing and exploitation. While they may give these operations an innovative twist, they could not be enforced or defended without them. Conversely, Gurry’s example of why  the patent regime is beneficial fails to address the criticisms of openness proponents. He points to the publication framework implicit in the current patent system, and makes the comparison between the saxophone – which has fully documented design documents available thanks to its having been patented – and the violin – where many secrets of producing the greatest instruments have been lost through secrecy and the passage of time. This critique – while interesting – is almost wholly inappropriate as a defence of the current system in opposition to more open models. In the modern case, both models involve complete publication – the distinction lies in how benefits are reaped from exploitation and by whom.

Given the frequent failures of either side in this debate to engage with what the other is actually saying – illustrated by this sad tale –  it’s not surprising that telling which innovations are better remains hard. While ideology is important, it can often obscure our view of what actually matters to most people: how many mice are killed (or indeed captured).

Jay Lyman, Senior Analyst at The 451 Group recently twittered that the “overwhelming message @ Oscon so far is open source now driven mostly by innovation.” This in turn prompted Brian Proffit of IT World wrote:

if you put yourself in the right mindset, this kind of innovation is easier to spot than ever. Open source isn’t “just” the alternative anymore, it’s becoming the mainstream technology in a lot of areas.

When we created TransferSummit the objective was to highlight the fact that open source is open innovation in software. However, unlike most open source related conferences we are not interestedin preaching to the converted. Open source and the innovation it brings is important to everyone and TransferSummit is designed for everyone, no matter their existing level of open source knowledge.

TransferSummit 2011 has the same goal and has an equally impressive range of speakers for you to engage with and share ideas. We have:

• 2 days’ trainings
• 2-day conference across three tracks
• Mobile focus, virtual track
• Government summit
• Hands-on learning and break-out sessions
• Gadget playtime
• Gala dinner
• On-site housing
• Intimate setting, limited to 300 participants

This is the must attend event for 2011, tickets are selling fact so register now.

Stephen Walli, the Technical Director of the Outercurve Foundation attended both events and, during the internal evaluation phase in which OSS Watch consider how to improve the next event Stephen kindly took the time to provide some really valuable feedback. This post attempts to encapsulate this feedback and frame it in the context of the work OSS Watch are doing, alongside others in the sector. I’d like to thank Stephen for giving me permission to quote large sections of his emails to the OSS Watch team.

Good software is developed by good software developers.  It involves a discipline not found in most developers.  Rigorous version and config management, checklist for style and review, desk checking reviews before commits, automated builds, fully automated tests are all necessary steps to successfully, reliably delivering binaries that work, and most importantly when a binary fails you know exactly how you created it from what tool chain (and conceivably what version of the tool chain) and source using what version of the recipe so you can reliably rebuild the failure and fix both it and the test environment.   Great developers may be great architects, but every great developer is a good disciplined developer first, and they really don’t know how to build software otherwise.

Personally I couldn’t agree more. I have long argued that we suffer from a significant lack of good software development discipline. As my Software Engineering lecturer told me, far too many years ago, “I’m not going to teach you to build software systems. Even a modest software system is as complex as a small town. I’m going to teach you how to make a dog kennel, or if you are really good a shed, we don’t have time for more than that.”

I, like most students, was taught the waterfall method of software development, a method that wasn’t in common use when I was a student and is in even less use now. Furthermore, most students leave University without any knowledge of version control, testing, continuous integration, build tools, issue tracking or any of the other disciplines Stephen wants to see in a good developer.

In general most students graduating from university have been taught how to build a kennel and are unaware that to build a tower block they need cranes, forklifts, jack-hammers and many other tools. These are the tools that we have to learn about when entering our first real software development team. In such teams, if we’re lucky, there will be one or more developers who understand the importance of the correct tooling, rigour and discipline in software engineering.

I’ve been fortunate enough across the ~25 years I was around software development projects (IT) and products (ISV) to always have at least 10% of the organization and sometimes as high as 30% be such good developers.  The rest of the team had an easy time contributing appropriately because of the culture at the top set by the few.  We all know what needs to be done — just few of us do it.

Stephen goes on to observe that he is not one of these developers. Sure he can develop software, he knows how to use the tools and he knows the discipline needed in good software projects, but he looks to others to enforce the necessary discipline on his work, and that of others (for the record, so do I).

Without such discipline at the top, I believe no project can succeed regardless of whether it’s academic, IT, or government.  This is why Apache and Eclipse and Linux have such well defined and documented engineering disciplines around them, and why they succeed.

I’m lucky enough to have worked with Scott Wilson at CETIS on the Apache Wookie (Incubating) project. Scott is a visionary and he loves to understand and work with open standards. Like me he loves to bring people together and get them to collaborate, this makes him the visible driver of the Wookie project. I’m there to mentor the team in the Apache Way, to ensure they understand what needs to be done. However, neither of us are the ones who are moving Wookie towards being a truly great software project. A project that is attracting commercial engagement. Sure, we have our strengths, but neither of us are the disciplined software engineer needed to ensure the success of the software itself (which is different to the success of the concept hawked by Scott).

