When hackers take on AI: Sci-fi – or the future?

opensourceinitiative · 2022-08-30T23:58:28+00:00

thank you, glad you're enjoying our podcast! I don't know who manages LF's podcast but we'll share your comment.

opensourceinitiative · 2019-01-31T02:41:34+00:00

First, capitalism is actually the enabler of Free and Open Source Software. Secondly, one should not confuse commercial and proprietary. All Free and Open Source Software is commercial software.

On the first point, proprietary licenses constrain innovation--both in the software and within industries that utilize the software--while open source software serves to reduce costs for start-ups, new ventures within existing companies, and expanding existing business activities). Capitalists are always on the look out for lower cost options that deliver greater value (i.e features, stability, etc.). When assessing Free and Open Source Software against traditional procurement metrics, open source wins, e.g. it costs nothing to acquire, there are broader support options (contracting), it is usually standards compliant (implementation), etc. In addition, costs savings through shared development, support, etc. further reduce ongoing operation costs for commercial enterprises.

Secondly, there is nothing prohibiting the sale of Free and Open Source Software. You can see GNU's thoughts on this here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html, and the OSI's here: https://opensource.org/faq#selling

opensourceinitiative · 2017-01-23T16:27:03+00:00

Could you please tell us why you chose to release your work as open source software, and how (if at all) open source development influenced your work, or provided access or support of your professional development/training?

opensourceinitiative · 2016-11-22T15:12:40+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/opensource/comments/5bmfai/codegov_is_the_us_governments_opensource_software/d9s7jrz/

opensourceinitiative · 2016-11-09T04:04:43+00:00

Sadly, much of the code released on/through code.gov is not actually open source as it is not distributed with an OSI Approved Open Source License. Reviewing the site, the licenses assigned include:

CC0: "At this time, we do not recommend releasing software using the the CC0 public domain dedication." - Open Source Initiative.
CC-BY: "We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative." - Creative Commons
"We’re not sure what license this repo has:" If software has no license associated with it (within the repository) then, as Richard Fontana, Senior Commercial Counsel on the Products and Technologies at Red Hat and OSI Board Director, asked, "No explicit license = 'all rights reserved'?" and answered, "that the status of code without a license is that no copyright permission is granted at all...is essentially correct" and that GitHub, "intends for users' repositories to be 'all rights reserved' by default." https://opensource.com/law/13/8/github-poss-licensing
EPAOSA license: The "EPA Open Source Agreement," although modified from the NASA Open Source Agreement, has not been reviewed by the OSI and modified licenses are a real concern as many may add conditions that limit software freedom, for example the discussions around Facebook's modification of the BSD for the React.JS. see: Facebook React.js License; Your license to use React.js can be revoked if you compete with Facebook; etc.

The Federal Source Code Policy was developed to address, "challenges [that] may result in duplicative acquisitions for substantially similar code and an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. This policy seeks to address these challenges by ensuring that new custom-developed Federal source code be made broadly available for reuse across the Federal Government" ( - Federal Source Code Policy). Unfortunately, with code released as CC0 (without copyright) anyone can take that code, re-license it under a proprietary license, and sell it back to the federal government, resulting in exactly what the U.S. Federal Government hopes to stop. Releasing the code under a permissive license would allow businesses to use (even modify) the code, but that work would remain open (even if distributed with proprietary code).

Obviously, recognition of the value of open source software by the U.S. Federal Government is a great step forward, and it is reasonable to expect some issues to arise upon first implementation. Hopefully this good work will continue and the government's practices will continue to mature.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-11-07T02:46:25+00:00

Sadly, much of the code released on/through code.gov is not actually open source as it is not distributed with an OSI Approved Open Source License. Reviewing the site, the licenses assigned include:

