There are several studies about reasons that make people to get involved on FLOSS projects. But, there is not too much written on why FLOSS projects are so good bringing novel and smart solutions (well, some of them). I am not talking about the methodology that people involved in an specific project follow to materialize their ideas. It is about how these people are able to focus in the problem with less worries than similar people solving similar issues under a “firm” environment. Watch the PBS video, it provides another explanation of why FLOSS brings quality.
Another explanation
April 27, 2010Let the public have it
January 30, 2010Some public institutions are taking seriously the idea of being “open” to the public. Two examples: NASA and the Library of the Congress.
NASA
As reported by WIRED, the people of the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration published their first e-book (they expect to create a list of e-books related to aeronautics available to the public). The book, “X-15: Extending the Frontiers of Flight“ by Dennis R. Jenkins is available as a pdf file or in a Kindle friendly format.
Library of the Congress
In their own words: “In the spirit of transparency and community, the Library of Congress has established an internal process to create open source software. This will make it easier for software developers and sponsors within the Library to produce software that can be freely redistributed to users worldwide.” The Library of the Congress announced the news by a press release. They plan to use, in any case, the most permissive license possible (there are also code not completely developed by the Library’s staff).
So, books published by a public institution being released to the public (there is not information about NASA’s e-book license), and software developed by the government (and in some cases for the government) is being released as Open Source. Maybe, it is the beginning of a new trend.
I’m back, again
January 30, 2010It was a busy 2009, and I am right now in the process of finding a job (that means it also will be a busy 2010). Nevertheless, I plan to continue with this space. I apologize for my absence.
$50 per page
October 15, 2009I found a report by Ovum PLC about UK’s FLOSS policy. The report is titled: UK government and open source adoption in a recession: right direction, at times clumsy moves. It has 16 pages and cost $825 (the digital version). Each page is worthy around $50, so I have not had the opportunity of read it.
If you had the money and the interest, maybe you bought the report. It would be nice to hear from you (I am not asking for a copy). Maybe Ovum found out that what other people have said about Open Source Software is true. I wonder if a PhD student can have done the same in 200 pages, getting a small grant from the UK government, and liberating the report later. Or the government can have paid for the report to Ovu and then made it available.
Anyway, it is good to know that some people thinks that is worthy to make this kind of document, and other people think that is worthy to pay that much. That indicates that FLOSS in governments is in its way.
Vendors want to sell free?
September 29, 2009Now vendors are complaining that UK does not enforce its own Open Source Policies. I am glad to see the private sector is “helping” the community. You can read the full article here.
The business that was not there
July 13, 2009Recently, I had the opportunity of listening a presentation about a particular e-government initiative. The project gathered several municipalities and centralized the processes for permission requests (construction-related permits and other red tape activities). The idea is really good. There is a centralized “cloud” that handles all the process and is shared by all municipalities. Therefore, there is only a single department in charge of the support of the system. All the local governments maybe have different requirements for their permits, but they agreed on standards for the forms and to limit the kind of information that can be manipulated by the system.
The project has had a good reception, and they are proud of that. I congratulated them, but I was left with some questions. The speakers keep using the word “business” and “business model” during the whole talk. At the beginning I thought that was only a figure of speech, but then I asked about the license of the software developed for the project. Of course it was not open at all.
My question is simple. Given the fact that you already invested money developing a solution for a governmental office (it does not matter the level), doesn’t it make sense to liberate the code? There are hundreds or municipalities that can take your code and improve it. You (the pioneers) can benefit from that. You are going to have an army of people improving your system, and also you will collaborate with fellow citizens.
People forget that the business of government is not business as usual.
Books again
June 11, 2009The governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger, has announced recently a digital textbook program (he even wrote an editorial for the Mercury News about it). According to the governor, the state spent $350 million in schoolbooks last year, and the move to digital textbooks could help to reduce this number.
I have been using the example of school books a lot in this blog. I hope California’s government get it right. Althought, if this project is not going to be a completaly Free Libre Open initiative, may be a good start for a new business model in the academic press world.