Over beer the other day Scott and I were both happy to sing the praises of Paul Sharples on the Wookie team. Without Paul and his rigorous attention to detail Wookie would not be on the verge of it’s first official Apache release. Without Paul we would not have the  rigour needed to go through the various IP and quality control processes of a good open source software project. Without Paul, Scott and I would probably be telling everyone how great it is whilst gradually making the code decay with our endless hacks.

Scott and I raised our glasses to Paul and all the good software developers out there. It is my hope, and I believe that of Stephen’s, that OSS Watch will continue to seek out teams that have a “Paul” in them as well as a “Scott”, through those teams we can create true academia-industry links that will benefit all.

This second event in the Open Source Junction series targets specifically context-aware mobile technologies. Speakers from industry and higher education institutions will present their most recent work and will explore opportunities for collaboration in this area.

For more information about sessions and speakers, and to register, please check the OSS Watch event page. Early bird registration ends tomorrow.

It gives me great pleasure that one of my own hires, Sander van der Waal, has agreed to be my successor. Sander has been a key part of the team for some time and is well equipped to take over from me as manager. I have no doubt that Sander will continue to deliver, through the brilliant OSS Watch team, an advisory service designed to ensure our sector benefits from, and contributes to, open source.

Before explaining what I’ll be doing next I want to explain why I’m leaving.

Difficult Times

The academic sector is changing. It’s changing in fundamentally important ways. Most importantly, for OSS Watch, the funding models for services like ours is changing. For some time I, as manager, have been seeking to ensure all staff within the OSS Watch team have a level of job security that our current funding model is unable to provide as we move forwards.

As background consider that OSS Watch staff, including myself, have been on rolling three month contracts for nearly a year. Naturally, under these circumstances it has been very difficult to provide a valuable service to the sector. I’m extremely proud of the OSS Watch team and what we have achieved under these circumstances.

I’m not interested in complaining about the lack of security for our staff. The reality is that the economic and political environment of the last couple of years is the root cause of these difficulties and it’s pointless to suggest that the problems could/should have been avoided. The fact is OSS Watch is a minuscule part of this whole sector and nobody is to blame for how things have affected us. In fact, rather than complain I would rather state, loud and clear, I have nothing but praise for those with a direct influence on our work.

The JISC, through our programme director Matthew Dovey, have done everything in their power to ensure OSS Watch remains viable. Similarly our host, Oxford Universities Computing Services, have been faultless in their handling of staff contracts. There were a number of times that OUCS could have legitimately cancelled our employment contracts, but this was never seriously considered. On behalf of the OSS Watch team I want to thank the JISC and OUCS for taking responsibility and not sweeping important services like OSS Watch under the carpet.

Similarly, I want to thank the OSS Watch team. Despite extremely difficult circumstances the team have stuck by me and my plans for the future of OSS Watch. This is a testament to both the value they place in OUCS as an employer and to their commitment and contributions to open source advice in the academic sector.

So, if I am so happy with our funders, employers and team why am I leaving?

An OSS Watch Spin-Out

During the last year I and the team have been working to secure additional funding streams for OSS Watch. We’ve had plenty of success in attracting funding for specific support activities in key projects, this has enabled us to significantly reduce our demands on the JISC. In addition, I’ve had success in generating interest in an OSS Watch like service for the private sector.

As a result of this interest from the private sector I’m leaving OSS Watch in order to start a new company, OpenDirective, with Steve Lee as a partner. Our goal is to connect the smart folk in the UK research domain to the people who can take their software developments to market.

Both Steve and I will remain engaged with the OSS Watch team to ensure our services are complementary.  Through our collaboration we will seek to identify opportunities for technology transfer and, in so doing, generate alternative streams of revenue for open source activities within the academic sector.

What Does This Mean to You?

First and foremost, OSS Watch continues to provide free, at the point of use, advisory services to the UK Higher and Further Education Sector. OSS Watch remains fully independent of commercial interests and as such continues to provide unbiased, non-advocacy advice. However, these services will remain advisory only. That is OSS Watch will not tell you the best course of action, nor will they actively engage with the implementation of your chosen route. OSS Watch seek to enable you to choose and act upon the right option.

OpenDirective, on the other hand, are able to provide more proactive and engaged services. We won’t just advise you of your options, we’ll be willing to tell you what you should do. We’ll even help you do it. Naturally we’ll explain our reasoning, but we’ll be spending more time on making your project succeed than deliberating over all possible alternative actions. OpenDirective will not be free at the point of use, but our contracts are performance based, that is we’re happy to put our time and money where our mouths are.

Interestingly, one of OpenDirectives first clients is OSS Watch. For the foreseeable future, Steve and I will remain a part of the OSS Watch project support team. So, if you are part of a project that has Steve or I are assigned to then things will not change a great deal for you. At the same time, a couple of our initial contracts are injecting funding and community development work back into OSS Watch projects.

Taken together we believe that the combination of OSS Watch and OpenDirective give you a new range of options that should enable you to reach your goal state in the most appropriate way possible for your unique position.

