tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-53421894989944956492024-03-19T01:35:10.288-07:00Openness is freedomall the information you need about open source, open content, open cultureSimone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-76501693314169812052014-04-11T04:32:00.001-07:002014-04-11T04:33:35.551-07:00If Intellectual Property Is Neither Intellectual, Nor Property, What Is It?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
An interesting discussion on the concept of "intellectual property" by Mike Masnick (from Techdirt.com).<br />
<br />
<i>Continuing my ongoing series of posts on "intellectual property," I wanted to discuss the phrase itself. It's become common language to call it intellectual property, but that leads to various problems -- most notably the idea that it's just like regular property. It's not hard to come up with numerous reasons why that's not true, but just the word "property" seems to get people tied up. There are some who refuse to use the term, but it is handy shorthand for talking about the general space.<br />The main reason why I have trouble with... [<a href="https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080306/003240458/if-intellectual-property-is-neither-intellectual-property-what-is-it.shtml"><b>read more</b></a>]</i></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-37210165984407283622014-03-04T13:26:00.003-08:002014-04-08T02:51:18.366-07:00Lawrence Lessig Settles Fair Use Lawsuit Over Phoenix Music Snippets<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Lessig_forehead.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/Lessig_forehead.jpg" /></a></div>
<b>Liberation Music Will Fix Its Copyright Policies and Pay Compensation</b><br />
<br />
<div class="views-field views-field-body">
<div class="field-content">
<i>San
Francisco</i> - Prof. Lawrence Lessig has settled his lawsuit against an
Australian record label over the use of clips of a popular song by the
band Phoenix in a lecture that was later posted online. Liberation
Music, which represents Phoenix in New Zealand, claimed the clips
infringed copyright, demanded YouTube take down the lecture, and then
threatened to sue Lessig. Represented by the Electronic Frontier
Foundation (EFF) and Jones Day, Lessig fought back, asserting his fair
use rights in court.<br />
"Too often, copyright is used as an excuse to silence legitimate
speech," said Lessig, who serves as the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law
and Leadership at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra
Center for Ethics at Harvard University. "I've been fighting against
that kind of abuse for many years, and I knew I had to stand up for fair
use here as well. Hopefully this lawsuit and this settlement will send a
message to copyright owners to adopt fair takedown practices—or face
the consequences."<br />
The settlement requires Liberation Music to pay Lessig for the harm
it caused. The amount is confidential under the terms of the settlement,
but it will be dedicated to supporting EFF's work on open access, a
cause of special importance to Lessig's friend, Aaron Swartz, a
technologist and activist who took his own life in early 2013. The
parties also worked together to improve Liberation Music's methodology
for compliance with the requirements of the DMCA in the United States.
Going forward, Liberation Music will adopt new policies that respect
fair use.<br />
Neither party concedes the claims or defenses of the other.
Liberation Music included this statement in the settlement agreement:<br />
"Liberation Music is pleased to amicably resolve its dispute with
Professor Lessig. Liberation Music agrees that Professor Lessig's use of
the Phoenix song 'Lisztomania' was both fair use under US law and fair
dealing under Australian law. Liberation Music will amend its copyright
and YouTube policy to ensure that mistakes like this will not happen
again. Liberation Music is committed to a new copyright policy that
protects its valid copyright interests and respects fair use and
dealing."<br />
A co-founder of the nonprofit Creative Commons and author of numerous
books on law and technology, Lessig has played a pivotal role in
shaping the debate about copyright in the digital age. In June 2010,
Lessig delivered a lecture titled "Open" at a Creative Commons
conference in South Korea that included several short clips of amateur
dance videos set to the song "Lisztomania" by the French band Phoenix.
The lecture, which was later uploaded to YouTube, used the clips to
highlight emerging styles of cultural communication on the Internet.<br />
As a condition of the settlement, Liberation Music submitted a
declaration explaining its takedown procedures. Liberation Music had
allowed a single employee to use YouTube's automatic Content ID system
to initiate the takedown process and then, when Lessig challenged the
takedown, threaten a lawsuit. The employee, who did not have a legal
background, did not actually review Lessig's video before issuing a
threat of a lawsuit.<br />
Liberation Music's new policy will still rely on YouTube's system,
but it will ensure that no takedown notice is issued without human
review, including fair use considerations. Liberation Music will also
limit its copyright enforcement to jurisdictions where it actually owns
or administers the copyright.<br />
"This is the policy Liberation Music should have had from the
beginning," EFF Intellectual Property Director Corynne McSherry said.
"Too many content owners are issuing takedowns and manipulating content
filters without respect for the rights of users. This fight may be over,
but the battle continues until every content owner embraces best
practices that protect fair use."<br />
<br />
For more on this case:<br />
<a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music"> https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music</a><br />
<br />
About Prof. Lessig:<br />
Lawrence Lessig is the Roy L. Furman Professor of Law and Leadership
at Harvard Law School, director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics
at Harvard University and founder of Rootstrikers, a network of
activists leading the fight against government corruption. He has
authored numerous books, including The USA is Lesterland, Republic,
Lost: How Money Corrupts Our Congress—and a Plan to Stop It, Code and
Other Laws of Cyberspace, Free Culture, and Remix.<br />
<br />
Contact:<br />
Corynne McSherry<br />
Intellectual Property Director<br />
Electronic Frontier Foundation<br />
corynne@eff.org</div>
</div>
<div class="views-field views-field-field-related-cases">
</div>
<div class="views-field views-field-field-related-cases">
<span class="views-label views-label-field-related-cases">Related Cases: </span> <br />
<div class="field-content">
<a href="https://www.eff.org/cases/lawrence-lessig-v-liberation-music">Lawrence Lessig v. Liberation Music</a></div>
<div class="field-content">
</div>
<div class="field-content">
______________________</div>
<div class="field-content">
</div>
<div class="field-content">
<i>This post is takenfrom <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/lawrence-lessig-settles-fair-use-lawsuit-over-phoenix-music-snippets">Eff.org</a> and released under a CC by license.</i></div>
</div>
</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-55538893604041739262014-02-28T09:39:00.000-08:002014-02-28T09:39:59.487-08:00Casserly steps down as CEO of Creative Commons. Now Paul Brest is interim CEO<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/images/people/cathy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://creativecommons.org/images/people/cathy.jpg" /></a>You might remember <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/39874">the announcement a few months ago</a>
that Cathy Casserly will be stepping down as CEO of Creative Commons
this year.<br />
In fact, at the beginning of January CC officially <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/41605">opened</a> the search for the
new CEO. Today, at the end of February (<span class="short_text" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">exactly three years</span> <span class="hps">after</span></span> the entry of Cathy in CC) the CC blog publish a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/42232">farewell message</a> by her, explaining that <a href="http://creativecommons.org/board#paulbrest">Paul Brest</a>, CC board chair, has stepped up as interim CEO.<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
My journey with CC has had different segments, contexts, and textures. What I have found so rewarding during this leg as CEO is working closely with our deeply talented and dedicated staff, regional coordinators, affiliates, partners, and supporters.<br />Together, we have made tremendous progress to create a global footprint of sharing, legally. We continue to extend our reach into critical communities – learning, science, data, and culture – and educate the world about the power of open. And while we have not yet reached our collective mission, we have advanced, and will continue to do so. Here at CC, we have worked hard over the past months to ensure the CEO transition is smooth. The board has the search well underway and Paul Brest, CC board chair, has stepped up as interim CEO. My profound thanks to Paul, both personally and on behalf of the broader community, for his unyielding leadership and support.</blockquote>
So the search for the new CEO is still open. We have to wait some more time to know which direction CC will take in the next years.</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-18933694212011560022014-02-20T15:28:00.000-08:002014-02-20T15:28:15.996-08:00Less may be more: Copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Copyleft.svg/512px-Copyleft.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Copyleft.svg/512px-Copyleft.svg.png" height="200" width="200" /></a></div>
<b>Abstract: </b>Like any relatively young areas of law, copyright on software is surrounded by some legal uncertainty. Even moreso in the context of copyleft open source licenses, since these licenses in some respects aim for goals that are the opposite of 'regular' software copyright law. This article provides an analysis of the inheritance effect of the GPL-family of copyleft software licenses (the GPL, LGPL and the AGPL) from a mostly copyright perspective as well as an analysis of the extent to which the SAS/WPL case affects this family of copyleft software licenses. In this article the extent to which the GPL and AGPL inheritance clauses have a wider effect than those of the LGPL is questioned, while both the SAS/WPL jurisprudence and the US Google case seem to affirm the LGPL's “dynamic linking” criterium.<br />
<br />
<i>A paper by Walter van Holst published in IFOSS Law Review.</i><br />
<br />
<b>Table of content</b><br />
<ul style="text-align: left;">
<li>Introduction</li>
<li>Legal framework as provided by the GPL family</li>
<ul>
<li>Roles of the GPL family of licenses</li>
<li>Bare licenses based on copyright law</li>
</ul>
<li>Analysis and application to libraries</li>
<ul>
<li>Linking mechanisms</li>
<li>Transformation and derivation in case law</li>
</ul>
<li>Conclusion</li>
</ul>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/72/147"><b>READ THE PAPER </b></a></div>
<br />
<div>
_________________________ <br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">License and attribution</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This paper was published in the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, Volume 5, Issue 1 (MARCH 2013). It originally appeared online at http://www.ifosslr.org.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This article should be cited as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Holst, Walter van (2013) 'Less may be more: Copyleft, -right and the case law on APIs on both sides of the Atlantic', International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 5(1), pp 5 – 14<br />DOI: 10.5033/ifosslr.v5i1.72</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright © 2013 Walter van Holst.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This article is licensed under a Creative Commons NL (Netherlands) 2.0 licence, no derivative works, attribution, CC-BY-ND available at <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/uk/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/uk/</a>.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">As a special exception, the author expressly permits faithful translations of the entire document into any language, provided that the resulting translation (which may include an attribution to the translator) is shared alike. This paragraph is part of the paper, and must be included when copying or translating the paper.</span></div>
</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-81326418947257753232014-02-20T14:27:00.001-08:002014-02-20T14:27:30.081-08:00Survey: Most Italian Internet Users Think Ignoring Copyright Harms Publishers, But Not Society As A Whole<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
One of the heartening recent developments in the world of digital copyright is that we have moved on from manifestly biased surveys about the evils of piracy and how the solution to everything is harsher punishment for infringement and longer copyright terms, to independent analyses that seek to understand rather than judge and lecture. There's also been a ... [continue]<br />
<br />
<i>An article by Glyn Moody for Techdirt.com. <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130731/12352524022/survey-most-italian-internet-users-think-ignoring-copyright-harms-publishers-not-society-as-whole.shtml">Read the article here</a><span id="goog_47753048"></span><span id="goog_47753049"></span>.</i></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-49132111702752496582014-02-17T13:14:00.000-08:002014-02-17T13:17:07.186-08:00Copyright 2.0: Interests and Rules<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbE4BkQINrpPYWKwuo0omCT9QRmDGUzDAurZzIzClN5eor3tp3SFijp8ox-3_KoY_9s06RMWLEZl5Bl_bhhoUsJKI5yO-fpyAiFBaQdz7dJ_ld1aSYZBLC8vSb3D2Chyphenhyphen81h5uH5U_9SY5j/s1600/ricolfi_1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbE4BkQINrpPYWKwuo0omCT9QRmDGUzDAurZzIzClN5eor3tp3SFijp8ox-3_KoY_9s06RMWLEZl5Bl_bhhoUsJKI5yO-fpyAiFBaQdz7dJ_ld1aSYZBLC8vSb3D2Chyphenhyphen81h5uH5U_9SY5j/s1600/ricolfi_1.JPG" height="200" width="164" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://www.evpsi.org/evpsifiles/ricolfi_1.JPG"><span style="font-size: xx-small;">source of the pic</span></a></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Let us think for a moment about the set of rules which would appear to be appropriate to meet the demands of creators operating along the short route.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
1. The Interests.</h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
In the market based model it was essential for creators and even more so for businesses to control and restrict access to works, as the monopoly granted by expansive exclusive rights enabled them to charge whatever price the market would bear.<br />
However, this would not appear to be the goal of creators currently operating along the short route. The great majority of them, be it 9 out of 10 or 95 out of 100, do not make a living out of “sales” of “copies” of their works; they earn their livelihood in another activity or business and devote a portion – often a very large portion – of their spare time to creating, in a way which may give them a bit of extra income, professional credit and recognition which may have positive spill - over effects in their main line or just fun (or a combination of the three).<br />
Even when the creators operating along the short route are professionally engaged in the creation of works, which is usually not the case, their business model usually is based on income flows different from the sale of copies as such. It would appear that there is a shift whereby even singers and songwriters increasingly rely on performances, tours, endorsements, merchandising and their likes rather than sales of albums and tracks.<br />
This is the business model which the Grateful Dead pioneered, possibly taking a clue from open source software and IBM, and is currently expanding to an increasing number of business. So that the eminent economist Paul Krugmann a few years ago made the case that the demise of reliance on income based on “hard” copies was being generalized and, making his case, quipped that in the long run we will all be the Grateful Dead.<br />
