Ring ring ring ring ring ring ring, Ubuntu Phone

Yesterday evening Canonical posted a much-hyped “virtual keynote” (video of Mark Shuttleworth) announcing Ubuntu for phones. This heralds a new open source phone OS entering the scene, and I’d like to take a look at some of the points from the 20 minute video that I found interesting, as well as how it’s been received by the wider technology community.

The first thing that interests me about Ubuntu for phones is that it’s build on an Android base. Rather than trying to reinvent the wheel, Canonical built on the work that the Android Open Source Project has already done to support mobile hardware on Linux. For Canonical, this means a lot less development for them to worry about. For users and manufacturers, it means a phone that can run a vanilla open source Android ROM (such as Google’s Nexus phones) can also run Ubuntu.

Despite this, it will not run Android apps, or as TechCrunch pejoratively put it: “Android apps can’t even run on the Ubuntu Phone OS”. This makes sense to me, however.

Ubuntu’s offering to developers is twofold: firstly, first-class citizenship for web apps using the Unity Web API that landed in Ubuntu 12.10 – the same code used to integrate with the Unity desktop will allow apps to integrate with the phone’s interface (it’s not clear if this is also called “Unity”). Secondly, native apps written in QML are supported, a great framework for building interfaces with the Qt toolkit (again, Canonical aren’t reinventing the wheel, which is good). As such, the business of the apps will be written in C++ (with OpenGL supported for graphical flair), and Javascript for interface “glue”.

Adding a Java/Dalvik VM to support Android apps would be a big drain on resources, and as Mark Shuttleworth said recently, would cause more problems than it solves for the Ubuntu ecosystem.

In the video, Mark also mentions your Ubuntu Phone being your PC. Whether this means a blown up version of the touch UI when attached to a screen and keyboard, or a full-blown desktop environment a la Ubuntu for Android isn’t clear. It’s quite a compelling feature though, especially for businesses, who would have less devices to manage and be able to do so through Canonical’s Landscape product.

Towards the end of the video, Mark mentions that “a few lucky members of community have had early private access” to some parts of the system. Presumably this is the first of the “Skunkworks” projects that Mark announced recently on his blog, where Canonical are bringing in contributors from the community to projects that would otherwise be completely behind closed doors. Hopefully we’ll hear more about the work these community members have been doing in due course.

I could go on about this, but I’ll leave it there for now. I’m sure we’ll be discussing Ubuntu for Phones at length on the next series of the Ubuntu UK Podcast. If you’ve got any thoughts you’d like to share, leave them in the comments below!

Open WebOS: Its alive!

After being axed by HP last year , WebOS has re-emerged as an open source OS ready to be ported to a range of devices.

Being on the web end of the web-vs-native debate going on in the mobile world, I was always a bit of a fan of WebOS, even though it always seemed a bit doomed when positioned against the might of the Android and iOS platforms. However, rooting for the underdog aside, is there any reason to be optimistic about its chances to survive in its new open source form?

The closest comparison I can make to the WebOS story would be that of Symbian, which moved to the Symbian Foundation in 2009 with the intention of going open source.  However, by 2011, Nokia had reversed its course and started to wind down the foundation. So at least WebOS has got further than Symbian with what appears to be a fully open 1.0 release of the OS.

In general though, the strategy of taking a product moving it to become OSS doesn’t have a good track record. Not least because its also synonymous with “zombie projects” – for example, Jaiku was acquired by Google in 2007, then in 2009 it was announced the software was going open source while at the same time the whole thing was effectively being abandoned.

Looking back over the history of WebOS in the tech press is a bit depressing: “The Lonesome Death Of WebOS”, “can WebOS be revived?”, “HP Kills Off webOS”. Its the Operating System That Refuses To Die!

A zombie

Look out! Its a zombie project!

When Steve Winston in the video below says “we will continue to develop Open WebOS” I can sense the “HP Finally Drives Stake Through Heart of WebOS” article being readied for the following month.

YouTube Preview Image

However there are some encouraging signs. The Enyojs project has developed from being the framework for WebOS applications into a successful generic framework for building web apps for any platform. Perhaps other aspects of WebOS are similarly viable, even if the OS itself never catches on.

There is also the idea presented in the video above of targeting the market for kiosks and other types of devices outside the premium tablet and smartphone world. It seems kind of logical, but at the same also a bit desperate, especially given the success of Android.

