Something Happened

Yesterday, I was making a presentation about open source. It was to a team of IT professionals, from the CIO down. They were a very successful team at a very successful company. This meant that they knew technology, and they knew their jobs. And yet my talk about the mad, mad, world of open source left them quite non-plussed - and I don't think it was the fault of my presentation skills.

Basically, they had not come into contact with full-force open source, and the experience clearly proved rather shocking. All this services-based stuff was so utterly alien to the professional world they had so successfully negotiated all these years, that it rather took them aback.

That was interesting, because it showed just how easy it is for pundits like me to become isolated from that world: yes, there are people for whom open source is still strange and alien.

But the other even more interesting thing is that, being intelligent, this group of IT professionals were able to grasp the basic ideas and appreciate that it might be worth considering. After all, the Internet has already changed the rules once, so maybe this open source stuff would do it again (not least because it is really the same revolution, but manifest in a different way).

This experience gives me hope that the open source message will eventually change people's way of looking at the world - and make something happen, as it did yesterday, incrementally but ineluctably.

Will They Digg Digg for Non-Nerds?

It was bound to happen: Digg is branching out into non-nerddom. This will be an interesting test of whether all the trendy social software/Web 2.0 ideas we know and love are really relevant to "ordinary" people.

Microsoft Gets Scobleized

I don't normally write about personnel moves, but the news that Robert Scoble is leaving Microsoft to join the start-up Podtech.net is certainly a blogosphere event of the first order.

Scoble has been the acceptable face of Microsoft. More: he seems to have helped change the company to the extent that it is Microsoft, rather than Google, say, that really gets this blogging stuff (come on Google, wake up at the back). His departure raises a big question: how will Microsoft fare without him? Has he successfully planted the blog culture there, or are its roots shallow?

As for Scoble, personally I think he's bonkers moving from a company that presumably would have done anything to keep him. But then I reckon all this video podcasting lark is a flash in the pan; for me, this is just Flash write large - a terribly misguided attempt to turn the Internet into television.

But I could be wrong.

RMS on "IP"

As you would expect, Richard Stallman has some wise words on "intellectual property" and the trap that these words represent. He also puts things in a useful historical context:

What the [U.S.] Constitution says is that copyright law and patent law are optional. They need not exist. It says that if they do exist, their purpose is to provide a public benefit -- to promote progress by providing artificial incentives.

They are not rights that their holders are entitled to; they are artificial privileges that we might, or might not, want to hand out to encourage people to do what we find useful.

It's a wise policy. Too bad Congress -- which has to carry it out on our behalf -- takes its orders from Hollywood and Microsoft instead of from us.

OpenOffice.org Deployment - the Blog

Lots of people are thinking about moving to OpenOffice.org. Some people have done it. And now one of them is blogging about it. (Via OpenOffice.org Training, Tips and Ideas.)

Doc Searls Goes for a Ramble on the Commons

Doc Searls has a long - very long - ramble around the idea of the commons, especially the Internet commons. I didn't quite emerge with any clear idea of what he was getting at - other than the thought expressed in the first sentence:

Is it possible that, for all our talk about The Commons, the Net doesn't have one yet? Or at least not a complete one?

I'd say that the Internet has lots of them - open source, open access, open genomics etc. - but I think he's using commons in a different way, one that is much more rooted in the original idea, as in Clapham Common. I also got the impression, that this was very much a To Be Continued.... so I look forward to more rambles in the future.

The Glue that is Hot, Hot, Hot

Middleware: not really the most engaging of subjects, perhaps. But what amounts to the enterprise software glue that holds together everything else is, believe me, hot. Or if you don't believe me, believe Red Hat, which paid $420 million for the middleware company JBoss recently.

What's remarkable is that JBoss is open source; what's even more remarkable, is that it's not alone in this respect. Other open source middleware efforts include Geronimo, IBM WebSphere Application Server Community Edition, JOnAS, Enhydra and now WSO2.

WSO2 is particularly interesting (if you are into enterprise glue), because it takes a very different approach, based on two buzzconcepts: Web services and Service Oreinted Architecture (SOA):

Web services is the simple new approach for building Web-based applications and integrating systems across different platforms. Web services standards start simple but grow to provide security, reliable exchange and transaction support.