What is important for creators engaged along the short route is, it would appear, that their work can be disseminated as widely as possible, on two conditions: first, that the work is correctly attributed to them, and second, that<br />
the creators may, if they so choose, reserve the right to prevent third parties<br />
to make a commercial profit out of their work unless this is agreed to by the creator herself.</div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
2. The Rules.</h3>
<div style="text-align: left;">
If this is so, then what may currently be needed is a new kind of copyright, which we may, if you wish, label Copyright 2.0. I submit that the new system would have four basic features. <b>Old copyright, or Copyright 1.0, would still be available; but it would have to be claimed for by the creator at the onset, e.g. by inserting the old copyright notice, ©,</b> as the US did in the past, before accessing the Berne Convention.</div>
<b>If no notice was given, Copyright 2.0 would apply; and this would give creators just one right, the right to attribution.</b><br />
The notice could also be added after creation, but then it would only have the effect of giving exclusivity against specified non authorized uses (in particular:<br />
subsequent commercial uses).<br />
The Copyright 1.0 protection given by the original notice could be withdrawn, and may be it should be deemed withdrawn after a specified period of time (e.g. the 14 years of the original copyright protection), unless an extension period (of another 14 years) is specifically requested.<br />
What is the purpose of the exercise I just sketched out? Well, I confess that, even a couple of years after airing this proposal, I am not so totally sure after all that the four features I just described are really what is appropriate for the needs of our societies and their creators.<br />
The point I am making, however, is that thinking along these lines at least allows us to conceptualize how the different sets of rules correspond to the specific needs of the creators who create works along the long and short route. We assumed that Copyright 1.0 should survive; and we may anticipate that this is likely to be resorted to by creators (and businesses) choosing to operate along the long route. Indeed, <b>the ultimate goal is not to displace old copyright, which seems to be alive and well in many situations, but to add to the menu a second possibility, Copyright 2.0, which should be better tailored to the characters of production and distribution of works prevailing in the current digital environment.</b><br />
This line of reasoning might also help us in asking the next question. Which set of rules would then operate in each given situation? Well, in some way I already replied to this question: creators should opt-in for Copyright 1.0 at the time of the original release of their work; otherwise the new and more flexible Copyright 2.0 would operate as a default set of provisions.<br />
This is why in the past I characterized this approach as “Lessig by default” or, in a less personalized way, <b>“Creative Commons by default”</b>. The idea behind the approach is that the very successful uptake of Creative Commons licenses and other copyleft licenses by creators operating along the short route shows that out there, in the digital prairies and wilderness, there is a very large number indeed of crea tors who prefer to reserve only some rights rather than all rights; and that the time has come for legal systems to recognize this fact of life by creating a regime in which downstream freedom is the rule and a system under which creators may have the option to reserve some rights or, if they like, all the old Copyright 1.0 rights, only if they wish and say so, giving appropriate notice.<br />
<br />
- - - - - - - - - - - -<br />
<br />
This is an excerpt of "<i>Consume and Share: Making Copyright Fit for the Digital Agenda</i>" by Prof. Marco Ricolfi (2011); under a CC by license. <br />
See the entire paper (with all the footnotes and references) <a href="http://nexa.polito.it/nexafiles/Consume%20and%20Share%20-%20Making%20Copyright%20Fit%20for%20the%20Digital%20Agenda.pdf"><b>here</b></a>.<br />
<br /></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-74315033204297980912014-02-17T08:46:00.000-08:002014-02-17T10:50:05.728-08:00Open source alternatives for small businesses<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/image-full-size/images/business/LIFE_DesirePath.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/image-full-size/images/business/LIFE_DesirePath.png" height="179" width="320" /></a></div>
Is it safe to use? What alternatives do I have? Is it easy to install? <br />
These were some of the questions asked by Amandeep, a New Delhi based
owner of a small scale clothing company, when I pitched to him a few
open source solutions that could make his day-to-day operations more
efficient. For someone without any IT background (but a sharp business
sense), these were brilliant and relevant questions. The answers to
these questions won't just help Amandeep, but if shared broadly may help
reduce the apprehension of a significant number of small scale business
owners, especially in India. My interactions have shown that a lot of
these businesses are looking to grow, enhance their productivity, and
most importantly, save costs.<br />
<br />
Approximately 7,500 miles away from Amandeep in New Delhi lives <a href="http://www.converseit.com/" target="_blank" title="Nabeel">Nabeel Hussain</a>. Nabeel, a graduate of <span class="st"><a href="https://uwaterloo.ca/conrad-business-entrepreneurship-technology/" target="_blank" title="Conrad">Conrad Business, Entrepreneurship and Technology Centre, </a></span>is
a new product development and digital marketing specialist actively
engaged in Waterloo, one of the top entrepreneurial ecosystems in the
world. As an entrepreneur, he is always faced with the challenge of
managing limited resources while building traction. He has a plethora of
technology solutions at his disposal, and the technical know-how to
utilize these solutions. Additionally, he has a robust support system to
advise and guide him to the best available solution that fits his
needs. For Nabeel, open source solutions provide an inexpensive
alternative for crafting early stage prototypes for his ideas and
validating them with customers. From using <a href="http://wordpress.org/" target="_blank" title="WordPress">WordPress</a> and its library of plugins, to venturing into <a href="http://openshift.github.io/" target="_blank" title="OpenShift Origin">OpenShift Origin</a> and <a href="http://www.joomla.org/" target="_blank" title="Joomla!">Joomla</a>,
he has the knowledge to make use of top notch technology to reduce
risk, manager resources, and build traction for his venture.<br />
These two different scenarios indicate a categorical gap in the
knowledge of entrepreneurs when it comes to adopting open source
solutions. Although there is some geographic gap between the
entrepreneurs in the developed and the developing world, as well as a
gap that spawns from business exposure/experience, the problem is wider
than that. There is a difference in productivity and efficiency between
entrepreneurs who utilize open source solutions and those who do not.
The situation becomes clear when we look at those small scale business
owners who are technology pros versus those who are not.<br />
A significant number of businesses, in India in particular and in the developing world in general, are of a <i>mom-and-pop business </i>nature.
Based on my recent interactions with these small scale business owners,
I see widespread misconceptions pertaining to open source software. The
questions that Amandeep from New Delhi asked me are critical in nature.
In order for small scale businesses to adopt open source solutions, it
is vital to address these misconceptions.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Is open source software really safe?</h3>
The question arises from the basic process that is followed to write code using <a href="http://opensource.com/open-source-way" target="_blank" title="The Open Source Way">open source way</a>.
If any hacker can read your code, then why can't they use the knowledge
to their personal benefit? Most of those sorts of malicious attempts
fail because there are a lot of committed people looking over the source
code, finding problems, and fixing them. More eyes tame bugs quickly.
And security by obscurity is no security at all. What strikes me at this
point of time are the words of security expert Bruce Schneier, "Public
security is always more secure than proprietary security…For us, open
source isn't just a business model; it's smart engineering practice."<br />
Developing code in an open source fashion is an expression of a
technique. Software, in our world, should be treated as a service which
can be customized based on the specific needs of a user, rather than
merely as a product.<br />
I know a lot of people involved at different levels of open source
projects. All of them are driven by their commitment to reach technical
and professional excellence, and to add to the existing body of
technology knowledge. The entire ecosystem of open source is built on
that commitment. The Linux operating system, for example, with its
proven track record of stability and security, forms the backbone of
complex infrastructures and data centers world over. The same benefits
that help Linux and other open source tools succeed at the enterprise
level can be reaped by small businesses, too.<br />
A couple of months back, I read Thomas Friedman's <i>The World is Flat. </i>An
otherwise helpful and insightful book, the author seems to host a
thought process that open source is contrary to the developers' right to
make a profit. A lot of people who think that way do not see the forest
for the trees. They see free software, they see Linux, but they miss
the multi-billion dollar ecosystem that surrounds open source. Its true
that Brian Behlendorf, the person who orchestrated Apache web server,
did not make a dime off it, but the immense value that this server has
added to the economy and the legions of small to medium size businesses
that use this infrastructure is an important contribution. Free software
developed by a community is not tantamount to insecurity.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Are there quality alternatives available?</h3>
Gone are the days when open source was produced only by the
engineers, for the engineers. From word processing to calendar
applications to servers and to setting up telephone communication
networks, small businesses can benefit hugely from open source
solutions. Let us take the example of word processing, an activity that
almost all small businesses, irrespective of their field, carry out.<br />
Microsoft Word is the premium software in the area but it is
cluttered with features that a lot of small businesses won't ever use.
The bloating of Microsoft Word has cost its simplicity. There are easy
to use, simple, free, and open source word processors available out
their. A few of these that I have been using (and suggesting to small
businesses) as an alternative to Microsoft Word are:<br />
<ol>
<li><b><a href="https://www.openoffice.org/" target="_blank" title="OpenOffice.org">Apache Open Office</a></b>:
This software primarily consists of six tools for managing office
tasks, namely: Writer as a word processor, Calc as a spreadsheet tool,
Impress for multimedia presentations, Draw for diagrams and 3D
applications, Base as a database tool, and Math for creating
mathematical equations.</li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.abisource.com/" target="_blank" title="AbiWord">AbiWord</a></b>: Developed in 1998 with the help of <a href="http://www.gtkmm.org/en/" target="_blank" title="gtkmm">gtkmm</a>,
this open source word processor includes both simple word processing
features to sophisticated features like multiple views, page columns,
and grammar checking.</li>
<li><b><a href="http://www.libreoffice.org/" target="_blank" title="LibreOffice">LibreOffice</a></b>:This
is my favorite and always at the top of my recommendation list for
anyone looking for a free and efficient word processing suite. Although
the features are similiar to those of ApacheOpen Office, LibreOffice is
better when it comes to community support.</li>
</ol>
There are dozens of other excellent alternative solutions to
proprietary software and thousands of open source projects that can
serve small businesses. It can sometimes be difficult to select the
software which best matches specific needs, but there are plenty of
people globally willing to help you make those decisions and help take
small businesses down the path to an open and productive future.<br />
_______________________<br />
<br />
<i>Originally posted 17 Feb 2014 by Aseem Sharma under a CC by-sa license; <a href="http://opensource.com/business/14/2/open-source-alternatives-for-small-businesses">see source</a>.</i></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-91493692992968304552014-02-15T00:15:00.000-08:002014-02-15T01:11:40.270-08:00A law about open geodata in Italy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://www.apogeonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sat-italy-200x150.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.apogeonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sat-italy-200x150.jpg" /></a>On August 7, 2012 Italian parliament approved a new law (legge n. 135/2012) related to the socalled "public spending review" where we can find an interesting reform about open geodata.<br />
Here is an English translation of the first part of Article 23, Paragraph 12-quaterdecies:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>To support the development of applications and services based on geospatial data and to develop the technologies of Earth, including for environmental protection, risk mitigation and scientific research, all the data and information acquired from soil, air and satellite platforms and financed by public resources must be available to all the potential users, within the limits imposed by reasons of safeguarding national security.</i></blockquote>
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is a good piece of news in the field of openness for Italy. Now we have only to hope that this new rule become effective soon in all the Italian public administrations and not just a nice principle.<br />
- - - </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<i>Second part of the paragraph includes some specific references to the Italian State apparatus and is hard to correctly translate in English. If you want to read also the second part of the paragraph and a few comments about it, a longer article by me is available <a href="http://www.apogeonline.com/webzine/2012/09/13/dati-geografici-dove-ci-troviamo-e-dove-no">here</a>.</i><br />
<br />
<i>For more information about open data in Italy, see <a href="http://openisfree.blogspot.com/2014/01/opendata-licensing-presentation-trento.html">this presentation</a> by Carlo Piana. </i><br />
<i><br /></i></div>
</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-31278050179394429612014-02-10T14:16:00.001-08:002014-02-10T14:16:57.951-08:00Louisiana State University faculty member supports student Wikipedia editing<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Wikipedia_Education_Program_workshop_at_Louisiana_State_University_2.JPG/350px-Wikipedia_Education_Program_workshop_at_Louisiana_State_University_2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="180" src="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8d/Wikipedia_Education_Program_workshop_at_Louisiana_State_University_2.JPG/350px-Wikipedia_Education_Program_workshop_at_Louisiana_State_University_2.JPG" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size: x-small;">Ambassador Becky Carmichael trains<br />a student during a Wikipedia workshop</span></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
If you teach in the science department at Louisiana State University
and want to incorporate a Wikipedia assignment into your classroom, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:B.J.Carmichael">Becky Carmichael</a> is the person to meet. She began volunteering as a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_program/Ambassadors">Wikipedia Ambassador</a> in the <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Education_program">Wikipedia Education Program in the United States</a> in 2011, during her graduate studies and work as a teaching assistant for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:United_States_Education_Program/Courses/Conservation_Biology_%28Kyle_Harms%29">a Conservation Biology course</a>.