Perhaps the lesson here is that, if you want to create a successful platform, go with open source as a starting strategy, not an emergency back-up plan.

Open Source Junction 3: mobile and cloud, Oxford 20-21 March 2012

Mobile technologies have become an integral part of our lives. Research indicates that by 2015 80% of people accessing the Internet will be doing so from mobile devices. Mobile applications and services are changing the way we engage with the web, and to a certain extent with each other.

At the same time, cloud technologies deliver better and better IT services. From email and content storage to complex computing and development platforms, users can access clouds via simple browsers, thus eliminating the need for end-user applications and high-power computers.

In UK Higher Education, cloud solutions are an integral part of a JISC programme aimed at helping universities and colleges deliver better efficiency and value for money through the development of shared services. As pointed out by Rachel Bruce, JISC’s Innovation Director for digital infrastructure, cloud solutions are increasingly attractive to HE institutions. They allow universities to reduce environmental and financial costs, share the load of maintaining a physical infrastructure, be flexible and operate on a pay-as-you-go basis, access data and applications from any location, and make scientific experiments easier to reproduce. Continue reading

Star pupils

Google has been in the news repeatedly over the last six months for closing down some of its many, many side projects. In general these are being mothballed in perpetuity, but in some cases, there is a transition plan. This is the case for Google Sky Map, and for our community it’s an interesting variation on the more traditional ‘open source it and hope it takes off’ approach that industry players like Nokia have tried in the past, and HP seem about to try again. Continue reading

FOSS Focus

I was thoroughly drawn in by the Amazon ‘Black Friday’ event last week, buying both a phone and a camera, against my better judgement and to the disgust of my bank manager. While trying to suppress my buyer’s remorse by searching the internet for all the marvellous capabilities of my soon-to-arrive devices, I noticed that the camera, a Canon Powershot SX220 HS, was one of the models capable of running a piece of open source software called CHDK released under the GNU GPLv2. This program leverages the fact that the camera will execute anything that look even remotely like a firmware update that is located on its SD card without requiring a digital signature, allowing an adjunct to the device’s firmware to be executed every time it starts up. You can even place the program on the SD card and select whether it is booted or not by changing the ‘write protect’ switch on the card.

Once the software is booted the user has access to an almost ridiculously long list of tweaks and features, including saving pictures as ‘RAW’ (meaning that the data from the camera’s sensor is saved to the card unaltered, rather than being crushed down into a smaller JPEG file), greater control over exposure times and the ability to construct more complicated ‘bracketing’, meaning that a series of shots can be taken with differing focal lengths or levels of white balance, allowing creation of HDR images and focus-stacked images. Even more geektastic is the ability to script the functionality of the camera using UBASIC or LUA, allowing a user to build functionality like time lapse photography and the taking of pictures only when motion is detected.

One question that remained with me, even as I contemplated spending more unwise pounds, was what Canon’s attitude was to this project. After all, some of the functionality that CHDK contains can be obtained from Canon in its more expensive models. They could close the technical loophole that allows the additional software to be run fairly easily, so one must assume that they do not see the existence of open source expansions of their equipment as a threat to their business model. Might they even see it as a selling point? Certainly it seems that running CHDK is likely to void your warranty, so perhaps the existence of a group of customers who opt out of expensive warranty provision is seen as a bonus.

Discovering this went some way towards alleviating the guilt of my spending. After all, I had got a large amount of functionality at essentially half price. But… if you want to run long scripts then you really need the attachment that lets the camera run off mains power. That’s not such a bargain. I could also probably do with a better tripod… Oh dear…

So. Farewell Then Flash Player Mobile…

(Apologies to E J Thribb)

Adobe’s announcement that it will be dropping Flash Player for mobile devices from its future plans has been widely interpreted as a victory for Apple, and in particular their late Chief Executive Steve Jobs. Perhaps because of his essay Thoughts on Flash, the absence of Flash technology from Apple mobile devices has seemed to be a personal decision of Jobs. In that essay Jobs made a group of points about exactly why he saw Flash as a detrimental technology, certainly for Apple mobile devices, and to some extent for Apple computers in general (“We also know first hand that Flash is the number one reason Macs crash.”) Competing phone and tablet makers pointed to their devices’ ability to run Flash, although not always that well. Apple’s refusal to engage with Flash on mobile led Adobe to declare that Apple mobile devices could not access the ‘full web’, particularly the video content that at that time was most frequently packaged as a Flash object.