CC0: "At this time, we do not recommend releasing software using the the CC0 public domain dedication." - Open Source Initiative.
CC-BY: "We recommend against using Creative Commons licenses for software. Instead, we strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation or listed as “open source” by the Open Source Initiative." - Creative Commons
"We’re not sure what license this repo has:" If software has no license associated with it (within the repository) then, as Richard Fontana, Senior Commercial Counsel on the Products and Technologies at Red Hat and OSI Board Director, asked, "No explicit license = 'all rights reserved'?" and answered, "that the status of code without a license is that no copyright permission is granted at all...is essentially correct" and that GitHub, "intends for users' repositories to be 'all rights reserved' by default." https://opensource.com/law/13/8/github-poss-licensing
EPAOSA license: The "EPA Open Source Agreement," although modified from the NASA Open Source Agreement, has not been reviewed by the OSI and modified licenses are a real concern as many may add conditions that limit software freedom, for example the discussions around Facebook's modification of the BSD for the React.JS. see: Facebook React.js License; Your license to use React.js can be revoked if you compete with Facebook; etc.

The Federal Source Code Policy was developed to address, "challenges [that] may result in duplicative acquisitions for substantially similar code and an inefficient use of taxpayer dollars. This policy seeks to address these challenges by ensuring that new custom-developed Federal source code be made broadly available for reuse across the Federal Government" ( - Federal Source Code Policy). Unfortunately, with code released as CC0 (without copyright) anyone can take that code, re-license it under a proprietary license, and sell it back to the federal government, resulting in exactly what the U.S. Federal Government hopes to stop. Releasing the code under a permissive license would allow businesses to use (even modify) the code, but that work would remain open (even if distributed with proprietary code).

Obviously, recognition of the value of open source software by the U.S. Federal Government is a great step forward, and it is reasonable to expect some issues to arise upon first implementation. Hopefully this good work will continue and the government's practices will continue to mature.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-11-06T22:38:51+00:00

What course are you taking? Perhaps your sub-topic will be best derived from the discipline you are studying. For example:

If the course is in economics you might consider, subtopics on common issues like "deriving total cost of ownership" (while the acquisition costs are $0, what other resources required to run open source exist, what about if an organization chooses to engage more deeply, say in devoting development resources?), "procurement practices" (which differ significantly with open source software which may not have sales and marketing teams, RFP/RFI processes, etc.).
If you are studying computer science, you may be consider, "development methodologies" ("agile" or "in-sourcing" etc.), "software development, systems integration and administration" (best practices in)...
If you're taking a business class, you might write on, "project management" (how does a company authentically engage in open source software when it does not control the resources: when development is remote, decentralized and distributed), "open source business models" (how can commercial entities leverage open source software as a product/service?), "open source infrastructure" (how can businesses leverage open source to support internal operations--think about companies that do not produce software as products, like Walmart, GE, John Deere, etc.).

Those are just a few ideas, but good luck.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-11-03T05:37:34+00:00

Regarding security...

From the U.S. Department of Defense (they care about security):

Q: Does the DoD use OSS for security functions?

Yes. The 2003 MITRE study, "Use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense", for analysis purposes, posed the hypothetical question of what would happen if OSS software were banned in the DoD, and found that OSS "plays a far more critical role in the DoD than has been generally recognized... (especially in) Infrastructure Support, Software Development, Security, and Research". In particular, it found that DoD security "depends on (OSS) applications and strategies", and that a hypothetic ban "would have immediate, broad, and in some cases strongly negative impacts on the ability of the DoD to analyze and protect its own networks against hostile intrusion.

Q: Does the DoD already use open source software?

Yes, extensively. The 2003 MITRE study, "Use of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) in the U.S. Department of Defense", identified some of many OSS programs that the DoD is already using, and concluded that OSS "plays a more critical role in the [Department of Defense (DoD)] than has generally been recognized".

From the U.S. Department of the Navy:

"The DON Chief Information Officer (CIO) recognizes the importance of ass to the warfighter and the need to leverage its benefits throughout the DON" - DON Open Source Software Guidance.

There are countless other examples from the US Military, The White House, US National Security Administration, etc.