Since she had taught the class many times and was familiar with the
content, she said it was a great way to focus on “the nuances of
Wikipedia.” Then Becky became the Science Coordinator with <a href="http://sites01.lsu.edu/wp/cxc/">Communication across the Curriculum</a>,
a Louisiana State University program that helps undergraduates improve
their writing and technological communication skills. She already
understood the basics of editing Wikipedia and how to incorporate it
into a classroom assignment, and now she could reach instructors in
other areas of science.<br />
To date, Becky has helped 13 classes use Wikipedia as a teaching
tool. With so much experience as a Wikipedia Ambassador, she has
developed her own training routine and learned the importance of
communicating these assignments’ potential impact.<br />
“For students, I like to introduce Wikipedia with a pre-workshop
homework set,” she says. “The homework is very similar to the Wikipedia
Ambassador training I received in 2010, with the addition of the online “<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Training/For_students">training for students</a>”
— a truly valuable resource! During the workshop, we can get into
details about what Wikipedia is, the importance of sharing information,
and what they will gain from the experience. I emphasize that as members
of the university, we have access to a wealth of information and
resources the general public may not. We can give our research and
exploration of a topic purpose by sharing with others.”<br />
When instructors work with Becky to develop Wikipedia assignments,
they get advice from someone who teaches with Wikipedia herself.<br />
“I teach an honors-level course for non-science majors, <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Program:Louisiana_State_University/HNRS_1035_Natural_Disturbances_%26_Society_%28Spring_2014%29">Natural Disturbances and Society</a>,”
Becky says. “This is a course I developed to examine how natural
disturbances (e.g., fires, hurricanes, invasive species) influence our
lives and how society can influence disturbance events. My class is
currently proposing creation of articles or the significant contribution
to existing pages related to the course. It’s a great class, which
encourages science literacy and exploration, with interesting
connections to society, which may currently not be included in some
disturbance or disaster articles.”<br />
In Becky’s experience, in the beginning of the term, “students are
initially uncomfortable with contributing to Wikipedia. They think it
will break and become intimidated because of the global visibility. And
who wouldn’t be nervous? Their work is going to be read by potentially
millions of people, not just their instructor. I tackle this by having
the students provide each other feedback on drafts in their sandboxes
first. It is still intimidating to let classmates review their work, but
I found that the students really put forth even better initial drafts.
They also help each other learn better communication skills, sharing
editing tricks and grammatical advice. It’s amazing how much the quality
of contributions improved. The feedback exercise was also one of the
aspects students really found useful stating they appreciated learning
how to clarify and strengthen their writing.”<br />
One of the great things about partnering with a university
professional is that her Wikipedia Ambassador responsibilities fit so
neatly into her job description.<br />
“My focus as the Science Coordinator is to aid undergraduates in
effectively disseminating scientific information through writing,
speaking, visual, and technological means. Additionally, I assist
faculty in course and assignment design that improves communication and
critical analysis skills. Wikipedia can be the perfect way to achieve
both of these skill sets because it is a cooperative writing process
based in technology,” Becky says.<br />
Her work as a Wikipedia Ambassador advances her mission within her
career, and her role at the university gives her a great opportunity to
influence students. By providing “one-on-one assistance to both faculty
and students learning how to edit and navigate the site,” Becky makes
sure assignments will not only achieve important learning objectives but
also will positively impact Wikipedia.<br />
As Becky has become a campus expert in teaching with Wikipedia, she
has welcomed the opportunity to reach course goals creatively.<br />
“I enjoy brainstorming ways to approach an assignment, make
connections to real-world applications, and methods to excite the
students,” Becky says. “I am passionate about improving science literacy
and can truly ‘geek out’ over science topics. I like that Wikipedia
represents sharing of knowledge and the increase of literacy in many
topics in a friendly environment. The community involvement can be
impactful on both student learning as well as inspiration for continual
discovery.”<br />
<i>Jami Mathewson</i><br />
<i>Program Manager, Wiki Education Foundation</i><br />
<ul class="post-meta">
<li><span class="post-meta-key">Copyright notes:</span> <a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Wikipedia+Education+Program+workshop+at+Louisiana+State+University+2.JPG">"Wikipedia Education Program workshop at Louisiana State University 2"</a> by Becky Carmichael, under <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode">CC-BY-SA 3.0</a>, from Wikimedia Commons.</li>
</ul>
__________________________<br />
<br />
<i>Originally posted by Jami Mathewson on February 10, 2014; text is released under a CC by 3.0 license (<a href="http://blog.wikimedia.org/2014/02/10/louisiana-state-university-faculty-member-supports-student-wikipedia-editing/">see original source</a>).</i></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-74058895746564069872014-02-07T15:10:00.000-08:002014-02-07T15:10:02.067-08:00Call to all open source communities: Emphasize inclusion<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/image-full-size/images/business/BIZ_DebucketizeOrgChart_A.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/image-full-size/images/business/BIZ_DebucketizeOrgChart_A.png" height="179" width="320" /></a></div>
As a woman in open source, I have found that the values of community,
open development, and flat organizational structure appeal equally to
both men and women. The ability of local organizers to freely define
what type of culture they are building allows them to adapt in order to
appeal to the surrounding culture, while striving to improve access.<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span> <br />
The <b>gender balance </b>in the field of design is the opposite of the FOSS
community, because the majority of visual artists are female. In art,
gender is discussed openly as an aspect of the theory used to explain
visual communication. For example, part of the typical peer-review
process is critique, the goal of which is to contextualize visual
communication by discussing the culture, gender, identity, economics,
and psychological factors which influenced the artwork, so the artist
can understand how they personally fit into the community in which they
practice. I began as an outsider to both technology and the FOSS
community, so it was both interesting and frustrating to realize that
much of the communication and organization of FOSS communities was
framed without acknowledgement to the diversity of communication styles
and the backgrounds of potential community members.<br />
In 2011, I was accepted to the OPW to work on high contrast icon
themes for the <b>GNOME desktop</b>. This started my deep dive into the
fascinating world of Linux. Having access to an open code base, sharing
my work in the open, and receiving constant feedback from the community
was overwhelming at first. The learning curve was steep, but the
excitement I felt about having access to open knowledge, the support of a
community dedicated to sharing knowledge freely, and to pushing the
boundaries of what we did kept me coming back for more even on the most
frustrating days.<br />
My OPW internship brought me into the FOSS community. It also taught
me to talk freely about my experiences as a woman in the computer
science field, and sometimes that means knocking on the same doors over
and over until you are let in. Sometimes it means acknowledging that
communication styles needs to shift in order to <em>emphasize inclusion</em>.
Other times it means speaking up about what your community values and
how to allocate resources to benefit all participants equally. OPW was
the first door to open for me, and my involvement showed me that
persistence, hard work, and enthusiasm can bring success no matter who
you are or where you start from.<br />
As time went on I became involved in coding for GNOME. In 2012, I
started to contribute to GNOME’s Documents application, which was the
first application to be developed in the new GNOME 3 style. Because the
style is still in its early stages, the themes and widgets are being
prototyped in the applications before they are integrated into GTK+ (the
widget library) and the standard desktop themes. Last summer I wrote my
own GNOME application: a sound recorder for the desktop. I started by
planning my code to fulfill the requirements of a series of mockups by a
community member. I went on to code the application as a Google Summer
of Code (GSoC) project.<br />
During the initial development phase I worked with Reda Lazri (the
original designer), Sebastian Dröge (a GStreamer core maintainer who
mentored me), Hylke Bons, and Garrett LeSage (both of whom are community
members and design for GNOME). GSoC allowed me to immerse myself in
GNOME’s developer community and learn about the code base from core
contributors.<br />
When a fellow GNOME contributor, Jim Campbell, suggested that we
start a group to focus on GNOME and GNU/Linux, I saw it as a way to give
back to my community and work to increase diversity. The FOSS community
in Chicago is small, and for the first year I was the only woman who
attended our events. From the beginning we emphasized that our group was
open to anyone who was interested in participating by adopting a code
of conduct. As time went on our community began to grow and started to
be more representative of the larger community here in the city.