In fact, Flash became so synonymous with web video packaging that it is easy to forget that it started life (as FutureSplash Animator back in the dark days of dial-up) as primarily a vector graphics animation package. It provided the possibility of small files containing large images and enhanced interactivity (this was before Javascript was well supported or unified). Gradually Javascript and broadband made these selling points more moot, and Flash then made the leap into bundling video codecs and providing a unified way for browsers to display video. Now, partly as a result of Apple’s stand against it, native video decoding in the browser combined with HTML 5′s <video> tag have once again made Flash less relevant. Now, it could be argued, the chief use of Flash is in rapid prototyping and dissemination of simple web games, many of which go on to spawn native titles on the bigger gaming platforms. Even that function is likely to be somewhat supplanted by HTML 5 apps in the future.

So has Flash as a whole been doomed by Apple’s tactics. It’s worth looking at that Steve Jobs essay again to find out. Among the many legitimate criticisms he levels (instability, insecurity, poor efficiency) Jobs also attacked the fact that Flash provided a path to developing mobile apps (both in the browser and compiled to native code) that was out of the control of the platform owner:

We know from painful experience that letting a third party layer of software come between the platform and the developer ultimately results in sub-standard apps and hinders the enhancement and progress of the platform. If developers grow dependent on third party development libraries and tools, they can only take advantage of platform enhancements if and when the third party chooses to adopt the new features. We cannot be at the mercy of a third party deciding if and when they will make our enhancements available to our developers.

This becomes even worse if the third party is supplying a cross platform development tool. The third party may not adopt enhancements from one platform unless they are available on all of their supported platforms. Hence developers only have access to the lowest common denominator set of features. Again, we cannot accept an outcome where developers are blocked from using our innovations and enhancements because they are not available on our competitor’s platforms.

Flash is a cross platform development tool. It is not Adobe’s goal to help developers write the best iPhone, iPod and iPad apps. It is their goal to help developers write cross platform apps. And Adobe has been painfully slow to adopt enhancements to Apple’s platforms. For example, although Mac OS X has been shipping for almost 10 years now, Adobe just adopted it fully (Cocoa) two weeks ago when they shipped CS5. Adobe was the last major third party developer to fully adopt Mac OS X.
Our motivation is simple – we want to provide the most advanced and innovative platform to our developers, and we want them to stand directly on the shoulders of this platform and create the best apps the world has ever seen. We want to continually enhance the platform so developers can create even more amazing, powerful, fun and useful applications. Everyone wins – we sell more devices because we have the best apps, developers reach a wider and wider audience and customer base, and users are continually delighted by the best and broadest selection of apps on any platform.

In other words: Apple did not want development tools for their mobile devices to exist which were not under their control. Jobs cited this as ‘the most important reason’ that he rejected Adobe’s technology. Yet only months after that essay Apple backtracked on the restriction and permitted Flash tools to compile Adobe Flash Actionscript applications for submission to the App Store. Indeed, if you don’t own a Mac, using Flash to generate iOS apps is one of the very few alternatives available to you. In fact, Flash Builder, the tool which does the actual compiling of Actionscript programs into iOS applications, is really the open source development environment Eclipse distributed with a proprietary Adobe plugin. Potentially the concession won by Adobe could lead to entirely open source tool chains for the development of iOS apps.

So while Jobs’ tauntings over the possibility of a robust and useful Flash Player Mobile (“We have routinely asked Adobe to show us Flash performing well on a mobile device, any mobile device, for a few years now. We have never seen it”) have proved prescient, in fact Adobe won a crucial concession from Apple almost a year ago. That concession widened the potential role of open source tools in developing iOS apps (it’s always been possible for Android). Adobe have also announced that they intend to ‘aggressively contribute’ to HTML5, perhaps indicating that they will be extending their development tools to allow Actionscript programs to be emitted as HTML5 web apps.