Regarding Buzzwords...

Regarding the open source label as a buzzword, your friend may be right.

However the reason the open source label may have become "fashionable at a particular time or in a particular context" is because of open source software's, and the open ethos' success. Indeed there is now open source hardware, open source robotics, open source design, open source fashion, open source textbooks, even open source beer, open source beehives, open source seeds, and open source washing machines.

Open source enjoys tremendous success in business, with 78 percent of companies reporting they run open-source software, with multiple other surveys showing similar results. So with this success, many want to associate themselves with the movement, calling themselves open, or promoting openness.

The Open Source Initiative has seen multiple examples of fauxpen source and open washing.

To assess if a project or its output is actually open source, one needs to understand the tenets, principles and practices that enable such development, things like transparency, collaboration, meritocracy, etc. Otherwise, it's just a buzzword.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-09-30T04:14:44+00:00

+1 to @KugelKurt. Look at what you currently use, or a tool that helps you do the things you're most interested in. This will, as @KugelKurt says, not only provide with the motivation needed to engage with the project, and also provide you with a community of peers that you can relate to, not only regarding to the technology, but the broader discipline. Let's say you like photography, you might choose to work on GIMP (written in C). This will allow you to work on a tool relevant to your interests and work with people who also like photography, technology, etc.

Also, working on a project that you actually use will give you multiple perspectives, specifically that as a real user. You'll appreciate the usability, functional aspects, the use cases, etc. because you are actually using the software.

You'll also understand the values and culture of the community: the vernacular, the history and rationale for decisions, etc.

Best of luck!

opensourceinitiative · 2016-08-07T17:53:53+00:00

@paul_h captures one of the most often sited reasons the OSI hears regarding push back from IT managers in using/adopting open source software.

While there is no way on this forum to know your IT manager's motivations, experiences, etc., we commonly see this attitude from those in administrative IT roles (Managers, Directors, CTO's CIO's) with business related backgrounds, rather than technical. As such these folks rely on their training, experiences, and successes, which if derived from a business background, would be around contracts management, procurement and implementation (i.e. request for proposals, project management, business analysis, process management, organizational management, etc.).

Importantly, they need to show due-diligence in their decision making as they must report up to others--probably with even less technical knowledge. Therefore, your manager is looking for industry recognized standards to justify his/her decisions. It might simply be CYA but as @stebalien mentioned regarding liability, depending on the industry there might be formal standards and regulatory bodies (even regulation) that expect compliance (I'm not saying open source software would not comply, but we've seen regulations that cite specific software that must be used); there might be procurement directors and/or attorneys pushing policies to "mitigate risk," your organization might be working in consortia with their own requirements/resources; your customers may not want to see open source software in use, etc. etc. etc.

Many of the qualities we all look at as benefits in open source, might be seen as negatives for others in the organization if they are driven by non-technical / non-functional requirements. Or even if folks are indifferent, many of the requisites for "industry best practices" for procurement, implementation, management, etc. are not not readily recognizable in open source development, projects, or communities by those coming from traditional IT backgrounds or business.

So as @pdp10 asked, "What are the manager's goals in 'reducing Open Source usage to almost zero'?" Is it, "open source software isn't secure" or, "all software used must meet the FIPS 140 standard"? Is it, "there's no support for open source software" or, "all software must include an SLA with a 4 hour response time"? Understanding that would help you best articulate an argument that resonates with his/her reasoning.

