17 December 2007

Mindquarry Dies - and Lives!

Mindquarry, which

provides a powerful set of collaborative tools for use online and offline to streamline teamwork between information workers in small to large enterprises.

has just announced that it

will stop providing commercial services and products.

That's regrettable, obviously. But there's some good news too:

The Mindquarry GO and Mindquarry PRO products will be discontinued as of today. Our Open Source product will remain publicly available (see below for more information). To those with a Mindquarry GO Beta account, we now offer the possibility to migrate their data to the Open Source version of Mindquarry. This means that they can install Mindquarry themselves and use existing data from their Mindquarry GO Beta instance. Please write to support@mindquarry.com if you want us to extract your data from Mindquarry GO Beta to send it to you.
Keeping our Open Source software alive

Our developers team is currently working on finishing the Mindquarry 1.2beta release, which will be available around end of October. Beginning with 1.2beta, Mindquarry source code will be hosted on Sourceforge as well as the mindquarry.com Web site. Hence, our software as well as all necessary information such as installation documentation and forum discussions will still be available. Further details and links will be available in the next and probably final Mindquarry community newsletter.

This is an object lesson in one of free software's great virtues: whatever happens, the code lives on. This means that even commercial customers can migrate to free versions where they have been paying for other varieties. (Via NetworkWorld.)

Open Access Data - A Question of Protocol

Something calling itself a “Protocol for Implementing Open Access Data” sounds about as exciting as a list of ingredients for paint. But this memo from the Science Commons is one of the most important documents in this field to date. Its scope is explained in the opening paragraph:

This memo provides information for the Internet community interested in distributing data or databases under an “open access” structure. There are several definitions of “open” and “open access” on the Internet, including the Open Knowledge Definition and the Budapest Declaration on Open Access; the protocol laid out herein is intended to conform to the Open Knowledge Definition and extend the ideas of the Budapest Declaration to data and databases.

Again, that may not sound very exciting, but trying to come up with definitions of “open data” or “open access data” have proved extraordinarily hard, and in the course of the memo we learn why:
3. Principles of open access data
Legal tools for an open access data sharing protocol must be developed with three key principles in mind:
3.1 The protocol must promote legal predictability and certainty.
3.2 The protocol must be easy to use and understand.
3.3 The protocol must impose the lowest possible transaction costs on users.


These principles are motivated by Science Commons’ experience in distributing a database licensing Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) file. Scientists are uncomfortable applying the FAQ because they find it hard to apply the distinction between what is copyrightable and what is not copyrightable, among other elements. A lack of simplicity restricts usage and as such restricts the open access flow of data. Thus any usage system must both be legally accurate while simultaneously very simple for scientists, reducing or eliminating the need to make the distinction between copyrightable and non-copyrightable elements.

The terms also need to satisfy the norms and expectations of the disciplines providing the database. This makes a single license approach difficult – archaeology data norms for citation will differ from those in physics, and yet again from those in biology, and yet again from those in the cultural or educational spaces. But those norms must be attached in a form that imposes the lowest possible costs on users (now and in the future).

The solution is at once obvious and radical:

4. Implementing the Science Commons Database Protocol for open access data
4.1 Converge on the public domain by waiving all rights based on intellectual property

The conflict between simplicity and legal certainty can be best resolved by a twofold measure: 1) a reconstruction of the public domain and 2) the use of scientific norms to express the wishes of the data provider.

Reconstructing the public domain can be achieved through the use of a legal tool (waiving the relevant rights on data and asserting that the provider makes no claims on the data).

Requesting behavior, such as citation, through norms and terms of use rather than as a legal requirement based on copyright or contracts, allows for different scientific disciplines to develop different norms for citation. This allows for legal certainty without constraining one community to the norms of another.

Thus, to facilitate data integration and open access data sharing, any implementation of this protocol MUST waive all rights necessary for data extraction and re-use (including copyright, sui generis database rights, claims of unfair competition, implied contracts, and other legal rights), and MUST NOT apply any obligations on the user of the data or database such as “copyleft” or “share alike”, or even the legal requirement to provide attribution. Any implementation SHOULD define a non-legally binding set of citation norms in clear, lay-readable language.

