Note to SELF: Free Educational Material

Hot off tomorrow's press - the launch of Science, Education and Learning in Freedom (SELF):

SELF is an international project aiming to provide a platform for the collaborative sharing and creation of free educational and training materials on Free Software and Open Standards.

Of course this begs the question, What is free education material? To which SELF's answer is:

There are few existing definitions on what is Free Documentation, and almost no discussion of what is Free Educational Material, both of which have comparable roles in the SELF project. The most significant contribution to this debate has probably been made by the Open Access movement, in particular the Berlin Declaration but also by the Creative Commons project, which has initiated a debate about various levels of freedom in the field.

Based on their work and the principle of erring on the side of freedom, for the scope of SELF, Free Educational Material and Documentation are defined as follows:

1.

Unlimited use for any purpose

Similar to the first freedom defining Free Software, there must be no limitation on the use of the material. In order to qualify as Free, it must in particular permit use in commercial training activities.

2.

Modification

It must be possible to change the material so it can be translated, improved and kept up-to-date, as well as to enable collaboration and creation of new, combined materials.

3.

Distribution

It must be possible to distribute the materials in original, modified, and combined forms. It must be at the choice of the individual distributor to do this with or without a fee.

This definition should be strong enough as to not exclude SELF from the future Free Educational Material community, regardless of the details and outcome of its constituting definition.

What's (Open) Source for the Goose...

A report suggesting that the Chinese military has hacked into German government computers could have a negative impact on the prospects in Western markets of Chinese equipment vendors Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and ZTE Corp. (Shenzhen: 000063 - message board; Hong Kong: 0763), believes an analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort .

...

"The ability of Huawei and ZTE to participate in, let alone win, telecom infrastructure tenders in the Western hemisphere may have lessened considerably following last week's shock report," writes Lindberg in a research note issued Monday. "It could trigger a return to national security clearance when it comes to procurement of telecom networks," he adds.

OK, so this may be pure paranoia, not least because it's not clear that the alleged Chinese spyware has anything to do with the Chinese telecom equipment.

But there's a more general principle: if it ain't open, you don't know what's going on, so all this kind of stuff could be going on, unbeknownst to you. Of course, it also applies to Chinese procurement as well, which is one reason why I think open source is bound to win out there, as elsewhere.

After all, if you are a (paranoid) government flunky, do you really want to risk national security (and your post) on that black box? No, I thought not. (Via GigaOm.)

The Man from the BBC Speaketh

I've been pretty critical of many aspects of the BBC's online activities, not least its dratted Windows-only, DRM'd iPlayer. But in the interests of fairness I think I should point out this very good interview with the man responsible, Ashley Highfield, in the new UK version of PaidContent.

I still don't agree with the man, but he gives reasonable answers to the main questions, which are hard but fair. Kudos, too, to PaidContent for making both the interview recording and transcript available, and releasing the latter under a CC licence. This shows that it, at least, understands the new dynamics of the online content world. Good luck with the launch.

Koolu: Very Cool

Not hot, but definitely cool. (Via Eddie Bleasdale and his interesting new Trusted Computing Project - no, not that one....)

Open Source Darkstar...

...is here (and not just promised.) Well done chaps, nonetheless.

Open Science Means Open Source

The need for open access and open data in science seems obvious enough - even enough some persist in denying it. But as science becomes increasingly digital, with ever-greater dependence on computers and software, there is another aspect, as Nature Methods has recognised (but some months back - I've only just caught this):

The minimum level of disclosure that Nature Methods requires depends on how central the software is to the paper. If a software program is the focus of the report, we expect the programming code to be made available. Without the code, the software—and thus the paper—would become a black box of little use to the scientific community. In many papers, however, the software is only an ancillary part of the method, and the focus is on the methodological approach or an insight gained from it.

In these cases, releasing the code may not be a requirement for publication, but such custom-developed software will often be as important for the replication of the procedure as plasmids or mutant cell lines. We therefore insist that software or algorithms be made available to readers in a usable form. The guiding principle is that enough information must be provided so that users can reproduce the procedure and use the method in their own research at reasonable cost—both monetary and in terms of labor.