What really emerges from the struggles over mobile Flash is a strong sense of the entropy of the mobile device space at the moment. Rhetoric is deployed and attitudes struck, only for the originators to back away in a matter of months. App Store policies change monthly and with them the possibility of using open source code on the devices they serve. Competitive head-butting between closed source behemoths (like Adobe and Apple) can result in the opening up of data standards (as the pressure from iOS users has resulted in more HTML5 compliant video on the web – although let’s not get into the patents around those). For open source authors and proponents, the mobile space remains a changing and challenging environment. What the skirmishes around Flash demonstrate, though, is that the struggle of closed source vendors for competitive advantage can provide opportunities for free and open source code.

Build a better mousetrap

“Build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to your door” as Wikipedia informs me Ralph Waldo Emerson never quite said. The point – that real innovation sells itself – remains true today. Indeed it could be argued that the average consumer is more engaged with the heartbeat of technological innovation now than ever before, with software releases making headlines among the more traditional stories of war and celebrity.

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).

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

OSS Watch Open Source Junction 2, Oxford, 5-6 July 2011

This guest post was written by Sam Jordison, who also wrote the live blog at Open Source Junction 2.

Following on from the platform built at Open Source Junction 1, this two day conference at Wolfson College Oxford developed the theme of industry-academia collaboration on open source mobile technologies. The focus this time was on  context-aware mobile technology.

So what is context-aware mobile technology? Over the course of the two days, there arose a number of interesting definitions taking the notion of context beyond the simple idea of location based services and into the lives of end-users, taking into account such things as their emotional state, habits, patterns of social interaction and the way they use their time.

In a talk entitled ‘Context Aware Applications: Industry Landscape And Commercial Opportunities’, Nick Allott, the founder of Nquiring Minds Ltd, said context was ‘all about probabilities’ and relationships, good examples being Amazon’s suggestions that ‘if you like X then you’ll like Y’ or the idea that if your friend installs a security system, you are more likely to trust it. Julian Harty, ‘tester at large at eBay’, in his talk ‘Smartphones In Context’, asked delegates to think in terms of interaction with the outside world. ‘Do you know how many sensors your smartphone has?’ he asked. The answer he said was almost certainly likely to be more than 10; including a light sensor, a sound sensor, a compass, rotation detection, accelerometers, GPS. All of these sensors work with the context in which they are placed – and can be used to create new contexts. Elsewhere, the idea of context was touched on in talks also encompassing business and academic integration, licensing, best practice in running open source projects, financial issues, dealing with huge amounts of data  – and ensuring that  data sources are reliable.

Context, it seems, is a broad issue – but the over-riding theme was the importance of engagement; whether that be with other programmers and contributors on open source projects through mailing lists, or between developers and the wider public. Such engagements have the power to change the world – and the way we see it. More particularly, the aim of the conference was to foster engagement between industry and academic people, to help them understand each other’s interests in context-aware mobile technologies.

One of the main ways this latter aim was encouraged was in show-casing a diverse range of projects and ideas from both industry and academic speakers through a wide range of presentations. Indeed, the very first presentation from Gabriel Hanganu tackled the idea head on. He acknowledged that there are perceived barriers between the worlds of academia and business, especially relating to the different drivers in each sphere. Profit and practical production motivate business. Ideas, research and journal production push academics. But Gabriel pointed out that academics are not as slack when it comes to entrepreneurial thinking as is often supposed -  while business can really profit from academic thinking. There is plenty of common ground – and when it comes to software development, the practices and procedures relating to open source can help bridge gaps. (More on that later.)

Roland Harwood, co-founder of 100% Open built on this idea of the usefulness of partnerships with his talk about open innovation collaboration. He highlighted a large number of examples of successful collaborations, and showed how even traditionally less open companies like Lego have benefited by enabling a broad community to use their code, and unleash their creativity. Mindstorms, thanks to its fan built ideas, has now become Lego’s best selling product.

As well as generating nifty new revenue streams, new technology can also provide a fascinating new insight into the way the world works. Steven Gray from the UCL Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis gave a fascinating run through his work on a number of game-changing projects, the most famous of which is Tweet-O-Meter, a program that uses geo-location data from Twitter to show when and where people are sending tweets. The data can be aggregated around maps to show interesting things. So, for instance, in London they can trace where there are roadworks and traffic jams because people are tweeting about them. They have also spotted that people tweet a lot on railway lines and at Heathrow airport as they take off and land and that parks are particularly free of activity during winter. They can see cities waking up and sleeping. CNN used the meter during the Japanese tsunami to show how people reacted to the news (since lots of people in Tokyo used their mobiles as landlines were down). They could also see the news spread to San Francisco.