The solution is obvious because the public domain is the zero state of copyright (in fact, the new Creative Commons public domain licence is called simply CCZero.) It is radical because previous attempts have tried to build on the evident success of the GNU GPL by taking a kind of copyleft approach: using copyright to limit copyright. But the new protocol explicitly negates the use of both GPL's copyleft and the Creative Commons Sharealike licences because, minimal as they are, they are still too restrictive – even though they are both predicated on maximising sharing.

One knock-on consequence of this is that attribution requirements are out. This is not just a matter of belief or principle, but of practicality:

In a world of database integration and federation, attribution can easily cascade into a burden for scientists if a category error is made. Would a scientist need to attribute 40,000 data depositors in the event of a query across 40,000 data sets? How does this relate to the evolved norms of citation within a discipline, and does the attribution requirement indeed conflict with accepted norms in some disciplines? Indeed, failing to give attribution to all 40,000 sources could be the basis for a copyright infringement suit at worst, and at best, imposes a significant transaction cost on the scientist using the data.

It is this pragmatism, rooted in how science actually works, that makes the current protocol particularly important: it might actually be useful. It's also significant that it plugs in to previously existing work in related fields. For example, as the accompanying blog post explains:

We are also pleased to announce that the Open Knowledge Foundation has certified the Protocol as conforming to the Open Knowledge Definition. We think it’s important to avoid legal fragmentation at the early stages, and that one way to avoid that fragmentation is to work with the existing thought leaders like the OKF.

Moreover, the protocol has already been applied in drawing up another important text, the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication & Licence:

The Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication & Licence is a document intended to allow you to freely share, modify, and use this work for any purpose and without any restrictions. This licence is intended for use on databases or their contents (”data”), either together or individually.

Many databases are covered by copyright. Some jurisdictions, mainly in Europe, have specific special rights that cover databases called the “sui generis” database right. Both of these sets of rights, as well as other legal rights used to protect databases and data, can create uncertainty or practical difficulty for those wishing to share databases and their underlying data but retain a limited amount of rights under a “some rights reserved” approach to licensing. As a result, this waiver and licence tries to the fullest extent possible to eliminate or fully license any rights that cover this database and data.

Again, however dry and legalistic this stuff may seem it's not: we're talking about the rigorous foundations of new kinds of sharing - and we all know how important and powerful that can be.

Update: John Wilbanks has pointed me to his post about the winnowing process that led to this protocol - fascinating stuff.

Browser Wars Redux: Don't Touch That Meme

On Open Enterprise blog.

Who Goes There?

As a sad sack who has been writing about computers for too long well over a quarter of a century, I'm all in favour of facts and getting them checked. But it's a little hard to tell whether this site is going to be doing that out of the goodness of its journalistic heart or not:

This blog has a single purpose: to analyze blog postings about open source, and to do some basic fact-checking where necessary.

I was slightly worried by the following:

This has become more important because there is an increasing number of blogs which have a bias and political view-point they are trying to promote, and that are not being counter-balanced.

This suggests it is more interested in politics than technology. One of the striking aspects of political blogs is how bloody tiresome they are, since they seem to descend into mindless ad hominem/ad feminam name-calling within about two comments to any post. At least technical corrections can be kept objective and civil (well, mostly.)

Nonetheless, I welcome critical and objective coverage of writing about open source, particularly if it is applied even-handedly to *all* the players. After all, inspecting the source code is what it's all about.... (Via Luis Villa.)

Quote of the Day: Erik Huggers

It is my personal goal to use my industry knowledge and foresight to help the BBC create escape velocity and become the world’s leading media organization in the digital age - Erik Huggers

Industry knowledge?. Riiight.

Linus Says It's In Our DNA

Simon Willison has picked up a nice quotation from Linus he made a few years back, but what really interests me are some other things he said in the same post:

think about how you and me actually came about - not through any complex design.

Right. "sheer luck".