However, the editorial rightly points out that releasing the code as open source has huge advantages:

Some authors who favor the highest degree of transparency and sharing for their software elect to develop their programs in an open-source environment. By doing so, the authors not only provide accessibility and transparency, they also allow the community to build upon their own developments and make continuous improvements to the tool. Open-source software has become extremely popular in various fields. In microscopy, for example, image analysis software tends to be modular, and users benefit from the flexibility of being able to replace some modules with others in an open-source framework. Despite the tremendous added value of open source, other authors prefer to release a compiled version of their program, so as to protect commercial interests tied to sophisticated custom-designed software. This option is not optimal because it turns the program into a black box, but it may be acceptable if the operations performed by the software are sufficiently clear.

Although it is probably appropriate that Nature Methods, given its focus, should be the first to articulate this issue, it is important to appreciate that its logic applies to all scientific publishing where computers are involved. Without open source, there can be no open science - the only kind that is worthy of the name. (Belatedly via Flags and Lollipops.)

The Other Free Software Lawyer

There seems to be some magic about free software: whenever a certain class of (intelligent) lawyer comes into contact with it, it redeems them, and turns them into enlightened benefactors. Eben Moglen is the paradigmatic case, but here's another: Mark Radcliffe. You don't have to take my word - this is what Matt has to say:

If it has to do with open source and it affects your rights therein, Mark was probably at the fulcrum.

More OOXML Goodness

I predict we will get plenty more like this:

The Swedish Institute of Standards (SIS) has invalidated the vote that controversially approved the OOXML standard at a meeting this week.

The organisation issued a statement saying that it had seen evidence suggesting one of the participants in the workgroup had broken the rules and voted with more than one vote. This procedural irregularity, and not any concerns over the merit of the OOMXL proposal, is the only reason behind the decision, the group said.

Nice one.

The Next Great Microsoft Lock-in

I've written a lot here and elsewhere about Microsoft's faux-open file format OOXML. I've also noted that there is an unhealthily close relationship between the BBC and Microsoft over the former's iPlayer and its chosen file formats. Now it seems that this kind of chummy lock-in is happening elsewhere, at the UK's National Archives and beyond.

The National Archive story is not new, but dates back to July of this year, when I first noted it. Here's what a Microsoftie said:

The announcement we just made with the National Archives is trying to address the issue of digital conservation head-on. With billions of documents in the world wrapped up in proprietary document formats (from Microsoft and many many other vendors) we felt it was important to focus on how we can help the body in the UK which has the biggest headache and do what we can to assist them in:

* Migrating documents to the latest Office format (Open XML) via our document conversion tools to ensure they can be accessed by the public in the future

Since then, people have started taking notice, to the extent that there is now an e-petition all us Brits can sign asking that nice Mr Brown to use ODF instead of OOXML for the National Archives (but don't hold your breath.)

However, I've just noticed that the Microsoftie quoted above mentions this little factette:

Well, we've actually been working with The British Library and The National Archive for about 18 months now on digital preservation with some other European organisations as members of an EU project called Planets.

And as far as the latter is concerned:

The Planets consortium brings together the unique experience required to research, develop, deliver and productise practical digital preservation solutions. Coordinated by the British Library

The British Library, you may recall, is also in cahoots with Microsoft when it comes to locking up our digital heritage. Some now we have the prospect of the OOXML cancer spreading to other institutions, and large chunks of European culture being locked up in proprietary formats.

This is getting serious. It's obviously time to call in the heavy mob: the Open Source Consortium....

"Secure" As In Manacled

I hadn't really taken on board this insidious bit of weasel-wordery before, but that's just my negligence:

The new NWZ-A810 and NWZ-S610 series will have a QVGA screen for video playback...more importantly, the players support secure Windows Media Audio (WMA), as well as non-secure AAC and MP3 music formats

What? You mean MP3 isn't secure - that somebody might break into my PC if I foolishly adopt that format? Who would have guessed?

