Posts by webmink@the.webm.ink
(DIR) Post #ATbwGIj3AqvXeTiKpc by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-03-14T15:17:34Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Perhaps all the problems we are having with the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) arise from a misunderstanding of specialist language used by an academic evolving into an imperfect use of the term “commercial” in the exclusion of open source from the CRA? A colleague drew my attention back to the impact assessment performed by the European Commission last year in the process of drafting the CRA text that was recently sent to the European Parliament. Skimming through, my attention settled on Annex 3 and in particular “Box 4: The open source software (OSS) market – outlook” (on page 30-31 of Part 2). This page includes the statement:According to the literature, it is in principle possible to segment the open source software (OSS) market into commercial open source and non-commercial open source. In opposition to its counterpart, commercial open source is defined as “open source software projects that are owned by a single firm that derives a direct and significant revenue stream from the software”which cites a paper by academic Dirk Riehl from 2009 as “the literature”. But the opening assertion is profoundly incorrect. Dirk has never advocated for segmenting the open source software market into “commercial open source and non-commercial open source”, or proposed treating those terms as descriptive rather than as defined terms.The quotation is fair – Dirk does (controversially to many people) use the term “commercial open source” as a defined term to indicate an open source project where only one company is predominantly involved in maintenance of the source code. But the antonym he has coined for this is not “non-commercial” – rather it is “community open source”. The coinage is controversial because it leads people to incorrectly believe that community-maintained open source projects are in some way “non-commercial”, as the Commission has done here.It appears the impact assessment drove final choices in drafting the CRA. For example, there were a range of available policy options (see section 5.2 of the Impact Assesmment (part 1, page 28)) and it seems the Impact Aseessment led to the decision to select option 4 (regulate all digital products) rather than option 3 (predominantly regulate only embedded software). Was this choice validated by the belief that open source software could be segmented into “commercial” and “non-commercial”? There is no mention of open source in section 6 (page 39) so presumably there was no expectation of impact on open source arising from this decision.Cite The SourceIt seems to me that many of the issues observed with the open source exception to the CRA arise from the use of the term “commercial” with a definition assumed from the Blue Guide and NLF when in fact the risk assessment that led to the legislative option chosen used Riehl's rather specific coinage as its definition.Based on these observations, I wonder if one approach to take here to resolve the community's concerns is to import the misunderstood definition into the CRA so that it adequately defines “commercial” in the way it was scoped in the impact assessment (except using a more recent formulation of Riehl's definition).At first consideration, this seems to remove all the issues that have been concerning the community without detracting from the intent of the legislation. It excludes all in-progress open source software from the scope of the CRA while continuing to give responsibilities to those embedding software and those producing proprietary-equivalent software products. It may be that expressly describing all the relevant attributes of what's in and out would be better, but it's surely worth considering using the original idea that perhaps created the issue?To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #ATiMLCfBo4o0Aqhptw by webmink@the.webm.ink
2022-09-26T23:00:00Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Since open source charity leadership comprises the software's biggest fans, a thoughtful approach is needed to representation, conflicts of interest & breach of trust. In a community-owned charitable Foundation1, the formal Members elect Directors to act on their behalf, and consequently each Director’s duty is to represent the membership, not others who did not elect them. Further, every director can be expected to have multiple dimensions to their lives which they will need to balance. Let’s consider who directors represent, what is meant by “Conflicting Interests” and when Directors’ actions are sanctionable.RepresentationDirectors represent the people who elected them2. To speak as if an elected individual represents a party with no vote in the Foundation is inaccurate. To only speak that way is a misdirection or worse. Thus it is improper to describe a Director as “representing” an employer, or their regional LUG, or people of the same nationality (all arbitrary examples) – to insist on this is an accusation of breach of trust.Their duty is to represent only those who elected them and act in the interests of the Foundation, and they are assumed to do so until there is proof to the contrary. It is very important never to describe someone as “the XXX representative” – to do so undermines their credibility, intentionally or otherwise, and accuses them of corruption.Outside InterestsWe all have outside interests – it would be impossible to find anyone who had none, especially in an open source community where everyone loves and uses the code! Instead we expect directors:to declare those interests if and when they become relevant;to keep their interests clearly separated; andto voluntarily recuse from decision-making when it would be unreasonable to expect them to act against outside interests.We do not exclude Directors from a board’s business just because they have an interest in addition to the Foundation – it would be impossible as well as unjust. Rather, we trust them to serve the Foundation first when “on duty” and keep their various interests properly separated. We also require them to disclose relevant interests so we can understand and allow for their situation. It is up to them to recuse from voting or (in the extreme) from discussion.It is also important to note that outside interests are not the exclusive domain of employment. They arise whenever someone has an interest outside the Foundation they are elected to serve. Investments, other elected positions, family, clubs they belong to, political alignments, national identity and more can all create interests that could come into conflict with their responsibility to the Foundation. Even personal enmities and grudges could count and be disclosed.Whenever an interest becomes relevant it should be mentioned. It can then be allowed-for in decision-making. In the Board meetings I run for non-profit entities3, we actually have an early agenda section at every meeting where we ask Directors to state any interests they hold which might come into consideration in the light of the agenda, and indicate how they will be managed. With that done, affiliations and interests do not need to be raised again in the meeting.CoI vs Breach of TrustA “conflict of interest” (CoI) is the description for when a person cannot be expected to prioritise one interest over another. It is a neutral term – someone with a CoI has done nothing wrong and should not be sanctioned or excluded. Boards should have a CoI policy that provides guidance.The correct term for a sanctionable act here is breach of trust. That is when a director actually prioritises an external interest over the one they have a duty to uphold, or when they proceed with a matter without disclosing a CoI4. Other attempts to weaponise the term “CoI” must be rejected – I try to use a model CoI policy such as once approved by the US IRS so as to avoid this.Where someone has declared an interest but then still taken an action that prioritised it over the Foundation, or failed to declare an interest in a conversation where others should have been made aware, they have acted in breach of their duty to the Foundation. That’s where the red line is drawn. A breach of trust is a significant and sanctionable matter that may also be an illegal act, and arguing later you didn’t think the thing was significant is no defence – disclose or be damned!Footnote 1: This is about charities that serve the general public (in the US 501-c-3 organisations). These are not to be confused with trade associations (in the US 501-c-6 organisations), or B-Corporations, which exist only to represent the interested parties who elect their directors, although they are likely to follow a similar approach given the inherent competing interests of their directors. Never rely on the mere presence of the word “Foundation” in an organisation's name to determine its status!Footnote 2: This is not to say they “represent” in the sense of seeking electors views for each decision – they represent the whole electorate, not just “their” faction. Rather, the electors have a duty of care towards the Foundation, and their elected representatives carry out the majority of this duty to the best of their ability and in the interests of the Foundation.Footnote 3: This article represents comment on my preferred practice with various non-profits, which all have their own legal advisors. It is not itself intended as legal advice.Footnote 4: In some jurisdictions, having a conflict of interest policy is a precondition to gaining charitable status. A Board that does not act when there is a breach of trust may be putting its charitable status at risk.Tags & Mentions#Governance #Charity #Director #Board #CoI(This article was originally published using Plume on September 27, 2022)To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #ATw8VnRPFDD9zLr4fw by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-03-24T09:38:41Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