Well, sheer luck, AND:
- free availability and _crosspollination_ through sharing of "source code", although biologists call it DNA.
- a rather unforgiving user environment, that happily replaces bad versions of us with better working versions and thus culls the herd (biologists often call this "survival of the fittest")
- massive undirected parallel development ("trial and error")

In other words, the open source methodology is hard-wired into us - right down at the level of DNA.

Google Profile Keeps a Low Profile

Google Profile is with us, just about:

A Google Profile is simply how you represent yourself on Google products — it lets you tell others a bit more about who you are and what you're all about. You control what goes into your Google Profile, sharing as much (or as little) as you'd like.

And here's the sting in the tail:

Use multiple Google products? Soon your Google Profile will link up with these as well.

In other words, despite its ultra low-profile launch, Google Profile will be the nexus of everything you do on Google.

Eeek.

Can the BBC Trust Butter Some Parsnips?

The Open Source Consortium has prodded the BBC Trust into words, if not action:


The BBC Trust and the Open Source Consortium (OSC) have agreed the promotion of Microsoft by the BBC should end. After a meeting with the OSC, the BBC Trust restated its commitment to a platform agnostic solution for the iPlayer's catch-up service and agreed that the recently launched streaming service was only an interim solution.

The main credit for this should go to the OSC's indefatigable boss, who explained what remains to be done:

Mark Taylor, President of the Open Source Consortium, said: “We are pleased that the BBC Trust continues to engage with us and take our concerns seriously. The seven-day streaming service is elegant and attractive, and most importantly, can be used on any computer and most mobile devices without unnecessary concern with technology. Instead consumers can choose on the more important criteria of price and performance.

“However we remain concerned that the 30 day catch-up service is exclusively provided only for newer versions of Microsoft operating systems and are pleased that the BBC Trust continues to share our concern that iPlayer be made technology agnostic at the earliest opportunity.

“Thanks to the BBC Trust's intervention we met BBC management to outline how they could deliver an open iPlayer that would meet all rights holders concerns. We think it would be easily possible to use the BBC's existing, world leading Free Software solutions in an open iPlayer. We sincerely hope that the BBC will take this further."

This does matter, because if the catch-up service remains Windows only, it turns the BBC into a vector of Microsoft's DRM and products - hardly what the public broadcaster should be doing.

Moreover, fine words butter no parsnips: can we trust the BBC Trust to follow through on this? If they don't, at least we can be sure that the OSC will be there with a sharp stick goading them to do so.

Copping a Load of COPU

As I've lamented before, open source usage in China is hard for us outside to gauge. Even the open source structures there are difficult to discern. So news that the Linux Foundation is linking up with something called the Chinese OSS Promotion Union is interesting:

COPU now has over 300 members, covering nearly all the domestic enterprises and public institution units in the field of open source, including all the Linux distributions including Red Flag, Co-Create, China Standard Soft, TurboLinux, and Sun Wah, universities (over 200), and institutes for scientific research, standard, law and industry. COPU also has over 20 multinational companies as its members who have their representative offices or branches in China including IBM, Intel, HP, Sun, Oracle, SAP, NEC, CA, BEA, Hitachi, Sybase, France Telecom, MontaVista, and Google.

16 December 2007

They Call It A "Non-Polluting Gas"...

This Open Letter would have rather more credibility if this phrase

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis.

didn't sound suspiciously close to this one:

As for carbon dioxide, it isn't smog or smoke, it's what we breathe out, and plants breathe in. Carbon dioxide: they call it pollution, we call it life.

Because that, as I wrote some time ago, was an egregious bunch of propaganda for the joys of pollution provided by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), "advancing liberty - from the economy to ecology".

And oh, look: by an amazing coincidence the Open Letter talks about - guess what? - yes, that precious economy:

While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity.

Ah, yes, prosperity - so much more important than little things like trees, a healthy, sustainable environmental commons, or survival. No, let's get our priorities right:

Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems

which are, of course, how to make the rich even richer by exploiting the environmental commons as quickly as possible, before the world is burnt to a crisp.

