publicOSS

The 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.

Yesterday I read an article in The New York Times about a judicial decision on a case related to FLOSS. It goes:

In a ruling Wednesday, the federal appeals court in Washington said that just because a software programmer gave his work away did not mean it could not be protected.

The New York Times, 2008

This means that now a company will think better the option of taking a piece of FLOSS code to close it and sell it as a proprietary code. The code in question was a Java Model Railroad Interface, apparently a popular software among model train hobbyists. A company (Kam Industries) was using the code and selling its “Software for the Digital RailRoad” (name that is a trade mark of the company). Anyway as Jhon Markoff put it in his article: Ruling Is a Victory for Supporters of Free Software.

——

Due to time constraints I will be working only on the English version of this site. I apologize for that.

Having lunch with someone that was familiar with my research, I was asked: What about the accountability of Free Libre Open Source Software? Who is responsible if something goes wrong with my work and costs money? I answered with other question: Do you have idea of how accountable are the software you are using right now?

Of course, my friend did not have idea. So for people like him I offer the following exercise:

Which of the following excerpts is part of the License Terms of Microsoft Vista (Home Basic, Home Premium, and Ultimate):

1. LIMITATION ON AND EXCLUSION OF DAMAGES. You can recover from ****** only direct damages up to the amount you paid for the software. You cannot recover any other damages, including consequential, lost profits, special, indirect o incidental damages.
2. Disclaimer of Warranty. THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW. EXCEPT WHEN OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES PROVIDE THE PROGRAM “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU. SHOULD THE PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING, REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

If you pick 1, you are right. The first excerpt is section 25 of the Microsoft Software License Terms for Windows Vista, and the second one is the section 15 of the Version 3 of the GNU General Public License.

Assuming that you did not pay anything for the software under the GNU license, more or less both excerpts say the same. Therefore accountability is not an issue.