LWN Weekly Edition
Front pageSecurity
Kernel development
Distributions
Development
Linux in Business
Linux in the news
Announcements
Letters to the editor
->One big page
This page
Previous weekFollowing week
| |||||||||||
LWN.net Weekly Edition for July 11, 2002The European Commission's open source software pool The European Commission sent out a press release on July 8 announcing a new report it had published on sharing of open source software between European governments. Those who are interested can get the full report as a 3 MB PDF file; for the rest of you, we have read it through and distilled out the main points.The focus of this report is relatively narrow. The Commission is not trying to promote open source in general, and it is not trying to get governments to use free software desktops. Instead:
The object of the study is the specialized software produced by the
public authorities across Europe, to respond to the administration
or more generally to eGovernment needs: administration of roads,
hospitals and public health, education, tax payment and recovery,
justice, territory management.
In other words, the Commission thinks that open software can maybe help keep the trains running on time. Performing these governmental tasks requires large amounts of custom software. In general, there is not a market for this kind of administrative software, since there are so few buyers. So governments end up writing their own. And that, of course, leads to the obvious question:
...rather than to develop nearly identical solutions separately,
why not adopt the open source development model to share the cost
between a broader (trans-border) development team?
The open source case is helped by the fact that governments will, in general, need to be able to adapt any shared software to their particular needs. So the report's authors envision setting up a "Pool of Open Source Software" (POSS) portal where governments could share their software. The end result looks very much like a multilingual, restricted access version of SourceForge. They have already picked out the components they expect to use in the creation of this portal: Linux, Apache, ProFTPd, MySQL, phpMyAdmin, exim or sendmail, mailman, python, fetchmail, webalizer, PHP, cvs, sourceforge, OpenSSH, etc. They picked open source tools "to reinforce the credibility" of the project, "although we do not consider this requirement as a technical one." Running this project is expected to cost about EUR 6 million over five years. Much space is dedicated to worrying about licenses, patents, and liability. Governments, it is said, satisfy two criteria that make them especially prone to litigation: they are easy to find, and they have deep pockets. So a licensing or liability issue that attracts little attention when a small company or development group is involved could turn into a big court case for a governmental agency. To avoid such troubles, the report authors want to nail down a number of legal items with more than the usual amount of precision. For example, very few free software licenses specify where any disputes should be resolved. The report states that the license for any software distributed through POSS should be augmented (with a separate agreement, perhaps) by a statement of jurisdiction. If a licensing issue goes to court, they want to know which court. Similarly, they want a declaration of which country's laws apply in a dispute. Patents are a concern as well; the report seems to accept that software patents are in Europe's future. There is a discussion of an IBM submarine patent in the ebXML specification as an example of the sort of trouble that can come up. The report concludes:
A practical consequence of software patentability regarding the
publication or the pooling of open source software inside the POSS
is the requirement to investigate on possible patents, in order to
avoid legal hassles and even higher costs.
The report has no suggestions, though, on how to find all of the potential patent problems in a given piece of software. Then, there is the issue of liability for software-related problems. The report writers worry that the standard liability exclusions found in both free and proprietary licenses may not be legally valid. They hope to address this problem by instituting a review process within the POSS system - though it's hard to imagine how this group could, with confidence, issue a clean bill of health for any package. There is one other component to the report's solution to licensing, patent, and liability issues: restricting access to the software to "public administrations," initially in Europe only. With a restricted user base, contracts can be signed that give the POSS system - and those contributing software to it - a better handle on the various legal issues. A "public administration" which obtained software from the system could, of course, redistribute it under the terms of its (open source) license; they would, then, take on the related legal issues. In practice, it would not be surprising if very few government agencies redistributed software obtained from POSS. In other words, the software involved may be open source, but there are limits to the openness of POSS. European Union citizens wanting to look at the code used by their government may have a hard time getting access - even though said code is, in theory, under an open source license. POSS looks more like a private code sharing club than a true open source project. Sharing code may be helpful for governmental efficiency, but the "members only" approach could deprive both governments and citizens of many of the advantages of truly free software.
The end of the road for the 2600 case The Electronic Frontier Foundation has issued a press release on the abandonment of the 2600 DVD case, which will not be appealed to the Supreme Court. This marks the end of one of the more prominent DMCA cases, and it sets some unfortunate precedents - at least, in the second federal court circuit. The ban on a piece of software as a "circumvention device" remains intact, and, chillingly, it is fine for the government to prohibit linking to content that it does not like.The EFF's position is that this is not the right case to take to the Supreme Court - the end result would be much the same as with the lower courts. It is true that the EFF's resources are limited and should not be expended tilting at windmills. One can only hope that the right case comes along and we can begin to put a stop to the erosion of freedom in the name of protecting intellectual property.
A few site changes A few small changes have been made to the site, in response to user requests. They include:
There are many other enhancements we would like to make to the site if we can keep things going long enough. If you have not already done so, please consider donating to LWN or advertising to help keep LWN on the air.
Page editor: Jonathan Corbet Inside this week's LWN.net Weekly Edition
|
|||||||||||