Based on Service Oriented Architecture the new platform helps build applications that are simpler, more flexible, and deliver value more quickly.

WSO2's main product, Tungsten, is built up from several other free software projects, and provides an interesting demonstration of the benefit of open source: the fact that you can mix different ingredients to create new concoctions in the bubbling cauldron of collaborative innovation.

Let's All Whack Wikipedia

Wikipedia must be doing something right that it has so many eminences ranged against it. First Carr, then Lanier (with multiple comments) and now McHenry.

Er, who, you may say? Well, he's the former editor-in-chief of Encyclopedia Britannica, and author of these fine words:

The user who visits Wikipedia to learn about some subject, to confirm some matter of fact, is rather in the position of a visitor to a public restroom. It may be obviously dirty, so that he knows to exercise great care, or it may seem fairly clean, so that he may be lulled into a false sense of security. What he certainly does not know is who has used the facilities before him.

Well, he's back, with somewhat more measured thoughts on the subject:

What is the user meant to take away from the experience of consulting a Wikipedia article? The most candid defenders of the encyclopedia today confess that it cannot be trusted to impart correct information but can serve as a starting-point for research. By this they seem to mean that it supplies some links and some useful search terms to plug into Google. This is not much. It is a great shame that some excellent work – and there is some – is rendered suspect both by the ideologically required openness of the process and by association with much distinctly not excellent work that is accorded equal standing by that same ideology.

What does one take away? I can only speak from my own personal experience.

I routinely use Wikipedia to check concepts that I come across online. If I know nothing about them, I look them up. At the very least, Wikipedia will tell me something that I did not know before. Of course, I don't know for sure that what I am told is absolutely correct, but at least I have moved on from total ignorance. I can then formulate a search strategy that is likely to give me further information - perhaps confirmatory, perhaps not.

If, on the other hand, I do have a vague idea about the concept I'm looking up, it acts as a refresher: I can soon gauge whether what I am told is roughly what I understood before. This may be enough, or if not, it may again suggest further avenues for thought.

In other words, Wikipedia is a springboard, in a way that Google is not (and I use Google even more than I use Wikipedia). For me, that's quite enough, and I can only hope that Wikipedia continues to expand to provide even wider coverage. Better, where necessary, can come later.

From La La to Gaga

La La is a clever enough idea: trading your old CDs. But it's also perfectly nuts that this should be legal - which it is - but trading digital tracks isn't.

Yes, I know, you can keep your track while selling it in this case - but, hey, welcome to the digital age. Whatever La La is, it shows how gaga the music industry is for being incapable of coping with this change. (Via Searchblog.)

The Open Source Car

Well, that's what the OSCar takes its name from, apparently. But more interesting is the thinking behind the move:

Hitherto we have encouraged this through intellectual property rights, which harness the efforts of innovators, for the good of all, by granting a monopoly. But is this the best way? The example of Linux software would suggest not. The "Open Source" philosophy can incentivise a community to innovate for the good of all without restricting access to the output. The rate of progress is higher, the technology can spread more rapidly and the benefits are more equitably distributed.

This betrays the origin of the name OSCar - Open Source Car. Expect to hear a lot more about it.

(Via LXer.)

Tripping up TRIPS

The World Trade Organisation's TRIPS - Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights - is one of the most powerful tools of the intellectual monopolist world, and one that most have never heard of. It's often used by "developed" countries - that is, those who place a heavy emphasis on intellectual monopoly law - to force the same on other countries. Now, some of these are daring to fight back, as this story explains:

The world’s largest developing countries are seeking an amendment to international trade rules to provide more protection for genetic resources and traditional knowledge used in patent applications, and have presented the amendment proposal to other governments with mixed results.

Whether or not this is accepted, it is important, for two reasons. First, that these countries are daring to stand up to the intellectual monopoly bullies, and second, because it shows that TRIPS is not engraved in stone - that it can be changed. As it must.