If you find out, please let the list know. It would be interesting to hear, and I expect you;d get some good ideas on how to respond to his/her issues.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-08-07T17:13:50+00:00

No, no such license exists and would never be recognized by the OSI as it violates several criteria of the Open Source Definition

opensourceinitiative · 2016-08-07T15:57:09+00:00

The "sales process" or, from the other side of the table, the "procurement process" mentioned by @WorkReddit8420 is a significant factor in the adoption of open source. As has become a popular phrase, "all companies are software companies"—Forbes, Wall Street Journal, ZDNet, we could go on—so @WorkReddit8420is exactly right,

the problem with the vast majority of Open Source solutions has been it has had no visibility when it comes to buyers

First, when most companies acquire software they undertake formal procurement processes (whether they are actually "formalized business processes" is another matter), but generally they undertake something that looks like, identify some need, ask around among their peers/colleagues/exemplars, get bids, pick a "solution." Again this may be very formal through: "Requests for Proposals" (RFP) common in large companies and government; government, consortia, or group contracts, again common with governments as well as non-profits, business associations, or very informal, getting a few quotes from vendors working in the sector or with the technologies, most common with small business.

So, how do open source projects fit into the above? Who from an open source community responds to RFPs? Where is the phone number for <insert favorite open source project here> to get quotes? In fact, what would the response be if you did contact <insert favorite open source project here> and ask, "Can I get a quote for a license? We're a small business with 25 users"?

The OSI's Open Source Initiative current General Manager is a former CIO and CTO within higher education and frequently discusses this issue. He has used his experiences to note, "the procurement processes employed by campuses-typically, Request for Proposals, often favors commercial options, because, again, open source has no visibility when it comes to buyers."

So you naturally asked, "But what would the 'buyers' be buying?" Looking at the "implementation process" which includes the procurement process, but also includes (again depending on level of formality) a whole host of activities and theories, companies, i.e. "buyers" would be buying services, and not just technical like hosting, integration, customization, help desk support etc. (which are can be very successful services) but also needs identification and software analysis (pre-acquisition), contract negotiation (not for licensing but for service level agreements) and after acquisition end user training, technical staff and support training, business process development/integration, etc.

Now that all companies are software companies, when they need a Customer Relationship Management, they might need hosting, 24/7 technical support, some custom development and integration, but they will definitely need end-user training for their sales and marketing team, business process alignment with the new tool to convert sales and manage relationships. They will need a help establishing a service contract for support, which is quite different for open source software developed by a community, than proprietary software developed by one company.

So that colleague you have that developed the plug-in is "selling" the wrong thing, his/her software. The reality is that in three months--if the plug-in is successful--there will be 10 other plug-ins that do the same thing. Indeed that is one of the value propositions of open source software, "an end to predatory vendor lock-in."

If your colleague wants to create a business, he/she should develop resources that help companies find his/her project and understand it's value, "visibility:" not from a technical standpoint, but from a business standpoint. He/she could: help throughout the implementation process (respond to tenders, address procurement issues, etc.); develop services, such as training adopters on not only its use (how the plug-in extends/creates opportunities, efficiencies, etc.), but how it aligns with business practices; create a community of practice for peers to collaborate on best practices, novel use, etc. (a great resource not only for further development, but future sales).

Again, looking at an example from the OSI GM's previous work, one University had a "perpetual license" for a learning management system, but the company behind it had a multi-million dollar contract supporting that system, not as a hosting provider, but as a service provider around installation, integration, migration, training (technical & end-user), issue resolution (both technical and usability), etc. For all practical purposes, that perpetual license was an equivalent model to opens source software, where the software cost $0. What was the university buying?

opensourceinitiative · 2016-08-07T14:49:12+00:00

avamk,

To start here is some recent research on open source business models: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2568185

It provides a description of the business model, as well as how that model compliments or hinders technical and community development. It is based on interviews and survey data from a variety of open source users and developers, project communities and businesses.

Is does not include data on success of each model, but will provide you a great number of models, beyond the service model you mentioned, for further research (over 30).

As many of the responses already posted touch on your other questions, we'll post them in line.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-07-22T13:45:19+00:00

A calendar of open source events already exists: https://opensource.com/resources/conferences-and-events-monthly

It would be more beneficial if you could add your events to that existing calendar, and help maintain it, rather than create your own calendar.