Engaging women has happened slowly but without any special intervention
on our part.<br />
We invite members to bring their projects to hackfests and share
their knowledge by giving talks. People have come to work on GTK+
bindings for the Go programming language, documentation for Gedit, the
fundraising campaign for MediaGoblin, and the website for the Open
Science Framework, among other things. Talks have ranged from a recent
SaltStack tutorial, which our members participated in using their own
four-server demo environments running on server space donated by
Rackspace—to talks on Wayland, Emacs, and personal data security. All of
the projects and presentations center around the use of open source
technologies. Our role as organizers is to encourage participation and
free exchange of ideas and resources among participants.<br />
Being a woman in computer science is both an exciting and challenging
experience. To me it means being exposed to emerging technologies,
solving new and difficult problems, and <b>working to promote Free and Open
Source Software</b> (FOSS) in my local community.<br />
I think that outreach can be successfully addressed using the same
template as other questions in open source: by recognizing diversity as a
key element of success, by facilitating transparency and equal access
to knowledge, and by letting the community organize itself around a
shared vision. Having women who are visibly engaged in and promoting
involvement in the community seems to be one way to send a clear message
that women can participate and succeed in FOSS.<br />
_______________________<br />
<br />
<i>Originally <span class="submitted">Posted 6 Feb 2014 by Meg Ford <a href="http://opensource.com/business/14/2/open-community-emphasize-inclusion-for-all">here</a>; license CC by-sa.</span></i><br />
<br /></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-22595248863130953392014-02-07T01:02:00.002-08:002014-02-07T01:15:48.316-08:00The European Union Public Licence (EUPL)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/9/97/Eupl.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/9/97/Eupl.png" /></a></div>
<b>Abstract:</b> The EUPL is an OSI-approved free or open source software licence, copyrighted by the European Union. It was drafted by the Commission as from 2005 and launched in January 2007 as a share alike (or copyleft) style licence. At the end of 2012, about 500 projects have been licensed under the EUPL by European institutions, Member States and the private sector. A new version 1.2 of the EUPL has been drafted in 2013 and the European Commission reported that it will be published before the end of the year 2013. What makes the EUPL unique is its multilingual working value, specific warranties, references to the Court of Justice of the European Union and its provisions related to licence compatibility, making its copyleft “variable” for facilitating interoperability.<br />
<br />
<i>A paper by Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz published in IFOSS Law Review. </i><br />
<br />
<b>Table of content </b><br />
1. Origin of the EUPL<br />
2. EUPL and Licence Proliferation<br />
3. The EUPL Used as a “Reference”<br />
4. Rights Granted by the EUPL v1.1<br />
5. What Made the EUPL v1.1 Specific?<br />
6. Changes Planned in the EUPL v1.2<br />
7 How is the EUPL's Variable Copyleft Implemented?<br />
a) The Normal Copyleft Reuse Under the EUPL<br />
b) Exception to the “Normal Copyleft” (Reuse in Other Copyleft Works)<br />
c) Exception to the Exception<br />
Conclusion<br />
References <br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<b><a href="http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/91/165">READ THE ARTICLE</a></b></div>
<br />
_________________________________<br />
<br />
<b><span style="font-size: x-small;">Licence and Attribution</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This paper was published in the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, Volume 5, Issue 2 (December 2013). It originally appeared online at http://www.ifosslr.org.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This article should be cited as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Schmitz, Patrice-Emmanuel (2013) 'The European Union Public Licence (EUPL)', International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 5(2), pp 121 – 136<br />DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5033/ifosslr.v5i2.91">10.5033/ifosslr.v5i2.91</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Copyright © 2013 Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This article is licensed under a Creative Commons UK (England and Wales) 2.0 licence, no derivative works, attribution, CC-BY-ND available at<br /><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/uk/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/uk/</a> </span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">As a special exception, the author expressly permits faithful translations of the entire document into any language, provided that the resulting translation (which may include an attribution to the translator) is shared alike. This paragraph is part of the paper, and must be included when copying or translating the paper.</span></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-63140951097079932632014-02-05T14:22:00.002-08:002014-02-05T14:26:31.319-08:00Five guys to defend software freedom in Italy<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3oL6F_sUU5B0uBTg08sEaAKkWzv_OMGfGAYas15gEHwNZ8zt2rRhOWbrtBq6J_TPaY44gLbesdpTrEt5OYpIFNJ-Vji_f2dlfKjYkDCTC8wZ3gX0ArflcrucxomaP1QtR2ZB5Orzs5HFg/s1600/logo-array.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3oL6F_sUU5B0uBTg08sEaAKkWzv_OMGfGAYas15gEHwNZ8zt2rRhOWbrtBq6J_TPaY44gLbesdpTrEt5OYpIFNJ-Vji_f2dlfKjYkDCTC8wZ3gX0ArflcrucxomaP1QtR2ZB5Orzs5HFg/s1600/logo-array.png" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">A new concept law firm<br />
...focused on openness</td></tr>
</tbody></table>
Italian Carlo Piana and Giovanni Battista Gallus, pre-eminent lawyers
with more than 20 years of experience into the IT field, reinvented the
concept of specialized law firm creating Array. Founded in 2009 as a
group of independent lawyers (“Array is an array”), Array is reborn in
2014 as a loosely knit law firm composed by professionals with an
outstanding profile in the fields of Information Technology, Media and
Telecommunication (TMT), with long standing experience in consultancy as
well as in litigation in civil, criminal, administrative and ADR
procedures.<br />
Members of Array have also <b>a focus on Free and Open Source Software,
Open Content, Open Data, which in recent years has become mainstream</b>,
the fastest growing trend in the IT sector and one of the most
challenging legal fields.<br />
Within Array are also <a href="http://www.troiano.org/">Guglielmo Troiano</a>, <a href="http://www.aliprandi.org/">Simone Aliprandi</a> and <a href="http://www.array.eu/it/su-di-noi/#alberto-pianon">Alberto Pianon</a> who are distributed across the Italian territory with offices in
Milan, Vicenza and Cagliari but working throughout the European market
by offering advice to clients ranging from small projects to large
communities, from SMBs to Fortune 500 corporations.<br />
<br />
<b>Carlo Piana</b><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Piana_small.png/375px-Piana_small.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5e/Piana_small.png/375px-Piana_small.png" height="200" width="150" /></a></div>
Lawyer in Milan and member of the local <a href="http://www.ordineavvocatimilano.it/">bar</a>,
Carlo is a pre-eminent Italian IT Lawyer, working almost exclusively in
the Information Technology and Telecommunication Law, a field where he
begun consulting on 1994. Passionate about technology and Free Software
(Open Source) he has been active in many battles for Digital Rights and
against monopolization, as with the antitrust cases in the Software Workgroup Servers field (where he represented the <a href="http://fsfeurope.org/">Free Software Foundation Europe</a> and the <a href="http://www.samba.org/">Samba Team</a>) or with the standardization process of XML document formats (like DIS29500, also known as ECMA 376 or Office Open XML – OOXML),
or again more recently in one of the largest IT acquisition ever,
involving the World largest Free Software company as target.<br />
General Counsel for the <a href="http://www.fsfeurope.org/">Free Software Foundation Europe</a>, he is member of the Team of <a href="http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/ftf/ftf.en.html">Freedom Task Force</a> and approved legal expert in Italy and Europe on matters pertaining Free Software and Open Source. He is also President of the board of the Protocol Freedom Information Foundation.<br />
[see also his <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_Piana">Wikipedia biography</a>]<br />
<br />
<b>Giovanni Battista Gallus</b><br />
Copyright, Criminal, Data Protection/Privacy and IT and New Technologies law are his main areas of expertise. After a <i>cum laude</i> degree in Law in Italy, he moves to Great Britain for the Master of Laws in Maritime Law e Information Technology Law at the <a href="http://www.ucl.ac.uk/" target="_blank" title="UCL">University College London – UCL</a>. Afterwhile, he earns a PhD. In 2009 he obtains the European Certificate on Cybercrime and Electronic Evidence (ECCE). He is ISO 27001:2005 Certified Lead Auditor (Information Security Management System).<br />
<a href="http://www.studiogallus.it/images/stories/G.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.studiogallus.it/images/stories/G.jpg" /></a>Member of the <a href="http://www.ordineavvocaticagliari.it/" target="_blank" title="Ordine Avvocati di Cagliari">Bar of Cagliari</a>
since 1996, admitted to the Supreme Court since 2009, he is a member of
the Department “Informatica Giuridica” at the Università Statale of
Milan and he is a teacher at the Post-Graduate Course in Digital Forensics, Privacy, Cloud e Cyber Warfare. Fellow of <a href="http://nexa.polito.it/" target="_blank" title="Nexa Center">Nexa Center on Internet e Society </a>and of the <a href="http://logioshermes.org/" target="_blank" title="Hermes Center">Hermes Center for Transparency and Digital Human Rights</a>.
Author of several publications on the above mentioned areas and speaker
at the main national and international congresses, he sides his legal
profession an intense teaching activity, mainly in the field of
copyright, Free/Open Source Software, data protection, IT security and
digital forensics. <br />
<br />
<b>Read more on the official website <a href="http://www.array.eu/about-us/">www.array.eu</a>.</b></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-33376127114715478662014-02-04T09:01:00.000-08:002014-02-04T09:01:45.097-08:00The Women of OpenStack talk outreach, education, and mentoring<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<table cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="float: left; margin-right: 1em; text-align: left;"><tbody>
<tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/image-full-size/images/life/osdc_eventscene_life.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" src="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/image-full-size/images/life/osdc_eventscene_life.png" height="179" width="320" /></a></td></tr>
<tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;"><i><span style="font-size: x-small;"><span class="node-main-image-caption">Image credits: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/usnationalarchives/3873935211/" target="blank">The U.S. National Archives</a></span></span></i></td></tr>
</tbody></table>
In the open source world, a women-only event seems counter-intuitive.
Yet I am finding reasons for such events the more I attend them.<br />
At the OpenStack Summit, a twice-a-year event where OpenStack
contributors get together to plan the next release, the Women of
OpenStack group has set up events where we invite the women first. Men
aren't excluded, but our hope is to get more OpenStack women together. I
can hardly capture the value of getting together with other women in
OpenStack at the Summit, but here goes.<i> </i><br />
<br />
<i>Why do we get together apart from the rest of the conference?</i><br />
<br />
We have a couple of themes for our meetups. We talk about outreach to
more women, especially in education as early as elementary school and
definitely through college. Also, we meet our GNOME Outreach Program for
Women interns in person for the first time! That’s a huge reason for
these in-person gatherings: getting to know each other personally. But
we also want to find concrete ways to make our meetings meaningful, so
we talk about a few tracks for our goals: outreach, education, career
planning, and mentoring. We come up with ideas for our goals, and we
keep discussing them at each Summit. It’s like a design summit session
for women of OpenStack. And, in between Summits we stay in touch via
LinkedIn.<br />
<br />
We look for speaking opportunities for women in the cloud. We have
held workshops geared towards outreach to women, introducing lots of
technical women to OpenStack. For example, this past year Iccha Sethi,
Jessica Lucci, and I ran a workshop at the Grace Hopper Open Source Day,
and Anita Kuno, Lyz Krumbach Joseph, and Ryan Lane ran a CodeChix
workshop. We generally <i>forge the bonds that hold together a common minority</i>
by talking about schools, parenting, gin as a vegetable, shoes,
traveling wardrobes, and how does this OpenStack Neutron plug-in work,
anyway?<br />
<br />
We get to know each other. I sat down across from a woman who
mentioned she works at IBM in Austin. I said, "Oh, I work at Rackspace
in Austin." She said, "Where do you live?" I said, "Oh, in northwest
Austin." She said, "Wait, where do you live!?" As it turns out, we both
have fourth graders who go to the same neighborhood school! It’s a small
world with tight connections in Austin for high-tech women. It seems
impossible with the numbers game we’d know each other’s schools,
streets, neighborhoods, and so on, but in reality we’re rare enough
birds of a feather that it is natural for us to get together and get
know each other well. We can talk about families, parenting, all in a
technology setting, without any concerns for: "Is it okay to talk about
this here?" <i>We are glad to share.</i> There are so few of us that we need to be diligent about our outreach and staying connected.<br />
<br />
This year we had a question at the OpenStack Summit related to under
representation of minorities in a panel with the OpenStack Technical
Committee. I couldn't quite gather my thoughts to talk about it on the
panel, but I blogged about it later because it's vitally important as we
grow as a community. We need to be hyper-vigilant about impostor
syndrome, uncovered by researchers who found that many high-achieving
females believe they are not intelligent and that others over-evaluate
them. Believe me, I have to fake it to make it daily. This is part of
the reality of questioning whether you belong in open source, whether
you have leadership potential, and whether you have the technical chops.<br />
<br />
Our culture as a community may reward the most confident, but in
reality as we grow as a community it’s important to understand that some
cultures do not view confidence in the same way, and some people do not
naturally exude confidence. We’re also looking at
English-as-a-second-language (ESL) increasing in prevalence in our
community, and a former Outreach Program for Women intern, Anita Kuno,
recently edited our Technical Committee charter to be gender-neutral.
These efforts matter. These gatherings give us a chance to question the
normal in a safe arena. We are also able to track numbers of women
attending OpenStack Summits. We won't know if we're improving if we
don't track it, and we can't improve if we don't start somewhere.<br />
<br />
The best way I can think to describe why it matters for women to
network with other women is there's an establishment of trust, that this
community is also your community. We don't tend to walk into a room
full of all-women in open source events. More often you walk into a
room, try to figure out just where to sit, try to find someone else you
recognize and can talk to, and see if you know any regulars from other
areas. With small networks of women in open source, my vision is that
we'll walk into the room and just know we belong. Then we won't ask
questions like: "How can we get more women in open source?" We'll ask:
"How can we get more people in open source?"<br />
_______________________<br />
<br />
<i>Originally <span class="submitted">Posted 3 Feb 2014 by Anne Gentle <a href="http://opensource.com/business/14/2/women-of-openstack-conference-group">here</a>.</span></i> </div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-76614154068008879652014-02-03T16:07:00.002-08:002014-02-03T16:12:39.961-08:00The free software definition (What is free software?)<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJxXcQfkdsdw48jlaZHxX24iYOnfPqmvKWDTEPL3nnUoF60T6U" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="195" src="https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQJxXcQfkdsdw48jlaZHxX24iYOnfPqmvKWDTEPL3nnUoF60T6U" width="200" /></a></div>
<h3>
The Free Software Definition</h3>
<blockquote>
The free software definition presents the criteria for whether a
particular software program qualifies as free software. From time to
time we revise this definition, to clarify it or to resolve questions
about subtle issues. See the <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#History">History section</a>
below for a list of changes that affect the definition of free
software.