One of the proposals in the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) is that European standards bodies should develop suitable standards that help simplify conformance. Bert Hubert explains how this might work in his extensive CRA explainer. But there's a crucial issue here for open source, which risks being neglected again.In Europe, standards requests from the European Commission are handled by bodies which have been designated a European Standardisation Organisation (ESO) under EU law. There are only three of these; CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. None of these standards development organisations are accessible to open source projects per se.CEN and CENELEC are largely controlled by national standards bodies which in turn are dominated by national industries, while ETSI is a member organisation with high membership fees and largely secret proceedings (although laudably with free specifications) that is directly controlled by its members, predominantly from the telecoms industries but also including the European states. In addition, ETSI celebrates its role as a pioneer and proponent of FRAND licensing, which is fundamentally incompatible with open source communities. As with all de jure standards, participation in each of these standards bodies is expensive, both financially and in time, and engaging in their governance is beyond the scope of small players.Given this context, when the European Commission requests standards that will be applied for conformity assessment it's not clear how they will take into account the development workflow that applies to open source software. Like the European Commission itself (as I commented recently), Europe's standards bodies have no functional relationships with open source charities and do not consult them.It is very important to find ways to give a voice to the true community and not just its corporate members. As things currently stand open source will only be considered through the lens of its corporate uses. Since open source is a social movement with software artifacts for which the applications are diverse, paying heed only to the attributes of the software and the needs of the companies consuming it is an inadequate approach. You can't even proxy through small business, let alone multinationals and their lobbyists – many of them are unaware of how communities work.As a result, I believe whatever legislation arises from the CRA (and related instruments) needs to specify that standards bodies making related standards must include effective measures to consult and include the open source community. If this doesn't happen, as NLnet Labs explained, “The only alternative left available are the conformity assessment procedures that involve paying for third party process auditors.” And open source developers definitely can't afford that.Tags & Mentions#CRA #Standards #OpenSource #FOSS #Policy#4thSector@bert_hubert@fosstodon.org @maarten@techpolicy.socialTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AUHAbxfcokRW1QdOee by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-04-03T13:11:12Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
As Lessig observed in his 1999 book “CODE, and other laws of cyberspace”, a citizen's practical experience of the law and of society today is through the software that implements the written law. All the computer code that governs our lives and liberty should be open to public scrutiny in this new era. More than just allowing us to guard our freedoms now, future historians will also need usable source code if they are to fully understand our digital present as their historic past.By popularising and catalysing the pre-existing concepts from the free software movement, open source has been at the heart of the connected technology revolution for 25 years. Open source licenses grant all the rights necessary for anyone and everyone to use, improve, share and monetise the software powering modern systems and networks, empowering collaboration with many “known others” to create results greater than any could alone. OSI-approved open source licenses are the hidden power behind Linux, Apache, Mozilla, Android and more.But by granting all the rights necessary to evolve the software powering modern systems and networks, open source also unreservedly grants permission to “unknown others” to repurpose, rehost, reuse and revolutionise. It also allows digital archivists to store, refactor and renew the means of access over the long term.Availability to the “unknown others” — to society in general, and to our descendants — is crucial to our future. When software stays locked up inside the corporation or institution, when code created by the state with public funds remains secret, it does not add to our collective knowledge and the innovation it embodies is lost to society and when the “owner” moves on. This was the original motivation for previous generations to create temporary intellectual monopolies as an incentive to creators to make their creations public.As time has passed, those intellectual monopolies have themselves been regarded as property and the knowledge and culture they embody is increasingly withheld from society using that as a pretext. Open source allows that new-found wealth to be “spent” in a new way to stimulate collaboration. Collaboration in community has gone on to amplify innovation and accelerate adoption. It’s thus especially important that software funded with public money finds its way into Software Heritage.Software Heritage completes the new social contract enabled by open source. It provides the ultimate historical reference for the code behind our culture and comprehensive library of innovation to provide a “mounting block” to the shoulders of the giants before us. We should strive to get all the software that matters into this new Internet Archive for code.Software is a cultural artifact, a proxy for the law in the lives of every citizen, a tool for control and for freedom depending on the hand that wields it. It is imperative that all software is open for scrutiny and preserved for posterity.Notes, Tags & MentionsBased on my address to UNESCO on the opening of Software Heritage in June 2018.Image is my own of a sculpture by Stephane Parain#OpenSource #Policy #SoftwareHeritage #Archive #Democracy #Transparency #PublicMoneyPublicCodeTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AUJOikTWVtoYmFTrhw by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-03-24T17:08:48Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
In reviewing the language and concepts being used in the various draft bills and directives circulating in Brussels at present, it is clear that the experts crafting the language are using their understanding of proprietary software to build the protections they clearly intend for open source. This may be the cause of the problems we continue to see as the instruments iterate, especially in the absence of direct consultation.Proprietary software and the company that places it on the market can usefully be seen as the same target for those creating legislation. The software is constructed in secret, under the control of a single party, and the controlling party is responsible for both funding the work and monetising the result. However, the same cannot be said for open source software, which is created openly by a globally-distributed and unaffiliated community whose relationship with the larger work is “volunteer”. Using terminology associated with the worldview of proprietary software in legislation that affects open source is at best ambiguous and at worst extends consumer regulation to the domain of research and development.Open source software is an artifact arising from the interactions of a community of contributors with no contractual binding between them beyond the open source license itself, which disclaims all warranties and has no conduit for