15 December 2007

Read What They Write

Read/WriteWeb is one of the more perceptive blogs - and I thought that even before they wrote this:

In this post we'll give you our pick for Most Promising for Web for 2008.

Originally we planned to pick the most promising Web company for 2008. But in the end the ReadWriteWeb team decided to follow the example set by Time magazine last year, when it named "You" as its 'Person of the Year'. Likewise we think there is no single Web company that is more promising than... the open source movement. It's a loose-knit group that aims to make a huge impact by tying all Web companies together.

Well, obviously, but it's good to see others getting it.

Free (As in Freedom) Fonts

Most people - myself included - take fonts for granted. But we shouldn't, because, just like software, fonts can be free and non-free. If you want to find out everything there is to know about the subject of free fonts, try this excellent short article.

14 December 2007

ClamAV Gets a Supporters Club

On Open Enterprise blog.

The Art of Saying Sorry - Openly

Interesting piece in Forbes about CEOs learning to eat crow and enjoy it. Take Facebook's Zuckerberg, for example:

When Zuckerberg's apology surfaced, the protest's 70,000 or so privacy advocates still represented a relatively small seed of revolt--less than .2% of Facebook's 50 million plus members. Facebook's apology and changes to Beacon seem to have appeased that angry minority before it could swallow up the site.

That such a small group could pull a contrite message out of a chief executive also shows just how the Web can channel consumers' anger. And tech companies may be especially prone to those backlashes: Not only are tech customers particularly Web savvy, but the tech industry itself frequently sails into uncharted and--from a PR perspective--dangerous waters, says Waggener Edstrom's Neptune.

I think that much of this is due to the Internet culture, which is pretty much the same as that of the free software world. It's one that requires transparency and accountability; and when either of those is missing, it also requires apologies. Remember:

The people are the heroes now, behemoth pulls the peasants’ plow

Open ERP's Big British Chance

On Open Enterprise blog.

Open Source's Big Opportunity has a Tiny Problem

I've been extolling the virtues of the Asus EEE PC and its ilk as exemplars of an important new class of computers; but Jono Bacon has spotted a problem:

One of the distinctive traits of EEE PC, and many other sub-notebook, MID and smaller computing devices, is that they run with a smaller screen resolution than typical desktop machines. I am pretty sure that most desktop machines that people are running Linux on will be running on a minimum of 1024×768, and likely a higher resolution. One of the things that I have noticed in recent years is that an increasing number of Open Source applications look terrible on lower resolutions.

Fortunately, it's readily solvable:

We need better testing, bug-reports being filed, and users actively checking and ensuring that software works well in lower resolutions. I also believe it forces us all into a world of more intelligent, usable design - hugely tall windows crammed with a million preferences or super-thick toolbars are not usable interfaces. One could infer that having to be conscious of lower resolutions will make us think more about the usability of our applications and ensure we don’t cram a million-and-one buttons into a window.

Amen to that.

Going (Double) Dutch

How can I not link to this post, since it not only spreads the good news about the Dutch government's move to open source, but even weaves intellectual monopolies into the story?

Google Knol: Another Rival to Wikipedia

After Citizendium, now Knol:

A knol on a particular topic is meant to be the first thing someone who searches for this topic for the first time will want to read. The goal is for knols to cover all topics, from scientific concepts, to medical information, from geographical and historical, to entertainment, from product information, to how-to-fix-it instructions. Google will not serve as an editor in any way, and will not bless any content. All editorial responsibilities and control will rest with the authors. We hope that knols will include the opinions and points of view of the authors who will put their reputation on the line. Anyone will be free to write. For many topics, there will likely be competing knols on the same subject. Competition of ideas is a good thing.

Knols will include strong community tools. People will be able to submit comments, questions, edits, additional content, and so on. Anyone will be able to rate a knol or write a review of it. Knols will also include references and links to additional information. At the discretion of the author, a knol may include ads. If an author chooses to include ads, Google will provide the author with substantial revenue share from the proceeds of those ads.