It's the Formats, Stupid

Good to see that someone else gets it: the office market is all about formats. Which is why the absence of ODF support from the Google spreadsheet is worrying - although this piece seems to think that "ODF support is only a matter of time." Let's hope so.

The Truth About Organic Food

There's an interesting article in the New York Times about the complex realities that lie behind the cuddly concept of "organic" food - and how it's not quite as easy as banging a certain kind of label on food. I particularly liked this formulation:

As the organic movement has long maintained, cheap industrial food is cheap only because the real costs of producing it are not reflected in the price at the checkout. Rather, those costs are charged to the environment, in the form of soil depletion and pollution (industrial agriculture is now our biggest polluter); to the public purse, in the form of subsidies to conventional commodity farmers; to the public health, in the form of an epidemic of diabetes and obesity that is expected to cost the economy more than $100 billion per year; and to the welfare of the farm- and food-factory workers, not to mention the well-being of the animals we eat. As Wendell Berry once wrote, the motto of our conventional food system — at the center of which stands Wal-Mart, the biggest purveyor of cheap food in America — should be: Cheap at any price!

This is a key point that most people do not get - one, indeed, that I had never thought about until recently. And until more of us do start thinking about it - and acting on it - I fear the world is in big, big trouble. (Via Against Monopoly.)

Fighting for a Scholar's Copyright

I'm a big fan of the Creative Commons project (not surprisingly). But the point of the sister project, the Science Commons, has always escaped me. So it's good to see the launch of the Scholar's Copyright project, since I can finally see what they are up to.

There's a very thorough explanation of why the Scholar's Copyright is necessary. Basically, it aims to codify certain kinds of rights that scientists want to retain, such as being able to place copies of their published work in repositories under a CC licence, or release papers freely after a certain period. This is achieved through a series of "Author Addenda" (you can tell you're dealing with academics, can't you?):

"Author Addenda" - a suite of short amendments that authors attach to the copyright transfer form agreements from publishing companies. The Addenda ensure, at a minimum, that scholarly authors retain enough rights to archive their work on the public Internet.

The three addenda are as follows:

* The OpenAccess-CreativeCommons 1.0 Addendum reserves the right for the author to post the published version (for example, as a .pdf file) immediately and to grant others a Creative Commons "Attribution NonCommercial" license to use the article.

* The OpenAccess-Publish 1.0 Addendum reserves the right for the author to post the published version immediately upon publication.

* The OpenAccess-Delay 1.0 Addendum reserves the right for the author to post the author's final manuscript version immediately and the published version six months after publication.

These look eminently sensible, and should help scientists (and others) fight for the right to post their work online without needing to hire a team of lawyers to do so. It's sad that such "concessions" need to be wrung from publishers in the first place, but, hey, nobody said OA was going to be easy.

More on Lessig

As I have hinted heavily, I interviewed Larry Lessig recently; you can find the result in today's Guardian or here.

What this doesn't convey is the four-hour journey it required to meet him, including several trains and a 30-minute taxi ride that took 15 minutes at the hands of sexagenarian who fancied himself as a rally driver (and who insisted on using his mobile while driving, just to add to the challenge). This was to reach Hay-on-Wye, where Lessig was giving a talk as part of the festival there.

The result also fails to convey anything of the experience of listening to that lecture, whose style was in striking contrast to the one-to-one interview (conducted partly in the back of a car) itself. Where Lessig is quiet almost to the point of timidity in private, in public he soars.

His oratory - for it is nothing less - is built from two elements: a powerful rhythmic sense that drives forward inexorably the logic of his lecture, and a strangely-effective sing-song voice that shifts between a set of frequencies according to the points he is emphasising. Impressive.

The Last Tree of Ténéré, the Last Tree of Terra

Why do I have a horrible feeling this is a symbol of something? (Via BoingBoing.)

eIDs - Nein Danke

Here's something interesting: a survey on Trust and Interoperability of eIDs in Europe. Now, it's news to me that we're even thinking about "eIDs" - that's electronic ID cards - but already they're talking about linking them up.

If you're European, you can make your views felt here.

European Software Patents - The Novel

Well, not quite: but it's a book on the same, by the bloke who probably did more than anyone to scupper the attempt to push through a deeply-flawed software patent regime in Europe last year. As his blog explains, Florian Mueller is making the book freely available under a CC licence. You can choose either the original German, or else an English version.