funds. If there is an open source charity or trade association hosting the community, there will also be only a limited binding to to it and probably none that is a funding conduit. Many communities are unincorporated and don't even have this level of interconnection.Because of this, those who place the artifact with digital elements on the market must be assumed to have no financial, organisational or indeed morally relevant relationship with any other party involved in the artifact's origination or use. There may be links, but it's best to start from the assumption there will be none because making them is an outside activity with no accommodation in open source licensing.In many cases (sadly) those placing the artifact on the market have no connection at all with the community, not even at the level where it is appropriate to consider members of the community as suppliers. As one community member wrote:I am not your supplier. So all your Software Supply Chain ideas? You are not buying from a supplier, you are a raccoon digging through dumpsters for free code.The software and the community thus need to be considered separately when choosing language that applies regulation affecting open source. Some highlights to note:The software is made freely available under an OSI-approved license that ensures its consumer may do anything it wishes without needing any relationship with rights holders.The members of the community collaborate for many different reasons, and even when those reasons have commercial intent the commercial intents are in play they are likely to be unrelated both formally and informally.Many community members have a moral/ethical basis for their participation which can sometimes take priority over pragmatic convenience.As a consequence, it is unsafe to assume that because two parties are monetising a piece of open source software, that there is a flow of funds or even a relationship between them. Regulation should only apply to the party triggering the clause in the legislation, unlike with proprietary software where it is reasonable to assume a link.Notes, Tags & MentionsSee also “The comprehension error behind the CRA issue“The photograph is my own, of the Head of Saint Gereon in front of the Basilica of St. Gereon in Bonn, artist Iskender Yediler.#CRA #PLD #Policy #OpenSource #SoftwareTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AUVw6eLgykgODwndWi by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-04-10T16:10:03Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
It's good news that the European Commission is now considering the value and needs of open source in its policy deliberations. What's less good is that it does so through the wrong lens. The Commission needs to extend its consultations, Expert Groups and other work to include and consider the fourth sector.Post-industrial society comprises three sectors in the worldview undergirding the European Union:The Commercial Sector includes industrial, extractive, service, logistic and administrative companies. They are represented pro se, by industry and trade associations, by consulting and lobbying companies and more.The Labour Sector includes workers of all kinds – industrial, skilled, research, educational, managerial, entrepreneurial and more. They are represented by trade unions, professional bodies, trade associations and more.The Consumer Sector comprises everyone spending their personal wealth at all scales. They are represented by consumer associations, civil society organisations, religious organisations and more.But the Internet has driven change over the last 50 years from which has arisen the World Wide Web and thence the Open Source movement, which in turn have catalysed many open culture movements in their rainbow mantles. The wave of open has produced many phenomena, good, bad and pending judgement – including the gig economy, open knowledge communities like Wikipedia and the Internet Archive, technology giants like Facebook and Google, open software stacks and supply chains and much, much more.The roles people play in this open wave do not fit comfortably into the three post-industrial sectors. An individual would be expected predominantly to fall within the consumer sector, with a section of their life represented in the labour sector. But an open source developer can play roles characteristic of a commercial sector player, innovating and creating soft goods (commercial sector) which are assembled (commercial sector) or used (consumer sector) by others. A video streamer may be creating new copyrighted works of great value (commercial sector) that are widely viewed (consumer sector). An author or musician can now create their own compelling brand without becoming an employee of a publisher.This is the new fourth sector. It comprises individuals, often connected and facilitated by ad-hoc or charitable communities, playing the roles of the commercial, labour and consumer sectors in varying mixes all at the same time. The fourth sector is poorly represented by the entities and roles associated with all three of the other sectors. That's inevitable; each fourth sector role will fuse together an aspect represented and an aspect confronted by any of the entities and roles dedicated to the three traditional sectors. So a consumer association won't advocate well for open source developers because an aspect of their existence is classified as commercial. A streamer won't be well represented by a trade union because they embody both consumer and commercial aspects. And so on.As a result, existing consultation mechanisms used by legislators are guaranteed to fail. When they try to deal with open source by expressing the understanding they have gained of proprietary software, they will keep causing collateral damage — as we have seen in the Cyber Resilience Act (CRA) and many times previously. The need will increase as regulation tries to control, account for or promote the activities of the fourth sector without consulting it.One significant reason this has been happening for such a long time already is the lack of a term to use to raise the issue. That's why I am proposing to call this sector of European society the “fourth sector”. It extends well beyond open source, covering any new, citizen-centric economic activity which is hard to have represented with only the existing commercial, labour and consumer lenses. Let's tell the Commission and other governments that it's time to care about the fourth sector, which is the driving force for all the changes they want to embrace — or control.Notes, Tags & MentionsThis essay and the thinking behind it about a “meshed society” has been around for quite some time — indeed, I named my consulting company after it in 2013 because it under-girded all my thinking at Sun and before that at IBM! I finally got round to a web search to see if the term “fourth sector” was in use and ... yes it is, in the USA! Defined in a very similar way to the way I have done, although with the focus on only entrepreneurial activity, using the term as a synonym of “for-benefit company” and omitting the dimension of individual and local activity without incorporation. See Building Better and Fourth Sector Group for example. Their concept amazingly omits open source. Time to remedy that.#CRA #OpenSource #4thSector #Policy #Democracy #RepresentationTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AUePS6HqE0b1ng1aPg by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-01-17T14:53:06Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
While the Free Software/Open Source movement is based on an essential and timeless concept — that users of software should be self-sovereign in that software — the linguistic frame in which it was positioned long ago continues to have some unfortunate consequences that ironically distract from the very goals the frame sought to achieve.When you say to a native English speaker that something is “free”, their first and dominant thought will most likely be about the price of the thing in question. “Free? I don't have to pay?” They may well go on to say “That sounds cheap – and probably inferior!” Yes, it is possible to redirect that initial impression to other ways of understanding “free” (“no, I mean free as in freedom”), but George Lakoff explained long ago that the initial linguistic “palette” from which we paint colours the interpretation of all future conceptual metaphors in the conversation – the initial metaphor sets a frame that constrains future discussion. Things are further complicated by the fact that, as it turns out the source code is indeed available without paying – in many cases as an installable binary – not as a goal but as a consequence of the embodied liberties.As a result, when “free software” is invoked in English by a non-specialist, nuance concerning the liberty of the individual as self-sovereign in software is lost, and subsequent usage tends to be argued within a “price frame” not a “liberty frame”. The