Oh, I see: that's "secure" as in "securely manacled to the wall"; this is not "secure" WMA, it's DRM'd WMA. C'mon Rafat, you can do better than this: PaidContent readers look to you to be told things as they really are in the content world, not to be fed marketing disinformation like this.

How Do You Say "Frogmarched" in Swahili?

A proposal to set up a Pan-African Intellectual Property Organisation (PAIPO) though still in its infancy already faces opposition and concern, including from those who fear that Africa is signing up to stricter IP protection levels than the continent is ready for, sources say.

Africa needs more brutal intellectual monopolies like it needs more malaria - in fact the former would probably increase the latter, as generic drugs become more expensive or are eliminated etc.

RMS on Art and Freedom

One of the things I admire about Richard Stallman is the clarity of his thinking. So I was interested to come across these thoughts on art/non-functional works, and why the imperatives for freedom are different here compared to software, say:

If you use something to do jobs in your life, you must be free to change it today, and then distribute your changed version today in case others need what you need.

Art contributes something different to society. You appreciate it. Modifying art can be a further contribution to art, but it is not crucial to be able to do that today. If you had to wait 10 years for the copyright to expire, that would be ok.

Interesting, too, the emphasis on sharing:

I don't think that non-functional works must be free. It is enough for them to be sharable.

A380 + Red Hat = Double Geek Heaven

Nice, if ecologically dubious:

Singapore Airlines is to install a PC running Red Hat Linux operating system in every seat on its newest A380 superjumbo.

Er, Respect is Something You Earn, Actually

It must be a bit irksome being an antitrust regulator in the United States when your European counterparts are (a) more likely to interfere with the private sector and (b) look disdainfully at federal agencies as wishy-washy.

Which is probably why William Kovacic, one of the Federal Trade Commission's five members, spent nearly an hour on Monday defending the American approach as reasoned and no less thorough than that of its cross-Atlantic counterparts. There is a "tendency on the part of our European colleagues to dismiss the U.S. experience," he said.

Well, one word: Microsoft.

Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes! YES!

I've covered the dispute between the US and Antigua over online gambling before, but it looks like there's a chance the perfect endgame is actually going to play out:

Mr. Mendel, who is claiming $3.4 billion in damages on behalf of Antigua, has asked the trade organization to grant a rare form of compensation if the American government refuses to accept the ruling: permission for Antiguans to violate intellectual property laws by allowing them to distribute copies of American music, movie and software products, among others.

That is, either the US is forced to admit to the global community its hypocritical attitude to online gambling, and allow foreign companies to operate sites accessible by Americans; or the entire edifice of intellectual property in the US is rogered; or the WTO implodes.

Sounds like win-win-win to me. (Via TechDirt.)

Permission to Reincarnate, Sir

This would be funny if it weren't so pathetic:

In one of history's more absurd acts of totalitarianism, China has banned Buddhist monks in Tibet from reincarnating without government permission. According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, the law, which goes into effect next month and strictly stipulates the procedures by which one is to reincarnate, is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."

(Via Slashdot).

Through a PRISM Darkly

Ho-ho, things are hotting up among the opponents of open access:

The Partnership for Research Integrity in Science & Medicine (PRISM) was established to protect the quality of scientific research, an issue of vital concern to:

* scientific, medical and other scholarly researchers who advance the cause of knowledge;

* the institutions that encourage and support them;

* the publishers who disseminate, archive and ensure the quality control of this research; and

* the physicians, clinicians, engineers and other intellectual pioneers who put knowledge into action.

Implying, of course, that open access has has no research integrity, does not advance the cause of knowledge, and is somewhow opposed to intellectual pioneers.

This is a really important development, because it is the clearest demonstration yet that the traditional publishers see open access as a real threat, and that it is succeeding - you don't take these kind of measures against something that is flailing. For the best rebuttal of the misleading issues and non-issues raised and obfuscated on this site, see Peter Suber's comments.

Open Sermons

If you allow people to read and listen to your ideas for free, you just might actually benefit the kingdom of God. At the same time you increase your own audience, and your potential impact. Who knows — if you are actually good at what you do, someone might hear you speak and think that you have something important to say, or that the way you are saying things resonates with people better than the same message packaged differently has done so in the past. This could even result in an invitation to speak at a conference or colloquium, or to write an article for publication.