</blockquote>
<br />
“Free software” means software that respects users'
freedom and community. Roughly, it means that <b>the users have the
freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the
software</b>. Thus, “free software” is a matter of
liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of
“free” as in “free speech,” not as in
“free beer”.
<br />
We campaign for these freedoms because everyone deserves them. With
these freedoms, the users (both individually and collectively) control
the program and what it does for them. When users don't control the
program, we call it a “nonfree” or
“proprietary” program. The nonfree program controls the
users, and the developer controls the program; this makes the
program <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html">
an instrument of unjust power</a>.
<br />
A program is free software if the program's users have the
four essential freedoms:
<br />
<ul>
<li>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).</li>
<li>The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it
does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source
code is a precondition for this.
</li>
<li>The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
(freedom 2).
</li>
<li>The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole
community a chance to benefit from your changes.
Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
</li>
</ul>
A program is free software if it gives users adequately all of these
freedoms. Otherwise, it is nonfree. While we can distinguish various
nonfree distribution schemes in terms of how far they fall short of
being free, we consider them all equally unethical.<br />
The rest of this page clarifies certain points about what makes
specific freedoms adequate or not.<br />
Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to
redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either
gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#exportcontrol">anyone anywhere</a>. Being free to do these
things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay
for permission to do so.
<br />
You should also have the freedom to make modifications and use them
privately in your own work or play, without even mentioning that they
exist. If you do publish your changes, you should not be required to
notify anyone in particular, or in any particular way.
<br />
The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person
or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of
overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it
with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is
the <i>user's</i> purpose that matters, not the <i>developer's</i>
purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes,
and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it
for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.
<br />
The freedom to redistribute copies must include binary or executable
forms of the program, as well as source code, for both modified and
unmodified versions. (Distributing programs in runnable form is necessary
for conveniently installable free operating systems.) It is OK if there
is no way to produce a binary or executable form for a certain program
(since some languages don't support that feature), but you must have the
freedom to redistribute such forms should you find or develop a way to
make them.
<br />
In order for freedoms 1 and 3 (the freedom to make changes and the
freedom to publish the changed versions) to be meaningful, you must have
access to the source code of the program. Therefore, accessibility of
source code is a necessary condition for free software. Obfuscated
“source code” is not real source code and does not count
as source code.
<br />
Freedom 1 includes the freedom to use your changed version in place of
the original. If the program is delivered in a product designed to
run someone else's modified versions but refuse to run yours — a
practice known as “tivoization” or “lockdown”,
or (in its practitioners' perverse terminology) as “secure
boot” — freedom 1 becomes a theoretical fiction rather
than a practical freedom. This is not sufficient. In other words,
these binaries are not free software even if the source code they are
compiled from is free.
<br />
One important way to modify a program is by merging in available free
subroutines and modules. If the program's license says that you
cannot merge in a suitably licensed existing module — for instance, if it
requires you to be the copyright holder of any code you add — then the
license is too restrictive to qualify as free.
<br />
Freedom 3 includes the freedom to release your modified versions
as free software. A free license may also permit other ways of
releasing them; in other words, it does not have to be
a <a href="https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a> license. However, a
license that requires modified versions to be nonfree does not qualify
as a free license.
<br />
In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be permanent and
irrevocable as long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the
software has the power to revoke the license, or retroactively add
restrictions to its terms, without your doing anything wrong to give
cause, the software is not free.
<br />
However, certain kinds of rules about the manner of distributing free
software are acceptable, when they don't conflict with the central
freedoms. For example, copyleft (very simply stated) is the rule that
when redistributing the program, you cannot add restrictions to deny
other people the central freedoms. This rule does not conflict with
the central freedoms; rather it protects them.
<br />
“Free software” does not mean “noncommercial”. A free
program must be available for commercial use, commercial development,
and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software
is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important.
You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have
obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies,
you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html">sell copies</a>.
<br />
Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter.
If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that
someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.
<br />
However, rules about how to package a modified version are acceptable,
if they don't substantively limit your freedom to release modified
versions, or your freedom to make and use modified versions privately.
Thus, it is acceptable for the license to require that you change the
name of the modified version, remove a logo, or identify your
modifications as yours. As long as these requirements are not so
burdensome that they effectively hamper you from releasing your
changes, they are acceptable; you're already making other changes to
the program, so you won't have trouble making a few more.
<br />
Rules that “if you make your version available in this way, you
must make it available in that way also” can be acceptable too,
on the same condition. An example of such an acceptable rule is one
saying that if you have distributed a
modified version and a previous developer asks for a copy of it, you
must send one. (Note that such a rule still leaves you the choice of
whether to distribute your version at all.) Rules that require release
of source code to the users for versions that you put into public use
are also acceptable.
<br />
A special issue arises when a license requires changing the name by
which the program will be invoked from other programs. That
effectively hampers you from releasing your changed version so that it
can replace the original when invoked by those other programs. This
sort of requirement is acceptable only if there's a suitable aliasing
facility that allows you to specify the original program's name as an
alias for the modified version.<br />
In the GNU project, we use
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/copyleft/copyleft.html">copyleft</a>
to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#Non-CopyleftedFreeSoftware">noncopylefted
free software</a> also exists. We believe there are important reasons why
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html">it is better to use copyleft</a>,
but if your program is noncopylefted free software, it is still basically
ethical. (See <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html">Categories of Free Software</a> for a description of how “free software,” “copylefted software” and other categories of software relate to each other.)
<br />
Sometimes government <a href="https://www.blogger.com/null" id="exportcontrol">export control regulations</a>
and trade sanctions can constrain your freedom to distribute copies of
programs internationally. Software developers do not have the power to
eliminate or override these restrictions, but what they can and must do
is refuse to impose them as conditions of use of the program. In this
way, the restrictions will not affect activities and people outside the
jurisdictions of these governments. Thus, free software licenses
must not require obedience to any nontrivial export regulations as a
condition of exercising any of the essential freedoms.
<br />
Merely mentioning the existence of export regulations, without making
them a condition of the license itself, is acceptable since it does
not restrict users. If an export regulation is actually trivial for
free software, then requiring it as a condition is not an actual
problem; however, it is a potential problem, since a later change in
export law could make the requirement nontrivial and thus render the
software nonfree.
<br />
Most free software licenses are based on copyright, and there are limits
on what kinds of requirements can be imposed through copyright. If a
copyright-based license respects freedom in the ways described above, it
is unlikely to have some other sort of problem that we never anticipated
(though this does happen occasionally). However, some free software
licenses are based on contracts, and contracts can impose a much larger
range of possible restrictions. That means there are many possible ways
such a license could be unacceptably restrictive and nonfree.
<br />
We can't possibly list all the ways that might happen. If a
contract-based license restricts the user in an unusual way that
copyright-based licenses cannot, and which isn't mentioned here as
legitimate, we will have to think about it, and we will probably conclude
it is nonfree.
<br />
When talking about free software, it is best to avoid using terms
like “give away” or “for free,” because those terms imply that
the issue is about price, not freedom. Some common terms such
as “piracy” embody opinions we hope you won't endorse. See
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html">Confusing Words and Phrases that
are Worth Avoiding</a> for a discussion of these terms. We also have
a list of proper <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/fs-translations.html">translations of
“free software”</a> into various languages.
<br />
Finally, note that criteria such as those stated in this free software
definition require careful thought for their interpretation. To decide
whether a specific software license qualifies as a free software license,
we judge it based on these criteria to determine whether it fits their
spirit as well as the precise words. If a license includes unconscionable
restrictions, we reject it, even if we did not anticipate the issue
in these criteria. Sometimes a license requirement raises an issue
that calls for extensive thought, including discussions with a lawyer,
before we can decide if the requirement is acceptable. When we reach
a conclusion about a new issue, we often update these criteria to make
it easier to see why certain licenses do or don't qualify.
<br />
If you are interested in whether a specific license qualifies as a free
software license, see our <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html">list
of licenses</a>. If the license you are concerned with is not
listed there, you can ask us about it by sending us email at
<a href="mailto:licensing@gnu.org"><licensing@gnu.org></a>.
<br />
If you are contemplating writing a new license, please contact the
Free Software Foundation first by writing to that address. The
proliferation of different free software licenses means increased work
for users in understanding the licenses; we may be able to help you
find an existing free software license that meets your needs.
<br />
If that isn't possible, if you really need a new license, with our
help you can ensure that the license really is a free software license
and avoid various practical problems.
<br />
<h3 id="beyond-software">
</h3>
<h3 id="beyond-software">
Beyond Software</h3>
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-doc.html">Software manuals must be free</a>,
for the same reasons that software must be free, and because the
manuals are in effect part of the software.
<br />
The same arguments also make sense for other kinds of works of
practical use — that is to say, works that embody useful knowledge,
such as educational works and reference
works. <a href="http://wikipedia.org/">Wikipedia</a> is the best-known
example.
<br />
Any kind of work <i>can</i> be free, and the definition of free software
has been extended to a definition of <a href="http://freedomdefined.org/">
free cultural works</a> applicable to any kind of works.<br />
<br />
<h3 id="open-source">
Open Source?</h3>
Another group has started using the term “open source” to mean
something close (but not identical) to “free software”. We
prefer the term “free software” because, once you have heard that
it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The
word “open” <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">
never refers to freedom</a>.<br />
<br />
<h3 id="History">
History</h3>
From time to time we revise this Free Software Definition. Here is
the list of substantive changes, along with links to show exactly what
was changed.<br />
<ul>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.121&r2=1.122">Version
1.122</a>: An export control requirement is a real problem if the
requirement is nontrivial; otherwise it is only a potential problem.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.117&r2=1.118">Version
1.118</a>: Clarification: the issue is limits on your right to modify,
not on what modifications you have made. And modifications are not limited
to “improvements”</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.110&r2=1.111">Version
1.111</a>: Clarify 1.77 by saying that only
retroactive <i>restrictions</i> are unacceptable. The copyright
holders can always grant additional <i>permission</i> for use of the
work by releasing the work in another way in parallel.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.104&r2=1.105">Version
1.105</a>: Reflect, in the brief statement of freedom 1, the point
(already stated in version 1.80) that it includes really using your modified
version for your computing.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.91&r2=1.92">Version
1.92</a>: Clarify that obfuscated code does not qualify as source code.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.89&r2=1.90">Version
1.90</a>: Clarify that freedom 3 means the right to distribute copies
of your own modified or improved version, not a right to participate
in someone else's development project.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.88&r2=1.89">Version
1.89</a>: Freedom 3 includes the right to release modified versions as
free software.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.79&r2=1.80">Version
1.80</a>: Freedom 1 must be practical, not just theoretical;
i.e., no tivoization.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.76&r2=1.77">Version
1.77</a>: Clarify that all retroactive changes to the license are
unacceptable, even if it's not described as a complete
replacement.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.73&r2=1.74">Version
1.74</a>: Four clarifications of points not explicit enough, or stated
in some places but not reflected everywhere:
<ul>
<li>"Improvements" does not mean the license can
substantively limit what kinds of modified versions you can release.
Freedom 3 includes distributing modified versions, not just changes.</li>
<li>The right to merge in existing modules
refers to those that are suitably licensed.</li>
<li>Explicitly state the conclusion of the point about export controls.</li>
<li>Imposing a license change constitutes revoking the old license.</li>
</ul>
</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.56&r2=1.57">Version
1.57</a>: Add "Beyond Software" section.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.45&r2=1.46">Version
1.46</a>: Clarify whose purpose is significant in the freedom to run
the program for any purpose.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.40&r2=1.41">Version
1.41</a>: Clarify wording about contract-based licenses.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.39&r2=1.40">Version
1.40</a>: Explain that a free license must allow to you use other
available free software to create your modifications.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.38&r2=1.39">Version
1.39</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
provide source for versions of the software you put into public
use.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.30&r2=1.31">Version
1.31</a>: Note that it is acceptable for a license to require you to
identify yourself as the author of modifications. Other minor
clarifications throughout the text.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.22&r2=1.23">Version
1.23</a>: Address potential problems related to contract-based
licenses.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.15&r2=1.16">Version
1.16</a>: Explain why distribution of binaries is important.</li>
<li><a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&r1=1.10&r2=1.11">Version
1.11</a>: Note that a free license may require you to send a copy of
versions you distribute to the author.</li>
</ul>
There are gaps in the version numbers shown above because there are
other changes in this page that do not affect the definition or its
interpretations. For instance, the list does not include changes in
asides, formatting, spelling, punctuation, or other parts of the page.