dominant argument for at least a decade of the shift of free/open source to dominance was that free software is cheaper, saves money, doesn't require payment for licenses and so on. This led to emphasis on donating to projects, with even ambiguous terms like “contribute” and “give back” being understood monetarily – in terms of delivering compensatory value that is detached from social engagement or the enjoyment of software freedoms.Even after many people switched to talking about “open source”, the frame set in early usage persisted, with people obsessed with price (“TCO”) over capability or potential. Today sustainability is seen mainly in terms of “paying the maintainers”, long after we should know better and first address the dynamics of inclusive governance. This is further magnified by actors who mostly eschew community trying to justify their sociopathy; as one community peer commented,this is reinforced by the narratives from for-profit businesses struggling to find a successful business model, citing how users of the open-source licenced software they produced are not “giving back”.Yet the communities in which I have participated have rarely sought money, at least initially. What they really wanted was for users to join in, for improved software to be made available to all, for the rights they enjoy to be available to others. Some seek to compel, others just to encourage, but all of these are concepts drawn from a social frame rather than from a price frame.There's a deep irony to this, as proponents of the Free Software terminology have frequently accused proponents of the alternative phrase “open source” of losing the connection to user liberty. But in fact it does a better job setting the conceptual frame for outsiders to one where interpretation follows “open” to assume a lack of “closed”, the presence of freedoms to manipulate and use the source and the other attributes supposedly only advanced by the earlier phrase! The unintended conceptual metaphor invoked by “free” poisons whatever framing we apply and we need to consciously evade that effect.This also reads on my reflections on volunteering. Once we are stuck in a price frame, we see participation in projects within that frame and talk about paid and unpaid volunteers as if that is the key qualification. We worry about sustainability in terms of “who is going to pay”. But the real issue with sustainability is not primarily about money, but more about the presence of skills and innovation within a community and the willingness of newcomers to stay. In turn that is frequently a function of the objective presence of software freedoms.This is not to deny the valid criticism that the Open Source and Free Software movement has been subverted by those who want to use their liberty asocially or even antisocially in pursuit of profit. But it's just possible that the best way to cover that sociopathy is the invocation of a liberty frame in place of the price frame, rather than trying to work within the constraints of the price frame. It seems to me that we need to try harder to effectively apply social framing to open source if we are to address the issues we see around sustainability, ethical use and corporate annexation of our movement.See also:#OpenSource #Volunteer #Sustainability(Inspired by comments in a Mastodon conversation)To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AVH26RFeXQOOhwrQX2 by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-05-03T09:28:46Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
I just read a news story about how Chinese tech companies are threatening Europe by registering so many patents. Turns out it's in the context of “open standards” and is actually Chinese companies copying what European multinationals have done for years with patents embedded in standards. That Sword of Damocles cuts both ways.I still meet people who think that implementing an “open standard” is something anyone can do freely. But it's unfortunately not so – the word “open” in standards is not used the same way as “open” in software. This difference exists for a reason, resisting even clarification by the European Interoperability Framework (EIF) v1 where pro-patent lobbyists managed to get the clarification removed in the subsequent version. Even if you can get the specification without having to pay a significant sum for the privilege, chances are a standard from a body like ETSI will have a high aggregate patent royalty associated with any implementation.Why? For years, legal cartels of technology companies have used patents they have embedded in formal standards to control the markets they monetise. They do this not just legally but with the encouragement of market authorities, who regard it as a reasonable compromise despite the obviously anti-competitive nature of the practice (which they freely admit). So they describe as “open” any standard created under a standards-body process that is theoretically equally open to all, which thus circumvents the anti-trust rules.Once embedded in the specification, “standard-essential patents” (SEPs) must then be licensed in order to implement technologies the cartel members include in core standards for mobile phones, media playback, consumer device functions and more. The terms are almost always based on per-unit royalties. This has proved extremely profitable, allowing companies to continue to harvest revenues from markets they may have been unable to monetise fairly via superior products.But in some ways the royalties are the least issue. By creating SEPs, the cartel members also gain market control, again in a way that amazingly does not break any anti-trust laws. The presence of SEPs ensures that all newcomers who are attempting to enter or disrupt a market are forced into NDA-secret negotiations with their incumbent competitors to get licenses. Controlling who can compete is just as valuable to the incumbents.According to recent research, securing licenses can be extremely difficult, if not impossible. It is not unknown for incumbents to use the covert control point of terms negotiation to disrupt market access by offering unreasonable terms regardless of commitments to “Fair, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory” (FRAND licensing). This raises the barrier to entry in their markets and keeps costs — and thus consumer prices — high, while the cartel members are able to privately cross-license to each other to keep their own costs controlled and their margins high. The power asymmetry is also a valuable asset; courts start out assuming the supplicant is evading their responsibilities and may well intervene for the plaintiff while the case is running.But what if vendors in China formed a similar cartel and then gained control of a critical mass of SEPs needed to implement critical technologies? What if they also used their patents to block foreign companies from the Chinese market and to tax their products when they are finally allowed? Seemingly with little sense of irony, representatives of the incumbent cartels interviewed by the Financial Times complained of just those scenarios starting to appear because of the single-minded intensity of patenting activities by Chinese companies.There's no doubt this is a threat to the livelihood of the incumbent companies. But perhaps the problem is not China but the practice of tolerating patents in standards itself? The lesson here is to carefully consider the privileges you exploit, lest others do the same. Live by the SEP, die by the SEP.Notes, Tags and Mentions#FRAND #SEP #Patents #SoftwarePatents #Standards #SEPDIf the story is paywalled try a longer ladderThe two papers linked above are worth reading independently of the story as they document the creeping regulatory capture of “FRAND” and the near-impossibility securing licenses for a SEP-encumbered standard:Pocknell, Robert and Djavaherian, Dave, The History of the ETSI IPR Policy: Using the Historical Record to Inform Application of the ETSI FRAND Obligation (September 27, 2022). http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4231645Lundell, Björn; Gamalielsson, Jonas and Katz, Andrew, Implementing the HEVC standard in software: Challenges and Recommendations for organisations planning development and deployment of software (February 3, 2023). https://doi.org/10.18757/jos.2022.6695To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AVJvJB9baDg4LG2Wg4 by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-05-04T09:59:57Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Like me you may be surprised to see the suggestion from the IMCO Committee to change “free and open source software” in the CRA to “freeware and open source software” in an amendment from Karen Melchior MEP1. It's not a word I have heard much this decade, so I checked with her team and discovered this was an informed and intentional choice, not a misunderstanding (by them, at least).They told me that they believed the term “free and open source software” was misunderstood2 by the Commission to be two categories — proprietary software supplied without charge and software developed in the open under an OSI-approved license. They inquired and found that the team authoring the draft at the Commission very much intended to create an exception for proprietary software delivered at no charge, so have proposed this amended language to clarify the matter along with an amendment (129) defining “freeware” for absolute clarity.Notes, Tags and MentionsThe IMCO Amendments include this word in Amendment 66 and 120 and it is defined in Amendment 129.My earlier article “Getting Back To A Social Frame” appears relevant here.