Once testing is completed, participation in knols will be completely open, and we cannot expect that all of them will be of high quality. Our job in Search Quality will be to rank the knols appropriately when they appear in Google search results. We are quite experienced with ranking web pages, and we feel confident that we will be up to the challenge. We are very excited by the potential to substantially increase the dissemination of knowledge.

13 December 2007

Bali Bellyache

Had enough of the blind, egoistical obstructionism at Bali? Do something about it. (Via Green Monk.)

How Open Do You Want to Be?

On Open Enterprise blog.

Why Has Copyright Expanded? - The Answer

Not mine, but Neil Netanel’s:

Numerous commentators, including myself, have decried the growth of copyright holder rights in recent decades. Copyright’s expansion is widely said to be inimical to copyright’s core goals and economic rational. If so, why has that expansion occurred? Without question, there are multiple causes. This essay surveys and critiques a number of them, beginning with the copyright industries’ raw political muscle and moving to the rhetorical and theoretical frameworks for expansion.

To which William Patry adds:

It is not possible to justice to the beauty of Professor Natenel’s work even in as bloated a blog as this. The only answer is to read the article yourself, and as soon as possible.

Indeed: it ain't light, but it's right....

Building the Zotero Commons

One of the many insights that have come out of open source is what might be called the "pebble on the cairn" effect - the idea that by combining the small, even negligible, individual efforts we can create something large and durable.

Here's a perfect example that builds on the fact that scholars very often scan books in the public domain during the course of their research, but then don't do anything with those scans. What if they were all brought together, and then fed into an OCR system?

If many researchers have had to scan rare documents or books for their own perusal, there’s a potential treasure trove of material that exists among their combined efforts. Rather than let all that scholarship rot, or waste away in data files, the university’s Center for History and New Media sees an opportunity to create an open archive of scholarly resources in the public domain.

...

In partnership with the Internet Archive, and with funding from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation, the center is creating a way for scholars to upload existing data files to be optically scanned (to make them text-searchable) and stored in a database available to the public.

Even better is that fact that open source software can be used to make realise this idea:

The vehicle for the new environment will be the Zotero plug-in for the Firebox browser, also developed by the center. The software stores Web pages, collects citations and lets scholars annotate and organize online documents. A new feature of the plug-in will allow people to collaborate and share materials through a dedicated server. Building on that functionality, according to Cohen, the system will allow scholars to drag and drop documents onto an icon in Zotero that essentially sends it to the Internet Archive for storage and free optical character recognition.

The eventual result of the project, called Zotero Commons, could be reduced need need for research trips, Cohen suggested.

(Via Open Access News.)

Now *That's* What I Call UGC

Bic Crystal ballpoint pen, medium point, black:

Imagine a boot stamping on your face when you cry with hopes for a better World. That's what it felt like when I went about trying to actually use this pen. It mocked me. It shouted at me. It told me I was not worthy. In short, it jilted me.

...

I will still be ordering a new quill next week from a custom manufactory in Belgium, but this has been a fascinating jaunt into the future. Perhaps the pen might be more practical if some fins were attached to the sides.

...

I glanced down to my hand and there, humbly, sat the pen. I cannot reccomend this highly enough; indeed, I would say that it is the ultimate catalyst to enlightenment. Since I have owned this pen every word I have written has been like pure gold; my business ventures have prospered, my home life excelled and my pot plants flourished. Where, oh where, I hear you ask, can I purchase such a pen-sized piece of wonder? It is here, my friend, it is here.

and the coup de grace:

This Pen has been amazing, although not for its intended use, this pen has still lived up to its reputation as a solid performer.
I've used this pen to stab and kill 3 neighborhood dogs this week alone.
The pen retains its grip even when submerged in dog blood.
Thank You Amazon and Bic for creating such a useful pen!

(Via spot.)

Open Source Spaceships

The "brains" of the Ares I rocket that will send four astronauts back to the moon sometime in the next 12 years will be built by Boeing, NASA announced today—but the specifications will be open-source and non-proprietary

And why might that be?

so that other companies can bid on future contracts.

Of course. But the same logic applies to just about every major government contract, everywhere in the world, not just out of it. (Via 451 CAOS Theory.)