You can review the complete list of changes to the page through
the <a href="http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewvc/www/philosophy/free-sw.html?root=www&view=log">cvsweb
interface</a>.<br />
<br />
__________________________<br />
<br />
<i>Copyright © 1996-2002, 2004-2007, 2009, 2010, 2012, 2013
Free Software Foundation, Inc. This page is licensed under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/" rel="license">Creative
Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>. Taken from <a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html">www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html</a>.</i><br />
<br />
</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-51409756727948273622014-02-01T12:44:00.000-08:002014-02-01T12:44:14.897-08:00Like Arduino? Miniaturize your project with TinyCircuits<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/image-full-size/images/life/osdc_general_openhardware.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/image-full-size/images/life/osdc_general_openhardware.png" height="110" width="200" /></a></div>
When you walk into the cavernous, old tire plant of <a href="http://www.canalplace.com/" target="_blank" title="website">Canal Place</a>
in Akron, Ohio, the last thing that you'd expect to find in this big
building is such a "tiny" treasure. Unexpected though it may be, this is
where Ken Burns and the TinyCircuits team has set up shop, and it's
where they make tiny open source hardware treasures: miniaturized
Arduino compatible circuits.<br />
Ken Burns is the founder of TinyCircuits and has always been
fascinated with computers. He first got access to a computer, an Apple
2, when he was six years old at a local library, for only 15 minutes a
week. He continued working with computers, earned a degree in electrical
engineering at the University of Akron, and eventually began working at
AVID Technologies, Inc., a company that does product design in
Twinsburg.<br />
At AVID, he says, "I noticed a common thread—smart sensor modules
people would want put into their products." Eventually, he had the
inspiration for <a href="https://tiny-circuits.com/" target="_blank" title="TinyCircuits website">TinyCircuits</a> and started a business around open source hardware and electronics.<br />
The <a href="http://tiny-circuits.com/products/tinyduino/" target="_blank" title="TinyDuino">TinyDunio</a> won them the <a href="http://postscapes.com/awards/winners" target="_blank" title="award">Internet of Things Award</a> for Open Source Project of the Year in 2012.<br />
TinyCircuits makes products exactly like what their name implies. The
TinyDuino is the size of a quarter but is as powerful as the Arduino
Uno. There are many different types of low cost, open source boards that
are made at TinyCircuits. The most popular product is the TinyDuino
starter kit (includes the processor board, USB board, and proto boards).
TinyCircuits' electronics also have the expandability of an Arduino
board. Using TinyShields, you can snap on capabilities like an
accelerometer, WiFi, and GPS. <br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/resize/images/business-uploads/tinycircuits-520x293.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://opensource.com/sites/default/files/resize/images/business-uploads/tinycircuits-520x293.jpg" height="225" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">"The difference is the
miniaturization of it while maintaining the expandability of the core
Arduino platform. We have a miniature platform that you can still expand
on. It is fairly easy to add WiFi, GPS, motor control. It keeps the
simplicity of the Arduino and keeps it useful for projects that need to
be small."</span><br />
TinyCircuits got its start in 2011 with a lot of help from the open
source community. The team was able to raise over $100,000 in
donations from their Kickstarter campaign to start manufacturing and
distributing TinyCircuits. This also kickstarted a community of
followers, users, and supporters, particularly those who were already
users of Arduino boards. Because TinyCircuit products are compatible
with the Arduino products, the company fulfills the need of a niche
market and leverages the Arduino community.<span style="letter-spacing: 0px;"> </span><br />
"The traditional view of open source is about software. Open source
hardware has been around for about 7 to 10 years. Making hardware open
and building a community around it is a huge advantage in hardware like
in software," Burns said. "The community behind it keeps it alive, keeps
it useful."<br />
Many users have come up with exceptional uses for TinyCircuits due to
their low power usage, customability, and size. For example, a PhD
student from England was better able to observe climate data over large
expanses of land. He used his TinyCircuits to measure the basic
environmental factors of an African game preserve for a year, and thus
he had more data points and all for a much lower cost than the typical,
expensive equipment.<br />
TinyCircuits can also "stir a kid's imagination and make them use
their engineering mind even though they might not think they have one
yet," said Burns. <span style="letter-spacing: 0px;">Users tend to
primarily be hobbyists and students who are already somewhat familiar
with the Arduino board and other open source electronics, but who have a
need to 'miniaturize' their projects.</span><br />
____________________________<br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://opensource.com/business/14/1/tinycircuits">Original source</a> posted 29 Jan 2014 by Lauren Egt; license: CC by-sa </i><br />
<br />
</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-84213546101346251242014-01-31T05:13:00.000-08:002014-01-31T05:13:21.638-08:00Thoughts on Open Innovation: a book edited by Shane Coughlan<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM2aonS1OLZtY7cWtUIlyBaNBbPDL2q2MYBYxpCgwc8flA_LVWisuzkfAdrXIcZ-d0VnZVd6Itwr0a8BApzb4nTcqcehZdMCMi_jWqm1ozVP0Hn7990B2Dd8x00DX1wTNb4Mlh4Sr0-hK-/s1600/coughlan-book.jpeg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjM2aonS1OLZtY7cWtUIlyBaNBbPDL2q2MYBYxpCgwc8flA_LVWisuzkfAdrXIcZ-d0VnZVd6Itwr0a8BApzb4nTcqcehZdMCMi_jWqm1ozVP0Hn7990B2Dd8x00DX1wTNb4Mlh4Sr0-hK-/s1600/coughlan-book.jpeg" /></a></div>
The book “Thoughts on Open Innovation” was launched at the Digital Agenda Summit in Dublin in June 2013. The book aims to address the challenges surrounding Open Innovation; its precise scope, its impact on daily life and the policy measures needed to sustain it continue to be heavily discussed and debated. Its predecessor was “The First Openforum Academy Conference Proceedings” from September 2012 which also was a collection of essays mainly considering Open Innovation in the context of economics, society and global affairs, and this new book, on the other hand, covers openness more as it relates to software, data and access.<br />
<br />
The introduction to the book is by Karel De Vriendt, a retired IT expert who worked for the European Commission for twenty years being actively involved in initiatives such as the Open Source Observatory and Repository (OSOR). He attempts to explain the basic concept of Open Innovation by first referring to the definition introduced by Professor Henry Chesbrough of University of California Berkeley but, however, today, the book claims, Open Innovation has a broader meaning and is part of the other “open” concepts, including Open Knowledge, Open Data and Open Source Software. The basic idea, the introduction continues, is that “by collaborating with others, by re-using (and by being allowed to re-use) the results of the efforts of others and by allowing others to use and improve the results of our efforts, we all get better.”<br />
<br />
The book is introduced as attempting to address the following questions: “[H]ow can we balance openness with the need of companies to stay competitive and to make a profit ... and to provide enough incentives to bright spirits to continue to innovate? Is openness an absolute good: should all knowledge, all data, all software, all standards etc. be open or are there situations where openness should be avoided...? How do we organise the involvement of as many individuals or organisations as possible in efforts to solve societal issues using Open Innovation? How do we organise Open Innovation projects and ensure that such projects are, and remain, 'Open'?”<br />
<br />
The author also explains the structure of the book, which is the following: It consists of an introduction and nine essays. The first two essays give the big picture. The two following essays describe examples on how Open Innovation works in practice. Then the next three essays deal with some of the most widely debated topics in the world of Openness: Openness and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) in Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) standardisation, Open Source Software in public procurement, and Open Source Software in the commercial world. The book then concludes with two more essays which are of a more philosophical and visionary nature. The review of the essays below is organised based on these groupings. [continue...]<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/92/167">READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE</a></div>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</div>
<br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><b>Licence and Attribution</b></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This paper was published in the International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, Volume 5, Issue 2 (December 2013). It originally appeared online at http://www.ifosslr.org.</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">This article should be cited as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">Kärkkäinen, Kari (2013) 'Book Review: Thoughts on Open Innovation', International Free and Open Source Software Law Review, 5(2), pp 137 – 144<br />DOI: <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5033/ifosslr.v5i2.92">10.5033/ifosslr.v5i2.92</a><br />Copyright © 2013 Kari Kärkkäinen.<br />This article is licensed under a Creative Commons UK (England and Wales) 2.0 licence, no derivative works, attribution, CC-BY-ND available at <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/uk/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/2.0/uk/ </a></span><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;">As a special exception, the author expressly permits faithful translations of the entire document into any language, provided that the resulting translation (which may include an attribution to the translator) is shared alike. This paragraph is part of the paper, and must be included when copying or translating the paper.</span><br />
<br /></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-64162514114130521582014-01-30T15:26:00.000-08:002014-01-30T15:26:59.937-08:00Honda releases 3D models under CC<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
This morning, auto manufacturer Honda <a href="http://world.honda.com/news/2014/41401283D-Data-Concept-Models/index.html">released 3D data for the exterior designs of several of its concept models</a> under a <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/">CC Attribution-NonCommercial (BY-NC)</a> license. <a href="http://world.honda.com/news/2014/41401283D-Data-Concept-Models/index.html">From the press release</a>:<br />
<blockquote>
With the data downloaded from the website “<a href="http://www.honda-3d.com/">Honda 3D Design Archives</a>,”
Honda’s concept models can easily be replicated by a household 3D
printer, which is becoming more popular in recent years. By offering
data of its concept models, which embody the spirit of “Honda Design,”
Honda offers opportunity to enjoy a simulated experience of Honda’s “art
of manufacturing.”</blockquote>
You can view the designs on <a href="http://www.honda-3d.com/">the new Honda 3D site</a> or download them in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STL_%28file_format%29">STL</a>.
Since the designs are licensed under BY-NC, anyone can share, modify,
and remix them noncommercially. Now that these designs are in the wild,
it will be cool to see who mods them in unexpected and creative ways.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/kdOVr4Tqdoc" width="560"></iframe></div>
<i><br /></i>
<br />
<i>Post by Elliot Harmon, originally published on January 28th, 2014; under a CC by license. <a href="http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/41895">See original post</a>.</i></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-14750881273981609482014-01-30T08:59:00.001-08:002014-01-30T08:59:10.898-08:00Lessig lecturing about Law and Justice in a Digital Age<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<b><i>Aaron's Laws - Law and Justice in a Digital Age</i></b><br />
<i>A lecture by Lawrence Lessig at Harvard Law School (January 2013); released under a Creative Commons Attribution license. </i><br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9HAw1i4gOU4" width="560"></iframe> </div>
<br />
Lawrence Lessig marked his appointment as Roy L. Furman Professor of Law
and Leadership at Harvard Law School with a lecture titled "Aaron's
Laws: Law and Justice in a Digital Age." The lecture honored the memory
and work of Aaron Swartz, the programmer and activist who took his own
life on Jan. 11, 2013 at the age of 26.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4#">0:00:00</a> Introduction<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4#">0:08:50</a> Remarks<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4#">1:26:05</a> Q&A<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HAw1i4gOU4#">1:42:00</a> Closing</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-80032440683272871382014-01-25T16:23:00.004-08:002014-01-25T16:23:55.576-08:00The Open Source Definition<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="content clearfix">
<div class="field field-name-body field-type-text-with-summary field-label-hidden">
<div class="field-items">
<div class="field-item even">
<h3 style="text-align: left;">
Introduction</h3>
Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The
distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the
following criteria:<br />
<div id="free-redistribution" title="free-redistribution">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
1. Free Redistribution</h3>
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving
away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution
containing programs from several different sources. The license shall
not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.</div>
<div id="include-source-code" title="include-source-code">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
2. Source Code</h3>
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution
in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product
is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized
means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable
reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without
charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer
would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not
allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or
translator are not allowed.</div>
<div id="derived-works" title="derived-works">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
3. Derived Works</h3>
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must
allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the
original software.</div>
<div id="integrity" title="integrity">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code</h3>
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form <em>only</em>
if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source
code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The
license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from
modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a
different name or version number from the original software.</div>
<div id="persons-or-groups" title="persons-or-groups">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups</h3>
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.</div>
<div id="fields-of-endeavor" title="fields-of-endeavor">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor</h3>
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the
program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not
restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used
for genetic research.</div>
<div id="distribution-of-license" title="distribution-of-license">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
7. Distribution of License</h3>
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the
program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional
license by those parties.</div>
<div id="not-specific-to-product" title="not-specific-to-product">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product</h3>
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the
program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the
program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed
within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the
program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are
granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.</div>
<div id="not-restrict-other-software" title="not-restrict-other-software">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software</h3>
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is
distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license
must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium
must be open-source software.</div>
<div id="technology-neutral" title="technology-neutral">
<h3>
</h3>
<h3>
10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral</h3>
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.<br />
<br />
_________________________<br />
<br />
<i>original source: <a href="http://opensource.org/osd">http://opensource.org/osd</a>; license: CC by </i><br />
<br /></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-70481581911085434332014-01-25T07:48:00.001-08:002014-01-25T07:48:18.340-08:00ACTA Threatens Your Freedom<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/NicoBZH_-_Richard_Stallman_(by-sa)_(10).jpg/1200px-NicoBZH_-_Richard_Stallman_(by-sa)_(10).jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/54/NicoBZH_-_Richard_Stallman_(by-sa)_(10).jpg/1200px-NicoBZH_-_Richard_Stallman_(by-sa)_(10).jpg" height="212" width="320" /></a></div>
ACTA was written secretly by governments together with business; in
effect, a conspiracy to restrict the people for business' sake. There
were leaks, and public condemnation removed some proposed nasty
provisions, but plenty more remain.