#CRA #EUCRA #FOSS #FLOSS #IMCO #OpenSource #FreewareTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AWOJJZ7rZ8zditwWH2 by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-06-05T19:34:33Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Ultimately software freedom is a matter of personal liberty. Whether you describe it as “open source” or “free software”, the goal is for each individual user of software to be self-sovereign in their software and data. Where the privilege of choice is available, this is a matter of consciously choosing liberty, and it is strictly a matter for each individual to make a set of choices — which will necessarily be inter-related.In an ideal world, we would all be entirely self-sovereign in our software and the data it uses. But there is a limit to the extent that is possible, largely because of choices others have made before us. No matter how committed to our own software freedom or to preserving that of others, we ultimately need to compromise and in some areas choose or use solutions that abridge our freedoms. Sometimes we may even need to make choices that lead to others having their freedoms abridged. We all have a point-of-compromise, and we all choose a different one. The most important aspect of software freedom is to be aware of it.The choices we make are relevant to others only to the extent that they abridge the choices of other software users. It is never OK to bully someone over their software freedom point-of-compromise.For choices which only affect the individual, it is polite and appropriate to start with the assumption the individual has mindfully considered their choices and to leave unspoken the differences one observes between those and one's own choices or a Utopian ideal. We can only truly know our own selfhood.For choices made by another person which affect oneself, it may be appropriate to politely ask why those choices are being made in such a way as to impose a loss of choice on oneself if they truly do. But in most cases where the abridgment is minor or avoidable, it is better to lead by example. It is rarely appropriate to hector and never OK to bully.For choices made by an organisation, it can be more appropriate to ask the organisation to justify their choices when they impose a loss of liberty on others. Even so, one should start out assuming they have considered the issue and reached a balanced compromise according to their mission and means.When is it “an abridgment too far”? When I can only choose systems that leave me with no practical software freedoms, and when the person or organisation forcing that choice either has not considered the issue or in doing so has needlessly ignored software freedom as a key factor. In just these cases it may be reasonable to politely inquire why and then to go further if the response is unreasonable.Tags, Notes and Mentions#OpenSource #FreeSoftware #SoftwareFreedom #FOSS #FLOSSTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AWoqYtDSfN0Bq7R5Ci by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-06-18T14:51:10Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
During the discussions around European digital agenda legislation, I have frequently heard people proposing to define “open source” within the draft instrument. But that's a surprisingly difficult thing to do – it turns out that despite being a globally-understood term-of-art, capturing the whole thing in a phrase simple enough to use in a recital requires a great deal of thought and experience. So people mostly defer to the OSI Open Source Definition, which is not designed for that purpose.Ultimately software freedom is a matter of personal liberty. Whether you describe it as “open source” or “free software”, the goal is for each individual user of software to be self-sovereign in their software and data. Any definition of open source needs to feed that confidence rather than create uncertainty by empowering control-points and gatekeepers. A precise definition has proved very hard — most attempts require some form of gatekeeper authority that ironically kills stochastic confidence.The Open Source Definition (OSD) which OSI administers is a clever benchmark for evaluating whether licenses grant open source software freedoms. Rather than define open source precisely, it follows the “know it when you see it” principle and describes the attributes of a license that delivers software freedom. By doing so, it evades many rhetorical games. Community comparison of licenses against the OSD as a benchmark, together with OSI's role facilitating and memorialising rather than gatekeeping, has led to the overwhelming success of open source over the last 25 years.But sometimes — increasingly often — we need a phrase in a recital that defines open source. It's important we offer text that does so in a way that reflects the expectation of the global community of communities who use “open source” as a term-of-art. Locally-sourced “definitions” are frequently incomplete, or focus on licensing as an end rather than a means, or serve the agenda of groups seeking to fragment or even subvert the community.Ideally we would say that “open source software is software released under an OSI-approved license.” This definition would perfectly encapsulate the global consensus without creating any new “games” to be played. But we have found that governments do not want to make normative references to any organisation they cannot control. OSI is an independent, global, public charity so certainly cannot be controlled!I believe this phrase expresses almost the same idea without mentioning an organisation:Open source software is software released under a license that — by community consensus — grants all rights necessary to use, improve, share and monetise the software in any way and for any purpose subject only to conditions that can be reasonably satisfied without negotiation with the licensors.I'll be pleased to have suggestions that improve this phrase without making it significantly longer or more complex. If you're going to try improving it, here's why I've used each element:“all rights necessary” (there is no carve out hiding, no unexpected obstacles from IPR)“use, improve, share and monetise” (the heart of the four freedoms)“in any way and for any purpose” (competition is permitted, the author's business is not excluded)“community consensus” (the discussion is already completed, no arbiter or gatekeeper necessary)“conditions” (not to be confused with restrictions that demand negotiation to waive)“without negotiation” (there are no predators waiting to check your business model or demand royalties).In spite of all this, I still think it is better to reference the OSD and the community consensus process OSI crystallizes, if you are able to do so.Tags, Notes and Mentions#OpenSource #Policy@osi@opensource.org @EUCommission@social.network.europa.eu @ECOSPO@social.network.europa.euTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AWukBuaVxxTAeode1w by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-06-21T10:32:03Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Of the many attributes of software freedom that could move to front-of-mind, it strikes me that the minimal license compliance burdens for open source software users are actually a comparative strength. Having them presented as a dangerous weakness by commercial interests in various contexts (what has been called “the compliance-industrial complex”) applies a “frame” that serves only the detractors of software freedom. No wonder proprietary vendors want to divert our attention! Open source is so much easier!License compliance is a major and costly issue for proprietary software users, who must keep track of every use of the proprietary software they are licensing in order to avoid severe consequences should their supplier choose to conduct an audit. The license involved in that case is an End User License Agreement (EULA), not a source license delivering extensive liberties. When we compare like-for-like, we discover open source software has negligible issues by comparison. End-users do not need to have a license management server, do not need to hold audits, do not need to fear contract enforcement raids.Open Source Compliance Is A Marginal IssueDo we need to worry about license compliance? Obviously