Another clear demonstration of how mobile technology can be used to trace events in the physical world came in the form of the Nature Locator, described by Mike Jones  from The Institute of Learning and Research Technology at the University of Bristol. This emerged from a JISC-funded project that facilitated development of an Android and iOS apps to support citizen science. The app allows members of the public to submit photographic and geo-location evidence of leaf damage by a non-UK-native moth to the Conker Tree Science project – and has generated masses of important and useful scientific data.

The useful practical applications for such technology were clearly demonstrated by Serge Pawlowicz from the Centre of Geospatial Science in the University of Nottingham and his talk on a Particpatory HealthGIS that uses geospatial data and public participation surveys to help in all kinds of health research, for instance, tracing the sources of viruses. ‘It works!’ he said.

Ben Butchart, an experienced software engineer from EDINA (a JISC-funded national academic data centre providing online data services to academic institutions) continued this theme, explaining that the uses of HTML5 caching technology has opened up all kinds of new possibilities for developing useful technologies for geo-dependent projects (such as geology projects) even in isolated locations where signals are unreliable. At the other end of the spectrum, Tim Fernando gave an overview of how useful context-aware technology can be to residents of Oxford, and the success of Mobile Oxford, a campus-wide mobile service providing information on everything from bus times to library book availability to gigs.

Such projects can also be extended to provide useful information to and further engage with the wider public (end-users) by inviting them to contribute to location-based media platforms. So said Mick Lockwood from Salford University who demonstrated this in his talk about Maxamundo. He explained that using OpenStreetMap and a range of open source software, and getting user contributions helped him become ‘able to fulfil a dream’ even if he was just an ‘amateur hobbyist’. He’s now built up a detailed overview of Manchester and its attractions (a great many of which appear to be pubs) and the Maxamundo platform even becomes the subject of a sociological project. This latter project was run by Yuwei Lin, also from Salford University, who gave a fascinating account of the way it worked against open source development methodologies after Mick had finished speaking, explaining that Maxamundo has started to fulfil many of the functions of social networking sites, contextualise city lives, and re-order personal stories on a map.

The conference even explored the imaginary plane as well as showing so much about mapping the real world. Philipp Breuss-Schneeweis described how Wikitude, an augmented reality app that overlays virtual images and information over the real world (as revealed in, for instance, smartphone camera viewers), has the potential to alter the way we interact with, well, everything. Current uses include navigation devices for driving and 3D gaming, but the potential is limited only by the imagination of the huge community that can be harnessed to create new ‘worlds’ to overlay the context provided by the phone.

Elsewhere, one of the most impressive examples of context-aware engagement came from Samuel Carlisle and his colleague Matt Gaffen and their talk about Sukey. Sukey, we were told, exists to keep demonstrators safe and mobile during protests. It was created in 2010 in the aftermath of the occupation of UCL and most particularly in response to the police tactics used during that winter’s student protests, whereby protestors were ‘kettled’ for long periods of time and had their freedom of movement restricted. (The name comes from the nursery song, ‘Polly put the kettle on, Sukey take it off again’.) Sam said that they started putting out maps of protests that started giving them upwards of 60,000 hits in just a few hours – which inspired them to produce a proper app.

Using information crowd-sourced from the app, alongside information in Twitter streams, Sukey attempts to put out the most relevant and useful material surrounding demonstrations. So, for instance, they show where the police are forming kettles, where streets are blocked and also provide compass directions designed to help people on the ground get out of trouble. It’s run by volunteers in their spare time and it’s not for profit, so the use of community engagement was vital in making it work… And work it did; providing helpful information to thousands of protestors, and even acting as a conduit for advice and information from the police themselves. The application also received widespread media coverage and helped inform the wider ongoing debate about police tactics. A clear demonstration of just how quickly and effectively free-at-point-of-use software can change our society.