Sadly, while the battle may have been won, the war is far from over. The next threat is something called the European Patent Litigation Agreement (EPLA): Florian has some background, plus a link to a fuller document. Time to gird your loins again, folks.

O Copyright, Thou Art Sick

This is "only" in the US, but as we know, like the plague, these things have a habit of spreading. It's proposed new legislation called SIRA. As the EFF site explains:

SIRA's main aim is clearing the way for online music services by revising the current mechanical compulsory license set out in Section 115 of the Copyright Act to accommodate "full downloads, limited downloads, and interactive streams." So far so good, but the devil is in the details. This license specifically includes and treats as license-able "incidental reproductions...including cached, network, and RAM buffer reproductions."

By smuggling this language into the Copyright Act, the copyright industries are stacking the deck for future fights against other digital technologies that depend on making incidental copies. Just think of all the incidental copies that litter your computer today -- do you have a license for every copy in your browser's cache?

This is the key point: every time you view a Web page you make a copy; every time you play a CD, you make a copy. As the wise Larry Lessig put it to me recently: "in a digital age, copying is as natural as breathing."

Indeed, we need to take the copy out of copyright: it's not about copying, it's about publishing. But this SIRA thing is going in the opposite direction, explicitly making even incidental and evanescent copying something that needs to be regulated and approved. Bad news, people. (Via BoingBoing.)

Update: Not looking good so far.

Google Does the Numbers

I try not to comment reflexively on Google's every move, but this news that it's coming out with a Web-based spreadsheet just fits too nicely with what I was saying about ajaxLaunch. It really is a case of Why Microsoft is Doomed, Part 460....

The interesting question is whether the new Google spreadsheet will be able to read OpenOffice.org files (and they'd be fools not to).

Copyrights, Copywrongs

It may just be that I've been spending too much time reading Larry Lessig's books (and even meeting the man himself - of which more anon), but copyright issues really seem to be getting seriously central these days.

First, there was the action against the BitTorrent search engine The Pirate Bay. If they think they need to take out The Pirate Bay, then Google, Yahoo and MSN will have to be next on the list. There was also quite a bit of reaction.

Now there's some promising noises from the All Party Parliamentary Internet Group, who have noticed that there's a lot of nasty DRM stuff floating around these days - and that most punters aren't even aware of it. It's true that they're hardly advocating ripping it all out, but making people aware of DRM and what it does is an important first step, as Larry has already shown us.

Update 1: Whoops, forgot about AllofMP3.com, as this fine piece reminds me. Love the title: Global File-Sharing Whack-A-Mole.

Update 2: Having actually read the All Party Parliamentary Internet Group report (maybe I should have done this earlier...) I must point out one particular recommendation:

#135 We recommend that the government do NOT legislate to make DRM systems mandatory.

which is indicative of the fair and intelligent stance taken by the report.

A Pebble on the Cairn

It's not earth-shattering, but the formation of the Open Source Database Consortium is another tiny sign of a gradual coming together of the various OSS players into something bigger, and the gradual evolution through accretion of an OSS ecosystem.

Ultimate OA: PLoS ONE

Thank goodness for the Web of blogs.

From a comment Pedro Beltrao kindly left on my earlier post Science Wide Open, I went to take another look at his blog, which I'd not visited for a while. And what do I find but this fascinating story about PLoS ONE, from the Public Library of Science. In my annoyance over the Wired piece on Varmus, I must have, um, missed this little nugget.

Not so much a little nugget, actually, as potentially an entire goldmine. The idea behind PLoS ONE is to create what is effectively a huge, open access, peer-reviewed blog journal for science. It is nothing if not ambitious, and on at least four counts.

Inclusiveness

The boundaries between different scientific fields are becoming increasingly blurred. At the same time, the bulk of the scientific literature is divided into journals covering ever more restrictive disciplines and subdisciplines. In contrast, PLoS ONE will be a venue for all rigorously performed science, making it easier to uncover connections and synergies across the research literature.