respecting authors, following license terms and obeying the law are important, but for most of us the answer is probably that there are bigger things to worry about. Open source software comes with a set of liberties commonly called “the four freedoms“. Any software under an open source license may be used, studied, adapted, shared (both in the origonal and modified form) and monetised for any purpose, as long as the license is obeyed.As a user of the software, there are no conditions of any kind set on your use; you are free to use it for any purpose. There is no compliance requirement. Pause and reflect on that for a moment. Open source does not place a compliance burden on the end user, does not mandate acceptance of an end-user license agreement, does not subject you to para-police action from the BSA. That is a significant advantage, and there’s no wonder that proprietary vendors want to hide it from you and make you think open source licensing is somehow complex, burdensome or risky. If all you want to do is use the software – which is all you are allowed to do with proprietary software as the other three freedoms are entirely absent – then open source software carries significantly less risk.If you move beyond use of the software and study the source code, there is also no compliance burden. There is no risk associated with using the knowledge you gain for other purposes. You do not become “tainted” in some way, and there is no need to create a “clean room” environment when you build related software using that knowledge. Those actions are related to trade secrets and public code is not secret by definition.If you move beyond studying the code and actually adapt it for your own use, there is unlikely to be a compliance burden. You are free to use the modified version in any way you wish, both personally and within your business. There is no need to account for your use, no need to send your improvements somewhere else, no requirement that you participate in the community. Of course, if you don’t you won’t get all the benefits associated from joining the community, but all the same the choice remains yours.If you move beyond modifying the code and decide to share your modified version, that is the point at which there will most commonly be compliance issues with the open source license. You only need to check you are passing on the same rights to others as you received with the original code. Even then, not all open source licenses place significant responsibilities on you. Licenses like the Apache, BSD, MIT and X11 licenses are extremely easy to comply with and licenses like the Mozilla license involve negligible housekeeping if you are participating in an open source community – simply committing code back to the community repository is likely to be enough. Only reciprocal licenses like the GPL family truly need an audit process, and even there it’s no more burdensome for most of us than the sort of tracking we would do anyway in our version control system.When it comes to the tiny minority who monetise open source software per se by shipping products containing it, there are issues that companies need to keep in mind, but in my view they are no more complex and burdensome than the issues arising from shipping proprietary software. It’s important to make sure you know you have the necessary rights to everything you ship, and when you ship code made from proprietary elements you naturally do so because the contract both requires it and enables sanctions if you don't. Only sloppy developers fail to do this.Software Freedom Is Not About LicensesThe result of making it seem otherwise is that the more subtle opponents of open source are able to raise Fears about compliance, attaching Uncertainties soluble only via extra costs that aren’t really applicable to the majority of uses and thus seeding Doubts that the bother is really worth it. This has all the classic hallmarks of FUD, projecting the weakness of proprietary software and license enforcement “audits” and by implication tarring open source with them. We should reject the frame.Ultimately, software freedom is not about licenses; they are a fundamental and essential part of the mechanics, but not the goal. The goal is for every software user to be self-sovereign in their software. It is about the liberty to enjoy software unhindered, and we are free to use that liberty as little or as much as we want without interference. Allowing ourselves to be distracted from the liberty which is the source of all of the benefits individuals and business gain from open source is a mistake. Don’t let the forces of proprietary software do it to you. Reject the frame and revel in your liberty!Tags, Notes and Mentions#OpenSource #SoftwareFreedom #FOSS #FLOSSOriginal version published November 2010To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AXY7vGFiDgi17qtnou by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-07-10T09:11:36Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
What has driven open source to become part of 75% of all software and drive nearly €100 bn of GDP in Europe? Reuse, yes. But that was always possible. Collaboration, definitely. But repositories existed for years before open source was coined in 1998. The software freedom philosophy. Absolutely, but that went 15 years without triggering a software revolution. I suggest it's something less measurable and observable — developer confidence — and that the effects involved are stochastic, not deterministic.No ConfidenceAs a result of the automatic global ownership of copyright by the authors of any software, no developer — even if supplied with the source code — may make much use of software written by others without being granted permission to do so. There are basically two ways such permission is granted:With a 1:1 contract — usually connected to a license fee or ongoing subscription fee but sometimes formed through agreement with the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA).Through the terms of a general license available to the public at large, contingent on acceptance of the conditions in the license but without executing a contract.Gaining the confidence to proceed in both cases involves studying the terms, understanding what is and is not permitted and understanding what duties must be performed. For most people, gaining confidence to proceed involves obtaining legal advice, which usually means paying for it. For most of us, that means not reaching a position of confidence.It's Software Freedom All The Way DownIn large part this is addressed by the philosophy of Software Freedom that evolved from Richard Stallman's early experiences. Software Freedom ensures all uses are expressly permitted (with conditions) by having the author(s) grant permission in advance. But the philosophy needs a vehicle to become real.The software license does that. It leverages the need for a copyright license to create an opportunity to deliver all the rights necessary to “enjoy” the software. By enjoy, I mean the rights to use, improve, share and monetise the software, for any purpose, in any place and in any combination, subset or superset. All necessary rights are assumed to be granted unless stated otherwise.Uncertain About FreedomsThese freedoms definitely provided a foundation for developers to have confidence they had code they could reuse and collaborate over. But the freedoms were only definitely available under the GPL family of licenses – any others needed an opinion from a gatekeeper who worked opaquely. Using only the GPL family was controversial because of the “copyleft” provisions that seemed to some who had been working in the open for decades to force adherence to an ideology with which they did not identify. So people tried their hand at writing other licenses.In the late 1990s, more and more products were claiming they were using “free software licenses” but there was no way to be sure they objectively delivered software freedom in your own circumstances, at least until the FSF had commented. Even then legal advice would likely be necessary given the monochrome view FSF tended to have. Worse, the “free software” term was being used casually in support of proprietary models accompanied by custom licenses, so the risks were not imagined.Grey AreasWhat drove creation of new licenses? Every software project and its anticipated usage has its own context, so even the simplest licenses work in different ways for different people. In particular, some users prefer to take software that has been freely offered to them and use it as the basis of software that is offered restrictively to others, perhaps even avoiding attributing their work to its original authors. But away from that extreme, there are many dimensions to consider and, wise or note, there's a license embodying each of them.Having many licenses may be a source of choice and diversity, but in every case the key question a developer will ask is “can I use that code?” There are licenses