Obvious, really. (Via Open Access News.)

In Cloud Cuckoo Land

John Markoff's hard disc died; he tried doing without it:

What I discovered was that - with the caveat of a necessary network connection - life is just fine without a disk. Between the Firefox Web browser, Google’s Gmail and and the search engine company’s Docs Web-based word processor, it was possible to carry on quite nicely without local data

Interestingly, I had not one but three of my computers die within the space of a few weeks. Like Markoff, I am obsessive about backing up data, so I didn't lose anything important - other than the ability to access local files.

So I'm now largely living La Vida Online: Firefox as my computing environment, accessing Gmail, Writely (as I still prefer to call it), plus a few other online sites for storing various kinds of files and links. It works pretty well, and even when I get some new systems up and running, I'm aiming at prolonging my stay in Cloud Cuckoo Land.

Hi-De-Hi HiPiHi

One of the first detailed looks at what promises to be an important entrant in the virtual world space.

Ambushed by Patents

I've not written about the Rambus case before, because it seemed frankly rather dull. But I was wrong: there is an important principle at its heart:

European Union regulators have charged Rambus Inc. with antitrust abuse, alleging the memory chip designer demanded ''unreasonable'' royalties for its patents that were fraudulently set as industry standards.

The EU's preliminary charges, announced Thursday, come weeks after the U.S. Federal Trade Commission ruled the company deceived a standards-setting committee by failing to disclose that its patented technology would be needed to comply with the standard.

As a result, every manufacturer that wanted to make synchronous dynamic access memory chips had to negotiate a license with Rambus.

Both EU and U.S. antitrust officials allege that this allowed Rambus gain an illegal monopoly in the 1990s for DRAM chips used in personal computers, servers, printers, personal digital assistants and other electronics.

Clearly these kinds of patent ambushes are potentially a general problem, and indicate why real standards must only allow completely patent-free technologies. If a company wants its patented technology to become a standard, it must give its patents.

Snap Shot Update

Gone in a snap - it seemed to be slowing things down. Anyone care about its snip?

Get the Straws in the Wind

More tiny steps by Microsoft towards openness:

In Linux circles, Microsoft's anti-Linux site, Get the Facts, was better known as Get the FUD, and was seen as more of a joke than a convincing argument in favor of Microsoft products over Linux. Microsoft may have come to agree that the site was not serving any useful purpose, as the company closed it down on Aug. 23.

Will Free Software Licences Be Derailed?

Upholding licences is crucial to the success of free software, so potentially, this looks really bad news:

Open-source software and the licenses that govern it suffered a serious setback in a San Francisco District Court earlier this month, following a preliminary decision that could effectively deprive open source licensors from being able to get a court injunction to stop the violation of the terms of their license going forward.

Although the judge's analysis is superficially worrying for the way he interprets the licence, there is an important fact in this particular situation, which has already involved tussles over software patents:

At issue was model train software code that Jacobsen and some other open source developers wrote, called the Java Model Railroad Interface, or JMRI, which is licensed under the Open Source Initiative approved Artistic License.

Now the Artistic Licence, originally drawn up by Larry Wall for Perl - and whose name was chosen purely for the pun it allowed - is a notoriously loose licence. IANAL, but it seems to me that the problem the judge has with granting an injunction against the model train software company is that the Artistic Licence simply gives, well, too much licence.

I may be wrong, but I think the far more demanding GNU GPL would avoid this problem - another good reason for choosing a more rigorous licence. We shall see whether I am right....

Laying Down the Law

Those open and sharing memes are spreading like wildfire in the most surprising places - like law, for example. In the US, there are two new important projects to place legal decisions online, freely available to all. There's Carl Malamud's database of legal opionions, and Tim Wu's AltLaw project.

But the thing that interested me most was a comment to the announcement of latter, which pointed out that that these US-based efforts are actually trailing equivalent moves elsewhere. The excellent site World Legal Information Institute has links to over a dozen of them. Shame on me for not discovering them sooner.