Unfortunately, software development teams often claim that the effort required to properly architect reusable components and to build community interest in those components requires resources beyond those available within a typical research project’s budget. It’s hard to argue against this view when the research team is only tasked with solving the immediate problem, and not tasked with the long-term sustainability of the software involved.

Since we were not having significant success in making this point, we set out to demonstrate through practice. We wanted to show that it is possible to solve the immediate problem as well as ensure the long- term sustainability of software outputs and, perhaps more importantly, the research team. All that is required is some forward planning and some new skills.

Our first step was to work with the University of Bolton, who had implemented a W3C Widget server as part of a much larger EU project. We helped the Bolton team, headed up by Scott Wilson, to take their code into the Apache Software Foundation’s Incubator. Since Wookie’s entry into the Incubator we’ve been working to build a community around the project. Bolton alone has received in excess of £700k in further funding relating to Wookie and the project itself has received many code enhancements from the community.

Our work on Wookie led directly to the extraction of more code components from three separate projects, two in the US and one in the Netherlands. This created a second project in the Apache Incubator called Apache Rave, which provides a platform for the creation of web applications built with OpenSocial Gadgets (reusing Apache Shindig) and W3C Widgets (via Apache Wookie). This is a relatively new project, but already the collaboration of all partners is leading to yet more reuse and collaboration.

One example of this is a new project (funded by the JISC) called Rave in Context. This project uses both Wookie and Rave to provide a new user interface to the popular MyExperiment scientific workflows application. By leveraging the widget features of Rave and the API provided by MyExperiment we will be demonstrating how user interfaces can self-adapt to different hardware devices and user environments. We’ll also be building widgets for accessing Simal and OpenDOAR with the same interface.

Of course, this project is itself an open development project. We will be extracting a series of generic widget templates for common web application features. These templates will be donated back to the Apache Wookie and Rave projects (as appropriate), whilst feature-specific implementations will be offered to the MyExperiment, Simal and OpenDOAR projects.

It’s taken us nearly two years to reach this point. Along the way various sub-projects and related teams have secured funding. Each of these projects has highlighted the open development approach as a major component of its sustainability plans. We’ve also engaged commercial partners in these projects, providing further resources to ensure the ongoing support of the open source code and the research teams that depend on it.

We hope that this practical demonstration of openness as  a sustainable academic research practice will encourage you to budget for sustainability in future proposals. Of course OSS Watch is here to help you at bid-writing stage.

PS We’ve just had a third project relating to the Open Grid Computing Environment (OGCE) accepted into the Apache Incubator. Watch this space for more info on Apache Airavata.

Abi James wants to learn more about how open source could bring assistive technology tools to mobile platforms.

Click here to view the embedded video.

EA Draffan has learned more and networked more at this event than has been possible in weeks of desk work.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Gabriel Hanganu tells us why OSS Watch decided to run this
event.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Julian Harty is curious about open source communities and is enjoying networking with key people who can help him in his work at eBay.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Iris Lapinski tells us about Apps for Good, a technology charity that helps young people to create apps that change their world.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Mark Johnson is exploring mobile development and has already met people he could collaborate with.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Mike Jones describes Mobile Campus Assistant, which provides useful information for students.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Nick Allott describes the challenge of creating web apps that can talk to each other securely.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Ross Gardler explains that one of the main aims behind this event is to get a dialogue going between the academic and commercial sectors.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Roland Harwood demonstrates how the principles of open innovation are being applied to business.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Tim Fernando tells us about the Molly mobile web apps project and invites more people to get involved.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Stephen Walli explains that as open source projects get more mature, they need to manage their intellectual property more professionally.

Click here to view the embedded video.

Well recently I met up with Mark over skittles and beers (this time some excellent Otter Ale on stillage), and he described how the project has become more animated as a result of introducing a meritocratic governance model. Mark explained that having a clear decision-making process is allowing them to move forward as a project. For example they are starting to explore release processes in more detail. So the COSP is clearly maturing through having the governance model in place.

But the observation that I found most telling was that the governance model has actually freed up blockages in the decision-making processes. This is despite initial concerns expressed by some project members that a governance model could be unnecessary bureaucracy. For example, the project lead has been able to point to the model document to clearly state policy when there has been debate or a decision needs to be made.

In particular it appears that lazy consensus has already sped up progress by allowing action to occur when it could previously get bogged down in fruitless discussion. For example, one team member has set up a Google code project. While this is excellent, I would add a cautionary comment that clear discussion about such decisions needs to occur on the public mailing list or there is a risk of introducing decision by fait accompli, rather than lazy consensus.

This ‘unblocking’ reminds me of an analogy I once heard for the benefits of moral/spiritual frameworks that seems to apply well here. If you watch kids playing a game like football, they enjoy it more if there are rules in place and an authority to reference (the ref). Having no ‘governance model’ to define the roles and rules in place can result in frustration and long discussions, rather than getting on with the game. Many kids will quickly self-organise some basic rules and process so they can enjoy the game while quickly resolving debates.

So the take-home here is that if you don’t yet have a governance model in place, it’s time you did. Otherwise you could be holding your project back unnecessarily. You can even use one of our templates to speed up your adoption.