that are highly burdensome to comply with, licenses that use copyleft in a way that is incompatible with the way it's used by other licenses, licenses that lack clear patent grants, and many more. Which licenses deliver software freedom under conditions you can accept?Not everyone has a lawyer (or easy access to a software freedom guru), and of course even people with a lawyer may not really want to ask every single time they see a new license. So, lacking confidence to proceed, developers avoid new licenses. This lack of developer confidence had a chilling effect and held back a wave of open collaborative development which in turn meant software freedom remained the privilege of an elite rather than a benefit for all.Stochastic ConfidenceOpen source succeeded not by making things black-and-white but by clearing enough shades of grey to make things feel OK to the majority. It created stochastic confidence – enough confidence they had the freedom to reuse, collaborate and innovate for a critical mass of developers to gather and do so.Collaborative evaluation against the Open Source Definition (OSD) was sufficient to give many people confidence there was a low probability of further permission-seeking. Community review of licenses against the OSD, crystalised and recorded by OSI, creates sufficient developer confidence to re-use code downstream from elsewhere. Yes, there are still uncertainties – but not enough to poison the network effect. OSI thus catalysed a network effect of collaboration and reuse by creating a mechanism to create stochastic confidence in developer communities.Compatible licensing also provides a vehicle for shared rights upstream. The level playing field of open licensing makes it possible to contribute improvements – making open source lower maintenance while remaining highly maintained collectively. Communities operating under a “license in = license out” basis see a free flow of code.So the answer to why open source worked ultimately is a brew of factors that is hard to acknowledge for those with direct-causal minds – consensus on licenses, confidence about IPR grants, upstream contribution enablement and more. None of these factors alone is sufficient to trigger the network effect of open source development, reuse and collaboration. Neither is any factor alone sufficient to stop the effect if removed. Rather, it is a matter of moving developers from a fog of uncertainty to a point where they are confident to reuse, improve, contribute and innovate. Open source works via a stochastic effect that is hard to quantify yet undeniable.AntipatternsSo what will break open source? Nothing so crude as a ban. Anything that lowers the stochastic confidence level below the point where the network effect works in a given context will do the job. Some causes of lower confidence/needing further permission:The need to license patents, especially in relation to standardsDRMGeographical embargoesContributor License Agreements (even a DCO will reduce adoption)Uncertainty in the interpretation of a licenseLicenses that have not been OSI approvedRestrictions in the license. Conditions may be problematic if you don't want to comply with them but that's not a restriction. All OSI-approved licenses are permissive. All have conditions. None require negotiation – that would be a restriction.Compliance certification requirementsDeveloper certification requirementsThis is not to say all these things are certain to prevent an open source network effect triggering. Rather, each thing reduces the average level of confidence of part of the potential adoption community. This is the reality overlooked by corporations following their usual path to optimising short-term gains.Notes, Tags and MentionsFrom a keynote address at FOSS-North, Gothenburg, April 2023According to Oxford Languages, stochastic means “having a random probability distribution or pattern that may be analysed statistically but may not be predicted precisely.”#OpenSource #FOSS #FLOSS #FreeSoftware #SoftwareFreedom #CausalityThe photo is my own, taken in the Everglades and actually a colour photo not B&W!To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AXtcaXtUavJv3vduQS by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-07-20T18:42:42Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
A clause in a software license that says something that sounds as simple as “you must follow the law” is problematic in practice and likely to render the license unapprovable as open source. Here's why.In whose opinion? The law is only certain in specific cases and with the delivery of the judgement of the final court.In which jurisdiction? Even in the USA there are multiple jurisdictions, let alone internationally. US State law is increasingly mercurial and compliance in California with law in Florida may not be desirable even if it's possible.When? The law changes. What's legal today may not be tomorrow – the UK is about to make end-to-end encryption illegal if it isn't back-doored for the security services, for example.Even bad law? The law may need challenging – even in the best of worlds the law is sometimes wrong and on the journey to correct it a license for software people rely on should not be invalidated. You can never know who you will be harming.Most importantly, it's not relevant. It is the duty of others to police and enforce the law in general, not of a software license. The software author certainly will not want to do so, and is most likely just trying to cleanse their own conscience at the expense of creating a risk for others.Finally, it's pointless. If someone is so motivated by a crime they will not to be thwarted by the operation of the law and its sanctions, do you seriously think they will reconsider just because you might sue them for infringement?So a “just obey the law” clause is likely to be discriminatory and including one in your proposed open source license will result in some serious questions from the reviewers. Might be best not to do it!Notes, Tags and MentionsThis is not to say you should not obey the law. In the vast majority of cases that is a great idea. Just don't write about it in a license where it isn't relevant, enforceable or resolvable.#OpenSource@osi@opensource.orgTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AYULvEgJ1zz8OEVuBE by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-08-07T13:20:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Setting aside the challenges of using Zoom under ChromeOS and Linux, I have mostly been declining invitations to Zoom calls because of the terms they introduced from April 2023 in section 10 of their Terms of Service which seem to force every user, with no opt-out to the Terms available and with recourse only via arbitration, to agree that they can:Train their AI on anything uploaded or created on Zoom (including transcripts and recordings) and use the consequent model for absolutely anything;Have indefinite and ownership-equivalent rights to do so in the future andBe indemnified by me if it turns out someone else owns the IP or has their rights infringed (for example to confidential materials everyone on the call is entitled to review).I prefer Jitsi instead; it has equivalent functionality, is platform independent, can be used without an account, is open source and can be self-hosted.DetailsIn the terms, “data, content, files, documents, or other materials” that you use in a Zoom session (“Customer Input”), as well as recordings and transcripts, and any other glitter Zoom sprinkles over them, is called “Customer Content”.10.4(ii) then sees you granting a broad license to Customer Content “for the purpose of product and service development, marketing, analytics, quality assurance, machine learning, artificial intelligence, training, testing, improvement of the Services, Software, or Zoom’s other products, services, and software, or any combination thereof”If the stuff you shared belongs to someone else, 10.6 sees you agreeing “you are solely responsible for the Customer Content” and notably for getting consent from third parties and providing notices according to whatever laws happen to be applicable to the combination of people involved.In addition to all this, in 10.6 you “represent and warrant that you have the right to upload Customer Input and for Zoom to provide, create, or make available any Customer Content to you, and that such use or provision by you, your End User, or Zoom does not violate or infringe any rights of any third party.” So you are basically indemnifying them if they train their AI with someone else's IP you happen to have – for example, a client brief you are discussing internally, or a legal case you are working on under privilege.There is no opt-out or scope control to use for AI training in the terms. Zoom's COO says the actual use of the AI features is opt-in, but that doesn't seem relevant as the Terms grant permission regardless.My non-lawyer read suggests this is an exceptionally risky thing for anyone in possession of IP or under NDA concerning someone else's secrets to agree to, and I will be avoiding Zoom.Notes, Tags & MentionsI believe this analysis is correct; please contact me at once if it is not, see my hub.Here's the immediately prior version of the terms. You can clearly see that the new section 10 has been introduced in the new version.#Proprietary #VideoTo discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AYxGn9Paa0AMgQySIq by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-08-21T12:05:25Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