<br />
The proponents of ACTA use the term
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html">
"intellectual property"</a>, which is
meant to discourage clear thinking. That term refers to ten or more
unrelated laws, which at the practical level have nothing in common.
The term focuses on an irrelevant abstract similarity, and distracts
attention from the real issues raised by one law or another.
<br />
A few of those laws have one point in common: megacorps want to change
them to gain more power over future competition or the public, and
ACTA is their latest try. ACTA has different rules for each law. The
term
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/not-ipr.html">
"intellectual property"</a> misrepresents the facts about ACTA.
<br />
ACTA's main effect in Europe would be on copyright law. ACTA gives
copyright priority over human rights. It gives priority to copyright
holders over the users of copyrighted works.
<br />
When the copyright lobby demands increased power to stop sharing, it
bases the argument on exaggerated, unlikely claims of what they "lose"
when people share. ACTA legitimizes these absurd claims, even in
court, so you could be forced to pay hundreds of thousands of euros of
imaginary "damages" for a little bit of file-sharing.
<br />
ACTA says governments can ask ISPs for "cooperation", which can
include surveillance, filtering, deletion of pages, even punishment of
users without a fair trial. Meanwhile, ISPs, hosting sites and search
engines could be prosecuted if they do not censor.
<br />
Many aspects of ACTA are vague. For instance, it says governments
must attack “means of widespread distribution for infringing
purposes”. Will this ban blogging platforms? Bittorrent? File
locker sites? Who knows?
<br />
Some aspects of ACTA are dishonest -- blackwhiting, to use Orwell's
term (see 1984). For instance, it imposes criminal punishment on
noncommercial copying by tying it to the word "commercial".
Specifically, it says copying is "commercial scale" if it provides
"direct or indirect economic or commercial advantage". What counts as
"indirect economic advantage"? Arguably the benefit of not buying a
second copy of something is enough to make noncommercial copying a
crime.
<br />
Given ill will shown when governments negotiated ACTA, we must judge
it by the worst possible interpretation. ACTA can be interpreted to
make it a crime to share copies with your friends. Will the copyright
lobby go to court and argue for this interpretation? Surely. Will it
win? Don't give it the chance!
<br />
Some politicians say that ACTA is not something to fear, but they can't
know what ACTA will morph into. One of the disasters of ACTA is that
it can be altered later by agreement among the countries involved. In
effect, these governments will together have the power to bypass their
parliaments. To ratify ACTA is to give carte blanche to a rigged
process.
<br />
The Internet needs some rules, but who should decide them? Traffic
rules for cars should be decided democratically by the people, not
written secretly by railroads. The Internet rules should be decided
democratically by the people, with human rights as the first priority,
and the people must reserve the right to relax rules if they prove too
strict. That means, the rules must not come from ACTA! What should
these rules be?
<br />
Copyright companies have too much power already; they have made
copyright too strict. They are not satisfied and seek more power
through ACTA, but that would be a change in the wrong direction.
Their laws cause problems for us, and it is our turn now to be
considered. Our governments must reduce copyright power: shorten
copyright to 10 years, legalize noncommercial redistribution of exact
copies (sharing), ban Digital Restrictions Management (the malicious
features that turn digital devices into handcuffs), and ban EULAs on
published digital works. Then we could consider small concessions to
the copyright companies.<br />
_________________________________<br />
<br />
<i>Copyright 2012 Richard Stallman -- Released under the CC-BY-ND 3.0 license; <br />first published in Poland, by Tygodnik Powszechny (taken from <a href="http://stallman.org/articles/acta-freedom.html">http://stallman.org/articles/acta-freedom.html</a>)</i></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-67678850791131929052014-01-23T10:11:00.000-08:002014-01-23T10:15:46.827-08:00Interoperability And Open Standards: The Key To True Openness And Innovation<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="Abstracttext">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyxwrjBDnVwP3errsoxewJrdV5PuQg4DFeZFJ8lTb2me36EOXvUjs4eKqpi-HhW0tsojOpvCPB9nI6svvVN8TETHFaraKycrstWtEEl47aG6iZkvSEfAyqOuk_Xkz0vjkwHM7tFDf2kN6X/s1600/interoperability.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgyxwrjBDnVwP3errsoxewJrdV5PuQg4DFeZFJ8lTb2me36EOXvUjs4eKqpi-HhW0tsojOpvCPB9nI6svvVN8TETHFaraKycrstWtEEl47aG6iZkvSEfAyqOuk_Xkz0vjkwHM7tFDf2kN6X/s1600/interoperability.png" height="201" width="320" /></a></div>
<i>Interoperability And Open Standards: The Key To True Openness And Innovation </i>is a peer-reviewed article by <a href="http://www.aliprandi.org/">Simone Aliprandi</a> published on <a href="http://www.ifosslr.org/">International FOSS Law Review</a> (Vol 3, No 1, 2011).<span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>It represents one of the most complete and clear introduction to the complex phenomenon of standards setting and to the open side of it.<span style="font-weight: bold;"></span></div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
<br /></div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Abstract</span><br />
Most
people agree that providing a shared set of standards produces a broad
advantage for all actors involved in the ICT market. First of all, it’s
an advantage for active operators in that market (companies, developers,
designers), but also for users of computer technologies, simple
observers and scholars as well. </div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
However, if on one hand the same concept of
standard appears to be quite intuitive and broadly known, on the other
hand not so many people are aware of the complex dynamics behind the
standard definition process, particularly in relation to today’s
globalized and technology-savvy world. Even fewer people seem aware
that, when a standard definition process is not being carried with true
transparency and care, this procedure could even become
counterproductive for the innovation itself. Therefore, in recent years,
a new approach for the standard definition process has been emerging,
with the aim of producing standards based on the broadest level of
openness and interoperability: the so-called <span style="font-style: normal;">open standards</span><span style="font-style: italic;">.</span></div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
This essay will start by addressing the
broad concept of standards, with specific reference to the world of
technology; later, it will focus on the drafting process of standards,
highlighting major problems regarding its legal, economic and technology
aspects. The final section will concentrate on the very concept of an
open standard. </div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
<br /></div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
<b>Table of content</b></div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
1. The crucial role of interoperability</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
2. The “standard” concept</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
3. Differences between de jure and de facto standards</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
4. The standardization process</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
4.1. Major principles of the standard-setting activity</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
4.2. The stages of a standard-setting process </div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
4.3. Standard publication and usage</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
5. The ICT sector: between de facto standards and network externalities</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
6. Major issues facing the standardization process</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
6.1. Standard and technology innovation</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
6.2. Regulatory activities and intellectual property management </div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
6.3. Standardization and competition issues</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
7. Open standards<br />
7.1. The Open Standard definition by Bruce Perens</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
7.2. The Open Standard definition by the ITU-T</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
7.3. The Open Standard definition by the IDABC</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
8. Classification criteria of Open Standards</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
9. The web as an interoperable technology and the role of the W3C </div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
10. The OASIS approach to the standardization activity</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
Conclusion</div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
<br /></div>
<div class="Abstracttext" style="text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/53/105"><b>READ THE ARTICLE</b></a></div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
<br /></div>
<div class="Abstracttext">
<br /></div>
</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-63551475035421902292014-01-23T07:21:00.001-08:002014-01-23T07:21:34.378-08:00Applying the open source paradigm to seeds<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
Dr. Vandana Shiva explains the importance of keeping seeds a<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">way</span> <span class="hps">from a proprietary</span> <span class="hps">intellectual property model.</span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/CfNCCJECpss" width="480"></iframe></span></span></div>
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"></span></span> <br />
<br />
<b>Legal background </b><br />
While saving seed and even exchanging seed with other farmers for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biodiversity" title="Biodiversity">biodiversity</a>
purposes has been a traditional practice, these practices have become
illegal for the plant varieties that are patented or otherwise owned by
some entity (often a corporation).<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Mechlem_2-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#cite_note-Mechlem-2"></a></sup> Under Article 28 of the <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agreement_on_Trade-Related_Aspects_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights" title="Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights">Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights</a>
(the TRIPS Agreement), "planting, harvesting, saving, re-planting, and
exchanging seeds of patented plants, or of plants containing patented
cells and genes, constitutes use" and is prohibited by the <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property_law" title="Intellectual property law">intellectual property laws</a> of signatory states.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-Mechlem_2-2"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#cite_note-Mechlem-2"></a></sup><br />
Significantly, farmers in <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developing_countries" title="Developing countries">developing countries</a>
are particularly affected by prohibitions on seed saving. There are
some protections for re-use, called "farmer's privilege", in the 1991 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Union_for_the_Protection_of_New_Varieties_of_Plants" title="International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants">International Union for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants</a> (UPOV Convention), but seed exchange remains prohibited.<br />
In the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States" title="United States">United States</a>, by contrast, the farmer's privilege is considered protected by the <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plant_Variety_Protection_Act" title="Plant Variety Protection Act">Plant Variety Protection Act</a> and by case law stemming from <i>Asgrow Seed v. Winterboer</i>. American farmers may sell seed up to the amount saved for replanting their own acreage.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-3"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#cite_note-3"></a></sup><br />
<i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_v._Chakrabarty" title="Diamond v. Chakrabarty">Diamond v. Chakrabarty</a></i> established that companies may obtain patents for life-forms. <i>J.E.M. Ag Supply v. Pioneer</i> established that seed saving is a patent violation.[1]<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-4"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#cite_note-4"></a></sup><br />
<b><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"><br /></span></span></b>
<b><span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">See also:</span></span></b><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">- No patents on seeds: <a href="http://www.no-patents-on-seeds.org/">www.no-patents-on-seeds.org</a></span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">- Seed freedom: <a href="http://seedfreedom.in/">http://seedfreedom.in/</a></span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps">- Semi liberi come software libero (Italian article): <a href="http://www.apogeonline.com/webzine/2013/05/13/semi-liberi-come-software-libero">http://www.apogeonline.com/webzine/2013/05/13/semi-liberi-come-software-libero </a></span></span><br />
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"><br /></span></span>
<span class="" id="result_box" lang="en"><span class="hps"><span style="font-size: x-small;">[1] the "Legal background" paragraph is taken from: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#Legality">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seed_saving#Legality </a></span></span></span></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-6044255564590621772014-01-22T09:34:00.001-08:002014-01-22T23:56:04.207-08:00Wired removed the CC license from the Italian website. Why?<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Wired_logo.svg/752px-Wired_logo.svg.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/95/Wired_logo.svg/752px-Wired_logo.svg.png" height="65" width="320" /></a></div>
Wired is one of my favourite magazines. I've been a subscriber since it arrived in Italy (actually very late, only in 2009).<br />
The
leadership of the Italian magazine since the beginning favored an innovative approach
to the copyright issues. In 2010 Riccardo Luna (managing director for the first two