The Republic of Silicon Valley
April 1, 2009I thought that the only kind of institution that could initiate the Open Textbook thing was a governmental one. I found out my mistake when I check CK12. This is a non-profit organization that is taking the idea of free content further; beginning with early education. You can check their website where they explain their idea in a plain, simple way:
CK-12 Foundation is a non-profit organization with a mission to reduce the cost of textbook materials for the K-12 market both in the U.S. and worldwide. Using an open-content, web-based collaborative model termed the “FlexBook,” CK-12 intends to pioneer the generation and distribution of high quality educational content that will serve both as core text as well as provide an adaptive environment for learning.
Of course, I am not sure if this initiative would be sustainable or if in the near future someone is going to change the 
licensing scheme. Nevertheless, the idea of this “group of visionary advisors and highly accomplished Silicon Valley engineers” is really good. Teachers (well most of them) know better about the quality of their textbooks and what changes can be done to improve them. Collaboration, usually leads to better products.
There are also some problems about contents that will surface eventually (evolution someone?). For example, I don’t know about the website keeping the right of all content, as they said in their Terms of Use. Could that mean that the owner can eventually sell the content? That’s not the kind of openness we are looking for.
I told a friend about CK-12 and how I thought that only governments were able to initiate this kind of projects, she told me: “well, Silicon Valley is like a country in its own”.
You say tomato…
March 18, 2009The UK government recently published its new Open Source, Open Standards and Re-Use policy. First, the first. It is a good and solid document. Just at the beginning, it puts things straight:
Open Source has been one of the most significant cultural developments in IT and beyond over the last two decades: it has shown that individuals, working together over the Internet, can create products that rival and sometimes beat those of giant corporations; it has shown how giant corporations themselves, and Governments, can become more innovative, more agile and more cost-effective by building on the fruits of community work; and from its IT base the Open Source movement has given leadership to new thinking about intellectual property rights and the availability of information for re–use by others.
Tom Watson MP (UK Minister for Digital Engagement)
This paragraph is one of the best way of beginning a FLOSS policy. Tom Watson in behalf of the UK government is explaining that Open Source technology is there and is good. The first statement makes clear that Open Source is not a silver bullet, but 1) it has the potential to rival any software solution, 2) it has the potential of making private and governmental institutions more effective, and 3) it has been an awakening to boost a new debate of the intellectual property discussion.
The last part introduces a new concept: re-use. I have written here about how governments can buy rights for books, software, and other forms of knowledge and make them public. I did not use a word for that. But re-use is adequate. The UK policy even makes this completely clear:
Where appropriate, general purpose software developed for government will be released on an open source basis.
Re-use. Only governments (and some big companies) have the money and interest to do it. For governments is about providing the most to most people.
I say go FLOSS, you say re-use.
Nice T
February 19, 2009I mentioned in an old post how books can be created under a license that allows more people to have access to them. The point is not having authors working by free, but paying them just once. Also, I was thinking on books that are used every year to teach the same courses in a school or college (algebra, biology, etc.). Those books can be periodically review, and since a big organization already paid for their development they will be free (as in freedom and as in beer). It makes sense because I bought the same book I used to learn how to read (almost thirty years ago) and the publisher is still making money out of it, and the book has exactly the same content (it was nice to see again those pictures and remember).
Now, don’t stop with books. For example, medicine and pharmaceutical research is funded in part by government’s money, but governments do not own any patents. Developments in energy and oil industry are done using governmental grants and funds, but the final products are sold as new “proprietary” technology. Of course the government of the country that developed the new technology sees some return if the product is a world success, but even their own citizens (whose money help to develop the technology) has to pay full price for it.
I understand that not all products can be developed in this way. But citizens (by the use of governments’ money) are helping to develop products that are going to benefit mainly the company that has the patent. I know that everybody is going to be able to benefit from the new technology, but only when you can pay for it!
The role of the government is to contribute in the development of new technology, but having taking into account all their citizens. Helping technologies that are going to be close behind a patent (which sometimes only obstruct new developments) is not a good policy.