If you are using a Chromebook, did you know you can install LibreOffice on it? It's extremely easy!Enable the Linux subsystemIn the Linux folder, create a folder called ApplicationsDownload the AppImage build of LibreOffice into the folderThat's it! ChromeOS will do the rest. Go to the applications menu (press the search button on the keyboard) and look in the “Linux Applications” group to launch LibreOffice. It's as easy as a Mac!To enable the Linux subsystem:Go to Settings (there are various routes you can take – the easiest is via the Settings icon on the app menu)In the left navigation, click Advanced and select DevelopersEnable the Linux Development Environment from this menuTo create the Applications folder:This is optional – you could just put all your AppImage files into the Linux folder, but I find it easier to separate them out into their own folder. Linux apps can only see the Linux folder and its contents, so you can't put AppImage files anywhere else. Your documents will also need to live in or below the Linux folder.Open the Files appUnder “My Files” in the left navigation, click on “Linux files”Create a new folder (for example by pressing Ctrl+E) and name it ApplicationsTo download the AppImageOn the LibreOffice web site, go to https://www.libreoffice.org/download/appimage/For most people, the “Fresh, Standard” image is the best choice to download.Place the download in your new Applications folder under the Linux folder.ChromeOS will spot the AppImage file, create an icon for the application on the applications menu and connect it to the supported file types.Notes, Tags and Mentions#Linux #OpenSource #LibreOffice #Desktop #OpenOffice #FOSS #FLOSS@libreofficeIt's possible that my instructions miss a step or are affected by other AppImage tools I have installed. If so, please let me know and I'll fix it!To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #AcmYaYzu2MOqtPfPLU by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-12-13T23:36:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
#A Vision for LibreOfficeI am standing for election to the board of The Document Foundation (TDF) again. The most important thing TDF needs is a vision for LibreOffice. Here is the outline a vision I would propose to the Trustees and Board if elected, obviously collaboratively with them.Where are we choosing to go?TDF exists to serve the public globally, not the needs of any corporation.Consequently TDF should not be directing donated money to give any company an alternative to Microsoft Office, nor to give any service provider an alternative to Google Docs, nor to unnecessarily subsidise the companies benefiting from each.Online Office is a service for cloud providers and corporate users, but is of limited value in serving the mission of TDF, so TDF should limit engagement with it to deploying a copy as a stepping-stone for TDF's evolution.LibreOffice Desktop needs to be able to interoperate with it however, both via file format and in real-time.P2P LibreOfficeWhat we most need is peer-to-peer collaboration built in to desktop LibreOffice without the requirement for a cloud providerIdeally it should be interoperable with Collabora Office too, via real-time connectionWe need this on a platform-neutral basis so every version is interoperableWe should also start looking beyond the “document” paradigm. Even e-mail attachments are becoming rarer; we need to consider distributed filesystems, fediverse systems and other content containers.So as a minimum we also need support for distributed filesystems such as IPFSTDF should be spending its significant cash reserves to make LibreOffice a future-proof and accessible tool for every citizen in every country and every language, not on tenders to corporate suppliers to fix bugs that they need fixed but can't fix economically.Possible paths to P2PThis could be achieved by taking the remote access capability from Collabora Online and integrating it it into desktop LibreofficeIt would need redesign to make it work for ordinary users without technical intervention, possibly using IPv6 libraries such as LibreCast.If a browser-accessible build were available (WASM seems possible), it might also be feasible to allow a user without LibreOffice installed to collaborate peer-to-peer — in response to an individual invitation — with just a browser.To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.
(DIR) Post #Acw7pnSwsvR2PvCyCO by webmink@the.webm.ink
2023-12-17T23:32:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Me presento de nuevo a la reelección para la junta de The Document Foundation (TDF) como candidato independiente. Lo más importante que necesita TDF es una visión unificadora para el futuro de #LibreOffice, la principal herramienta de preparación de documentos #OpenSource. He aquí el esbozo de una visión que propondría a los Administradores y a la Junta Directiva en caso de ser elegido, obviamente evolucionada en colaboración con ellos.¿Hacia dónde elegimos ir?TDF existe para servir al público globalmente, no a las necesidades de ninguna corporación. En consecuencia, TDF no debería destinar el dinero donado a ofrecer a ninguna empresa una alternativa a Microsoft Office, ni a ningún proveedor de servicios una alternativa a Google Docs, ni a subvencionar innecesariamente a las empresas que se benefician de cada una de ellas.Las actuales herramientas ofimáticas en línea son un servicio para los proveedores de la nube y los usuarios corporativos, pero tienen un valor limitado al servicio de la misión de TDF porque está fuera del alcance de casi cualquier usuario implantarlo por sí mismo. En lugar de animarnos a depender de los proveedores de servicios (incluso de buena fe), TDF debería limitar el compromiso con las versiones de servidor a desplegar una copia de Collabora Online como un peldaño para la evolución de TDF.Sin embargo, LibreOffice de Escritorio debe ser capaz de interoperar con él, tanto a través del formato de archivo como en tiempo real.P2P LibreOfficeLo que más necesitamos es la colaboración peer-to-peer integrada en LibreOffice Desktop sin necesidad de un proveedor en la nube.Lo ideal sería que también fuera interoperable con Collabora Online™, a través de una conexión en tiempo realNecesitamos una plataforma neutral para que todas las versiones sean interoperables.También deberíamos empezar a mirar más allá del paradigma del “documento”. Incluso los archivos adjuntos al correo electrónico son cada vez más raros; debemos tener en cuenta los sistemas de archivos distribuidos, los sistemas fediverse y otros contenedores de contenido.Así que, como mínimo, también necesitamos soporte dentro de LibreOffice para sistemas de archivos distribuidos como IPFS, de modo que no dependamos de un sistema de archivos alojado para la colaboración.También tiene que ser accesible sólo con un navegador, tal vez a través de un cliente Javascript ligero.TDF debería estar gastando directamente su importante saldo de efectivo donado para hacer de LibreOffice una herramienta accesible y a prueba de futuro para todos los ciudadanos en todos los países y todos los idiomas, no en licitaciones a proveedores corporativos para arreglar errores que se necesitan arreglar pero que se no pueden arreglar económicamente.Posibles caminos hacia el P2PEsto podría lograrse adaptando la capacidad de acceso remoto de Collabora Online e integrándola en el Libreoffice de escritorio.Se necesitaría un rediseño para que funcione para los usuarios normales sin intervención técnica, posiblemente utilizando librerías IPv6 como LibreCast.Si estuviera disponible una versión accesible desde el navegador (WASM parece posible), también podría ser factible permitir a un usuario sin LibreOffice instalado colaborar peer-to-peer – en respuesta a una invitación individual – con sólo un navegador.Una vez elegido, propondría esto como punto de partida para el Patronato y trataría de trabajar con los administradores para hacerlo evolucionar hacia una dirección consensuada para la Fundación.Para discutir este post por favor responda desde Mastodon etc. (busque la URL) e incluya @webmink@meshed.cloud ya que WriteFreely todavía no muestra las respuestas. Más publicado con writefreely.Many thanks to Miguel Ángel for the translation of the original.To discuss this post please reply from Mastodon etc. (search for the URL) & include @webmink@meshed.cloud as WriteFreely still doesn't display replies. More.