years) also published a <a href="http://mag.wired.it/rivista/storie/se-il-web-e-morto-il-copyright-cos-e.html">press release</a> expressly in favor of this choice.<br />
The
outcome was that the print edition still was published under an "all rights reserved" copyright, but the
website (with the entire blog section) went under a Creative Commons
license ("some rights reserved").<br />
In recent weeks, a substantial restyling of the website was
completed and suddenly <b>the link to the Creative Commons license has
disappeared</b>.<br />
By clicking on the "<a href="http://www.wired.it/servizi/condizioni-dutilizzo/">terms of use</a>" page, we discover that
it is only a marginal reference to the CC, referred only to the
contents uploaded by users (basically only the comments to the articles). Users who
upload content, therefore, must agree to release them with a BY-ND 2.5 license (not clear why a 2.5 version and not a 4.0).<br />
That
is not all. In fact, within the terms of use appears a statement that
seems to be in conflict with the guidelines on the use of CC licenses.<br />
Come on, Wired! Why are you doing so? You have always been a good example (I remember your wonderful <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wired_CD">open content music CD</a>). But now...<br />
______________________ <br />
<br />
<i><a href="http://aliprandi.blogspot.com/2014/01/usare-licenze-non-difficile.html">Read more</a> on the Italian (and extended) version of the post </i></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-79062355325809534502014-01-21T13:06:00.000-08:002014-01-21T13:18:54.314-08:00The creation of the first-ever Open Contracting Data Standard<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
The creation of the first-ever “Open Contracting Data
Standard” has been announced today. The development of a common
standard for the disclosure of contracting data is a key pillar of the
work of the <b>Open Contracting Partnership (OCP)</b>to
promote disclosure and participation in public contracting - empowering
citizens around the world to hold their governments to account for the
estimated US $9.5 trillion they spend each year through contracts.<br />
<div id="intro">
<div class="content">
<div class="Normal1">
The
development of the Open Contracting Data Standard will come as a result
of the collaboration of the Open Contracting Partnership and the World
Wide Web Foundation (Web Foundation), supported by a grant from <a href="http://www.omidyar.com/" target="_blank">Omidyar Network</a>. The <a href="http://www.webfoundation.org/" target="_blank">Web Foundation</a> will
spearhead the technical work and will deliver the Open Contracting Data
Standard v1.0 by the end of 2014. The Open Contracting Data Standard
will be essential to advancing the OCP’s objective of achieving a new
norm in which all public contracting is open.<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/opencontracting/pages/275/attachments/original/1390292894/logos2.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="logos2.png" block="" border="0" src="http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/opencontracting/pages/275/attachments/original/1390292894/logos2.png?1390292894" display:="" height="70" width="500" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
</div>
</div>
<div class="Normal1" style="text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="Normal1">
This standard will be developed via an extensive
process of research, consultation, development, testing, feedback and
refinement - including with non-government actors and across multiple
sectors and countries. The project will build upon work already
undertaken by the OCP and others in this area, and will focus on both
the supply of, and demand for, open contracting data. Clear use cases
will be included, and - recognising diversity across sectors -
adaptations of the master standard tailored to sector-specific needs
will also be delivered.</div>
<div class="Normal1">
The collaborative development and roll-out of an Open
Contracting Data Standard that cuts across silos and allows for
comparisons and analysis across countries, industry sectors and regions
is essential. Contracting is at the core of how governments generate
revenues and spend public resources, yet contracting information is
often unavailable for public scrutiny, and is rarely in an ‘Open Data’
format. Ultimately, the development of this standard will help to ensure
that investment deals are aligned with the public interest, that public
resources are managed effectively and that citizens receive the
services and goods they deserve, so that development benefits all.</div>
<div class="Normal1">
Anne Jellema, Chief Executive Officer of the World
Wide Web Foundation, said: “Open Contracting has the potential to
enhance transparency and improve the lives of billions around the world.
Yet, in order to realise its benefits, we must have a common standard
to plan, manage and measure initiatives. We’re delighted to be working
alongside the Open Contracting Partnership on this important initiative
and grateful to Omidyar Network for their support.”<i> </i></div>
<div class="Normal1">
Robert Hunja, manager of the World Bank Institute’s
Open Government Practice, speaking on behalf of the Open Contracting
Partnership, added: “The Open Contracting Data Standard is a crucial
step to ensuring that public contracting is truly public and that
citizens can be active participants in the contracting processes that
impact their lives and the lives of those in their communities. The Open
Contracting Partnership is delighted to continue its history of
collaboration, by working with the Web Foundation and Omidyar Network to
advance the efforts to establish a new norm in which all contracting is
open.”</div>
<div class="Normal1">
"The contribution of this effort to the Open
Government movement will be significant,” said Omidyar Network Policy
Director Martin Tisné. “Omidyar Network is proud to support the Open
Contracting Partnership and its role in enhancing transparency and
accountability around the globe."</div>
<div class="Normal1">
<br /></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<b>Contacts: </b></div>
<div class="Normal1">
Felipe Estefan, Open Contracting Partnership - <a href="mailto:partnership@open-contracting.com">partnership@open-contracting.com</a>Gabe Trodd/Dillon Mann, World Wide Web Foundation - <a href="mailto:press@webfoundation.org">press@webfoundation.org</a>Greg Pershall, Omidyar Network - <a href="mailto:gpershall@omidyar.com">gpershall@omidyar.com</a></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<br /></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<br /></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<i>1) Established by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the World Wide Web Foundation (<a href="http://webfoundation.org/" target="_blank">webfoundation.org</a>)
seeks to establish the open Web as a global public good and a basic
right, creating a world where everyone, everywhere can use the Web to
communicate, collaborate and innovate freely. This is the latest in a
series of initiatives in the Open Data arena for the World Wide Web
Foundation. In October, at the Open Government Partnership, the World
Wide Web Foundation launched the Open Data Barometer alongside the Open
Data Institute. This 77-country study considers the interlinked areas of
Open Data policy, implementation and impact to produce a country
ranking. The World Wide Web Foundation is also currently conducting the
world’s first large-scale study into Open Data in Developing Countries.
The Web Foundation has undertaken country readiness studies in Chile,
Ghana and Indonesia, and is currently conducting a feasibility study
into the establishment of an Open Data Lab in Indonesia.</i></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<br /></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<i>2) This project is being supported by a grant from Omidyar Network (<a href="http://www.omidyar.com/" target="_blank">http://www.omidyar.com</a>).
Omidyar Network is a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to
harnessing the power of markets to create opportunity for people to
improve their lives. Established in 2004 by eBay founder Pierre Omidyar
and his wife Pam, the organization invests in and helps scale innovative
organizations to catalyze economic and social change. Omidyar Network
has committed more than $669 million to for-profit companies and
non-profit organizations that foster economic advancement and encourage
individual participation across multiple initiatives, including
entrepreneurship, financial inclusion, property rights, government
transparency, consumer Internet and mobile.</i></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<br /></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<i>3) The Open Contracting Partnership (<a href="http://www.open-contracting.org/" target="_blank">http://www.open-contracting.org</a>),
founded in 2012, is a global collaborative effort seeking to enhance
and promote disclosure and participation in public contracting. The Open
Contracting Partnership seeks to convene leaders and innovators to
collaborate around the realization of its vision of making openness in
contract processes the new norm. The steering group currently leading
the Open Contracting Partnership is composed of the Construction Sector
Transparency Initiative (CoST), Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale
Zusammenarbeit (GIZ) on behalf of the German Federal Ministry for
Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ), Integrity Action, the
government of Colombia, the Philippines Government Procurement Policy
Board – Technical Support Office (GPPB-TSO), Oxfam America, Transparency
International and the World Bank Institute, where the Partnership’s
secretariat is currently hosted. </i></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<br /></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<i>______________________________</i></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<br /></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<i>Originally posted <a href="http://www.open-contracting.org/significant_step_forward_for_global_transparency"><b>here</b></a> by Felipe Estefan on 21 January 2014, under a CC by license.</i></div>
<div class="padtopless">
<br /></div>
<div class="Normal1">
<i> </i></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5342189498994495649.post-22587743954894932282014-01-21T05:31:00.004-08:002014-01-21T05:31:40.818-08:00The quest for strategies to monetize free software<div dir="ltr" style="text-align: left;" trbidi="on">
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="http://www.techzim.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/foss-people.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://www.techzim.co.zw/wp-content/uploads/foss-people.jpg" height="169" width="320" /></a></div>
I’ve discussed recently with a friend of mine <a href="http://putishots.blogspot.com/">photographer</a>, <a href="http://cyranoiltucano.blogspot.com/">illustrator</a> and <a href="http://portfolio-pierpaolo.blogspot.com/">animator</a>
about the status of GIMP, Inkscape and Blender. The good news is that
professionals increasingly know about these free software tools, which
is already a great step forward compared to the past years. Pierpaolo
acknowledged how powerful all of them are but also noticed how different
they are all from other similar software in the same field. It occurred
to me that while other desktop tools like Open/LibreOffice have ways to
raise money to finance the development of new features, improve the
user experience and interface, etc Gimp and Inkscape are primarily
developed by volunteers (Blender’s development is financed by the non
profit Blender Foundation through <a href="http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/">grants and donations</a>).
This whole led me to think again about how hard it is for free software
projects to invest time and energy in refactoring the GUI when there
are so many cooler things to add to the core functions of the software
(think of the eternal complaint about quadricromy support in GIMP).
Would these be interested in improving their UI if they had more money
available or if they had actual ‘customers’ instead of users?<br />
<div dir="ltr">
When I was thinking about all this I learned that <a href="http://sourceforge.net/blog/today-we-offer-devshare-beta-a-sustainable-way-to-fund-open-source-software/">Sourceforge released a new program to fund development of free/open source software</a>
with a revenue sharing program called DevShare. Reading the press
release, DevShare offers free software developers the option to bundle
extra software with their downloads and share revenues with SourceForge.
When a user downloads FileZilla for example, she’s offered the option
to install also another piece of software with FileZilla. SourceForge is
not the first site to offer bundled downloads but it does it with a
better approach, avoiding traps. They looked at best practice policies
to avoid confusing end-users with misleading installation flows and
promises to provide clear documentation and procedures to uninstall
undesired applications.</div>
The revenue sharing with the developers is what is most interesting
to me: developers who voluntarily decided to join similar programs are
often required to spend time integrating their applications with third
party installers, and have limited control over what and how that’s
offered to their end-users. SourceForge’s program on the other hand
seems to be very open and transparent towards the developers. I’ll be
following the evolution of the program, hoping that free lance open
source developers find motivation.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a href="http://maffulli.net/2013/07/16/the-quest-for-strategies-to-monetize-free-software/fz_installer_2/" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img alt="FileZilla bundle HotspotShield" class="attachment-thumbnail" src="http://maffulli.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/fz_installer_2-150x150.png" height="150" width="150" /></a><a href="http://maffulli.net/2013/07/16/the-quest-for-strategies-to-monetize-free-software/fz_installer_1/" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="FileZilla installer" class="attachment-thumbnail" src="http://maffulli.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/fz_installer_1-150x150.png" height="150" width="150" /></a><br />
<span style="font-size: x-small;"><i>FileZilla installer (left) and<br />FileZilla bundle HotspotShield (right)</i></span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
_________________________________________</div>
<br />
<i>An article by Stefano Maffulli; originally published on 16 July 2013 under a CC by license; taken from <a href="http://maffulli.net/2013/07/16/the-quest-for-strategies-to-monetize-free-software/">here.</a></i><br />
<br /></div>
Simone Aliprandihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11229713114191823599noreply@blogger.com0