Personalisation

A key to navigating and unlocking the content potential of PLoS ONE will lie in powerful discovery and personalization tools. Users will be able to set up individual alerts to keep up to date in their areas of interest. Papers within PLoS ONE will contain links to related work in its own database and beyond.

Collaborative annotation

PLoS ONE will empower the scientific community to engage in a discussion on every paper and provide readers with tools to annotate and comment on papers directly.

Interactivity

A paper in a traditional journal is a static marker in an ongoing process. Authors looking back on papers written 6 months or a year ago will see things that they might now have written differently. New data may have arisen to strengthen or alter some of the conclusions. We will provide authors with ways to make those changes and so acknowledge the evolution of their ideas. This doesn't alter the scientific record—the original paper is still the original paper—but authors and readers can build upon it.

The Public Library of Science has already played a crucial role in helping to bolster enormously the academic credentials of open access; with PLoS ONE it looks as if it is going to re-make scientific discourse entirely.

Update: Richard Poynder has conducted a characteristically full and fascinating interview with Chris Surridge, the UK-based managing editor of PLoS ONE.

ZigBee Who?

One of the premises of open spectrum is that if you create a wireless commons, a thousand electromagnetic flowers will bloom. WiFi and Bluetooth are two of the better-known blossoms, but another seems to be ZigBee.

The ZigBee Alliance - "an association of companies working together to enable reliable, cost-effective, low-power, wirelessly networked, monitoring and control products based on an open global standard" - puts it like this:

The goal of the ZigBee Alliance is to provide the consumer with ultimate flexibility, mobility, and ease of use by building wireless intelligence and capabilities into everyday devices. ZigBee technology will be embedded in a wide range of products and applications across consumer, commercial, industrial and government markets worldwide. For the first time, companies will have a standards-based wireless platform optimized for the unique needs of remote monitoring and control applications, including simplicity, reliability, low-cost and low-power.

The ZigBee Alliance site has buckets of useful links - as well as some mild untruths. For example, the FAQ claims that the name comes from the following fact:

The domestic honeybee, a colonial insect, lives in a hive that contains a queen, a few male drones, and thousands of worker bees. The survival, success, and future of the colony is dependent upon continuous communication of vital information between every member of the colony. The technique that honey bees use to communicate new-found food sources to other members of the colony is referred to as the ZigBee Principle. Using this silent, but powerful communication system, whereby the bee dances in a zig-zag pattern, she is able to share information such as the location, distance, and direction of a newly discovered food source to her fellow colony members. Instinctively implementing the ZigBee Principle, bees around the world industriously sustain productive hives and foster future generations of colony members.

But as the ever-acute Rupert Goodwins explains:

I checked on a few apiary Web sites. I even emailed a Professor Of Bee Things at a big agricultural institute. Of the 'ZigBee Principle' there is no sign -- although I do note that pictures of bees were used to signal the aiming point in antique urinals. A very dry Victorian pun that: the Latin for bee is Apis.

We are therefore forced to conclude that the ZigBee Name FAQ has nothing to do with reality, but is merely a PR taking the bees. Let's hope the rest of the standard isn't just pith and wind.

Since I've only just come across the said factitious ZigBee, I've not yet found my bearings, and I can't quite tell to what extent all this stuff is truly open. But it does sound interesting - if not quite the bee's knees yet. (Via ARCchart and Openspectrum.info.)

Science Wide Open

Jean-Claude Bradley makes a good point about open data:

I think that the part that we have yet to embrace is the posting of work fresh out of the test tube. As long as scientific research is published in an article format and its value is determined by a popularity contest of citations and peer-reviewed blessing, there will be little motivation to post work fresh out of the test tube. Especially when issues like competition and tenure are at stake.

And he then goes on to note:

My opinion at this point is that publishers or any kind of central repositories are not going to be as effective in communicating this kind of raw scientific data, unless it is readily available on the uberdatabases like Google or MSN. That's why Blogger makes an optimal vehicle to communicate raw experimental data: no cost, no gatekeeper and anyone looking on an uberdatabase will find your stuff.

Yes: Blogger as the ultimate open data conduit. Nice. (Via Open Access News).