Many of these projects are already successful and those in their infancy are already demonstrating real potential, but at Open Source Junction 2 there was no shying away from the challenges they face. Speakers made it clear that taking contributions from large numbers of people – whether they be citizen scientists or developers sharing in an open source project – is not always easy. The team behind Sukey, for instance, have to dedicate a lot of energy to combating spam and false information. The Nature Locator has had to deal with a lot of incorrect data. Checks and balances are going to play an increasingly important role, it seems. W3C fellow Dave Raggett, meanwhile, highlighted the fact that ‘simplicity is hard’, explaining the need for good communication paths based on trust relationships, an easier way to manage security and logins across a number of platforms than we have at the moment and suggesting, cleverly, that it would be better if users could check the credentials of the website – as well as the website checking them out and for there to be support for pseudonymous identities that reflect the real world. No easy tasks – although we can at least take solace from the knowledge that he and others are working on them.

It was also emphasised that open innovation isn’t a panacea in every case. It can offer a fantastic way to cut costs, save time and maximise the potential of developers. Ross Gardler outlined a number of open source business models that can help you make sure ‘your company doesn’t go bust because it’s spending so much maintaining software’, ensure long term sustainability for projects and ideas, and open up many opportunities for commodotisation. But it was also emphasised that there are all kinds of procedures to follow and tough decisions to make to ensure the smooth running of projects – and that they remain sustainable in the long term. Just how careful projects have to be to follow the correct processes was clearly demonstrated in talks from Sander van der Waal concerning best practice relating to open source projects (emphasising the need to have a good management structure in place, transparent updates and progress reports via mailing lists) and a look into the complications surrounding patents, licences, Intellectual Property Rights and European law from Rowan Wilson.

In spite of such challenges, another clear advantage of open source development became clear over the course of the two days – how much it can help in academic and business collaborations, just as Gabriel had hinted in his opening talk. Camille Baldock from Softwire explained to me that while there is plenty of desire in the business world to tap into the academic knowledge base and expertise, such collaborations remain rare, thanks to perceptions about the different cultures and priorities found in the two ‘tribes’. But, as Gabriel  repeatedly stressed during the day, in software projects, developers can offer an alternative common ground in the form of the clearly defined work practices associated with open development.

Another thing that wasn’t in doubt at the end of the conference was how much participants did have to give each other. The ‘speed dating’ session invited delegates to write down three things they could offer a potential partner  – and three things they wanted in return. Ross Gardler got the ball rolling. He offered: a wide network from working in real open source, guidance on sustainable models, and practical experience on making things happen. He said he wanted: real projects before they go to market, innovation companies to work with, and introductions to more useful people. There followed a fast and furious twenty minutes with a huge array of services offered and requested. Offers included, contacts and development from the London Mobile Developer community, an open invite to hackdays – including organising them, a strong network for industrial partners in the telecoms, students and resources, expertise in security, 3D Printing knowledge and (let’s not forget!) another conference in September – TransferSummit, co-organised by OSS Watch. Wants included, ideas and products to sell, the promotion of open source, partners, funding opportunities, opportunities for future consortia.

These connections were further aided by the format of the event, with numerous other such interactive sessions built in. As well as the ‘offers and wants’ session, delegates were invited to ‘self pitch’, giving a 45 second overview of their mobile app’s interests and invite feedback. They also took part in a ’3 minute joint venture’  session in which they were invited to pair up with someone they hadn’t yet talked to and spend three minutes coming up with an idea for a joint venture. (Highlights included a mashup of eBay and location-based sales, using targeted marketing on people walking down the street, and AID – Am I Dying – a mix of a virtual patient project in St George’s with an intelligent clothing company… ). There was also plenty of space for informal conversations over breaks, drinks and dinner saw many start to form those connections.

In short, there were many successful interactions building from the platform established at the first Open Source Junction. Even the fact that the attempt to put geo-location technology into practice on a country walk resulted in all delegates getting soaked in a rain storm and two chased by a bull didn’t dampen spirits. People were exchanging details, forming links throughout the two days and I’m told many are discussing opportunities in more detail now. There was the feeling that a community was forming. Let’s hope it continues to grow and prosper, and watch out for the next OSJ3 planned for November.

Open Source Junction 2 ready to go

Open Source Junction 2 is just a few days away and I’m pleased to say that the event is now fully booked. We have a great mix of speakers and delegates from all sectors and I’m confident that the workshop will be a great success. We will tweet and live blog during the event, so those of you who couldn’t make it to Wolfson feel free to keep an eye on #osjmob11coveritlive, lanyrd.com/cdpxf and other social media activity gathered on posterous.