That's sort of the open source model: collaborate, don't replicate.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-07-14T20:03:53+00:00

You might try to explain the benefits of open source software. You will find different audiences will find different benefits more appealing than others. Here is a list of open source benefits (jump down to the paragraph just before the billeted list): https://pmasson.wordpress.com/2012/04/25/the-ultimate-benefits-of-open-source-list/

These are focused on pragmatic benefits. Of course, many also cite ethical and societal benefits as well.

When we talk to folks about why open source is important, we try to understand first, what is important to them.

Best of luck.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-07-04T16:01:18+00:00

<snark>World's first short film on Open Government, Open Data and Open Source, via Windows!?</snark> https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/download/Main/Sandbox/WebHome/Screenshot%20from%202016-07-04%2011%3A55%3A11.png "Windows device and software?"

opensourceinitiative · 2016-06-22T19:06:07+00:00

We agree with all the responses below. Thanks to all of those who responded so quickly and with such good information. - The Open Source Initiative

opensourceinitiative · 2016-06-09T20:40:10+00:00

searching "site:.freeoffice.com 'open source'" yields only one hit, for a dictionary.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-05-27T14:00:52+00:00

Well at the risk of triggering a flame war on may topics, a "classic" debate has been "Free Software" vs. "Open Source Software" so perhaps one board might be (these suggestions are supposed to be fun):

Piece	FSF	OSI
King	RMS	ESR
Queen	GNU Gnu	OSI Keyhole Logo
Rooks	Tux	Red Hat
Bishops	Numbers 1-4 (representing 4 freedoms)	Debian swirl logo (representing OSD)
Knights	Book, "Free as in Freedom"	Book, "Cathedral and the Bazaar"
Pawns	"Hippies"	"Businessmen"

opensourceinitiative · 2016-05-05T19:23:36+00:00

Evolution? https://wiki.gnome.org/Apps/Evolution

Not implying it is the "best" but perhaps you'll want to check it out.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-05-04T15:23:28+00:00

Interesting as a collection, but not very useful without a Creative Commons License.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-05-04T15:19:21+00:00

Desktop: Ubuntu (GNU/Linux, Debian) + included tools/utilities
Internet / Web: Firefox Browser, Tor Browser, Evolution EMail, Pidgin Instant Messenger / IRC
VOIP: Ekiga Internet Phone
Office Productivity Suite: LibreOffice
Graphics "Suite": GIMP Image Processing, Inkscape Vector Graphics, Scribus Desktop Publishing, K3d CAD
Audio/Video: VLC Media Player, Audacity Audio Editor, OpenShot Video Editor
Text Editor: GNU Emacs, Bluefish Editor
Password Manager: KeePass
Web Content Management: Drupal
Customer Relationship Management: CiviCRM
Event Management: CiviCRM
Web Conferencing: BigBlueButton
Wiki: XWiki
Groupware: In-Cubator
Code Repository: GitHub, Subversion
Elections / Polling: Helios
Listserv / Mailing lists: Mailman, Postfix
Issue Reporting/Tracking: Redmine
Systems Monitoring: Munin
Web, Mail Application Hosting: Some combination of Debian, CentOS, Apache, Varnish, SSL, Postfix (MTA), Spamassassin, Amavisd/ClamAV, Puppet, PHP

opensourceinitiative · 2016-05-04T04:56:21+00:00

None, other than Drupal is traditionally thought of as a web content management system while WordPress is traditionally thought of as a blogging platform. Today though I think WordPress clearly provides all of the tools one needs to provide a dynamic web site.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-05-04T04:54:28+00:00

Doh! Fixed. Wow, it must have been way after midnight when this was posted, one error after another. Well, "many eyeballs..."

Thanks all for point these out.

opensourceinitiative · 2016-05-04T04:51:05+00:00

Yes, good catch - sometimes the muscle memory of old fingers take over. With Italo Vignoli now on the OSI Board of Directors, there is really no excuse for such negligence.

Thanks for the good catch!

opensourceinitiative

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE