2011-04-21

Microsoft gets Novell's Patents rights but must share them with Open-Source Software | ZDNet

Microsoft gets Novell's Patents rights but must share them with Open-Source Software | ZDNet:

This analysis--more a summary, I suppose--is useful. What will happen a) to Novell post Attachmate (and thus to Novell's work on, for instance, OOo, now LibreOffice), is worth wondering about. With the agreement signed by Novell and MIcrosoft signed back in 2006, Novell's work on OOo and its release of the same, became little more, as far as I can tell, than a proxy for MSFT, a way for MSFT both to expand its base and secure its customers. Why did it have to do this? Because the ODF and OOo were gaining significant share not only of the productivity suite market but the one to come, and that latter one is far larger than the current.

I'm not dismissing or disparaging the efforts of the developers working on the code or providing their contributions in the LO camp; they are good people and hardly consider themselves, I dare say, agents or proxies for MSFT or anyone--that's one reason they formed LO, I understand. But in the calculus of divide and conquer, who wins?

I'd like to make sure that divisions do not lead to conquest, and that those that exist are, as much as is possible, reconciled. Too much is at stake. Over the last ten plus years, we've moved from being "the alternative" to something innovative and new. We've created a new market, the ODF market, which does not depend on any one vendor.

2011-04-14

Open source and the sluggish UK public sector • The Register

More from the article. What is crucial here, for me, as an ODF advocate, and as a realist, is policies mandating open standards (and those that can actually be implemented by a range of vendors). Thus, Silber:

Open source and the sluggish UK public sector • The Register: "At a recent Cabinet Office forum for system integrators, there were some striking examples of open source being used in the public sector, according to Silber. Bristol City Council, for example, has achieved 50 per cent cost savings by using open source, and the National Digital Resource Bank reported an IT spend reduction of 98 per cent.

The Cabinet Office is in the middle of an informal consultation on open standards in IT. Asked what she’d like to see come out of the process, Silber has no hesitation, especially in the light of Bristol City Council having to re-install Windows because of compatibility issues.

“Some really strong statements of support for requirements to support open standards should be included,” she says. “Compliance really ought to be mandated. The government seems to have a good understanding of open source software’s potential. It is time we saw this turn into action.”"

Open source and the sluggish UK public sector • The Register

Open source and the sluggish UK public sector • The Register

Jane Silber of Canonical makes the key point, one that is true in many, many places around the world:

But it doesn’t seem to work that way. Jane Silber, chief executive of Ubuntu’s commercial champion Canonical, has a feeling that open source is used as a negotiating tool but that its benefits are not always taken into account.

“I’d like to think open source has a value other than as a negotiating tool,” she says. “There has been some good progress in getting it considered. The government is doing some things with procurement laws to encourage system integrators to include open source in proposals.

“But it is a bit of a chicken and egg situation. The system integrators can’t offer it if the public sector isn’t asking for it, and the public sector can’t buy it if it isn’t on the tender.”


2011-04-13

Open Knowledge Foundation Blog » Blog Archive » What do you think about Norway’s new open data license?

Open Knowledge Foundation Blog » Blog Archive » What do you think about Norway’s new open data license?

I follow the Open Knowledge Foundation and its blogs... and also keenly interested in the categories related to open access, knowledge, source and the tools by which these can be made meaningfully open: accessible and usable by all.

It's not meaningful to claim that information must be free. It is meaningful to say that to be free you must have information.