EURIM Working Group Minutes
|
Working Party: |
Theme 01/ Working Group |
|
|
Ref: |
03-T02-Min09 |
|
|
Minuter: |
Emma Fryer |
|
|
Date: |
23/07/03 |
|
|
Circulation: |
Attendees and Apologies |
|
|
Queries to: |
Emma Fryer, Tel: 0191 240 3332 Mob: 07714 803 650 |
|
Minutes of EURIM’s Modernising Government Meeting To Review the Sub Group draft paper on Open Source 23rd July 2003, kindly hosted by Intellect, Russell Square, WC1B 5EE |
Summary
|
|
|
Meeting
Outline |
|
The
Modernising Government group was given the opportunity to review the draft
paper on Open Source following extensive input from OpenForum Europe. Comments were received from a wide variety
of perspectives. A number of detailed
amendments were tabled and agreed and a number of further amendments were
agreed in principle where the detail would be subject to the normal review
process. |
|
|
Main Actions Agreed
|
|
1.
EF to implement the detailed changes agreed at the meeting
and circulate the paper in this form 2.
Various group members agreed to submit amendments for
subsequent inclusion 3.
EF to incorporate these and circulate the subsequent
version, highlighting these proposed amendments 4. EF and group members to continue the review process electronically as far as was possible |
|
|
Date of Next
Meeting
|
The next meeting was scheduled for 28th
August from 10.30 – 12.30 but would only be held if necessary. Ideally subsequent revisions would be
conducted electronically.
|
|
|
For further information on EURIM’s Mod Gov group,
back minutes, documents, agendas, etc, see: http://www.emma.fryer.btinternet.co.uk/
|
Meeting Notes
|
|
|
|
Action |
|
1 |
|
Chairman’s Introduction
|
|
|
|
1.1 |
CG welcomed everyone and outlined the
purpose of the meeting – to review the draft paper on open source software in
the light of comments received from Open Forum Europe and to agree further
amendments as necessary. |
|
|
|
1.2 |
It was agreed that points would be
raised in the order they occurred in the paper. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
Summary |
|
|
|
2.1 |
Point 1 delete “significant” and
amend so that the first bullet read “serious alternative solution in many ICT
applications.” |
|
|
|
|
Point
2 - “Offers” to replace “represents” |
|
|
|
2.2 |
Point
2 - The detail about the implications of “free” to be handled later rather
than in the summary. |
|
|
|
2.3 |
Point 2 - Change to read “supports a
shift in emphasis in the industry towards more”… |
|
|
|
2.4 |
Point
4 - “some” to be inserted between “survey” and “government” and the second
sentence deleted . |
|
|
|
2.5 |
Point
6 - Second “either” to be deleted. |
|
|
|
2.6 |
Point
7 - “some form of OSS licence” to be inserted between “Whether” and
“should”. STOP after R&D and new
sentence starts with “This is…” |
|
|
|
2.7 |
This
bullet to be checked for accuracy with Caroline Halcrow. |
EF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
What is open source Software
|
|
|
|
3.1 |
Para 1 - sentence to be amended to
read “ by individuals using the internet to support collegiate behaviour and
often by voluntary effort”. |
|
|
|
3.2 |
Replacement
para on licences - replace “does” with “will” and unbolden it. |
|
|
|
3.3 |
This
and next para to be moved to licencing issues. |
|
|
|
3.4 |
Ensure
the point that GNU GPL does not prevent commercialisation of distribution but
does inhibit commercialisation of the IPR is clear. Making IPR freely available is the issue. |
EF |
|
|
3.5 |
Para
3, line 3:- re-word to read “its redistribution through licences” |
|
|
|
|
Remove
“very” before “limited” |
|
|
|
3.6 |
Para 4, change from “all” to “many”
major commercial …etc. and amend to read “and are now offering a Linux-based
version of their software”…… |
|
|
|
3.7 |
Insert STOP after HP. New sentence for Sun Microsystems |
|
|
|
3.8 |
DR felt that there was a risk that
the commercial aspects of IPR were over emphasised and agreed to give his
thoughts on it. |
DR |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
What kind of applications is OSS used for? |
|
|
|
4.1 |
This
section had been drawn from OGC and it was agreed that it was rather
indigestible. GT agreed to rewrite this paragraph so that it was
understandable to a lay person. OR
asked that it emphasise processes and activities rather than just applications
themselves. This was agreed. |
GT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 |
|
Licensing Issues |
|
|
|
5.1 |
Definition and description of dual
licensing to be inserted, either in this section or in the glossary. |
EF/GT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
Schools of Thought and Ideologies |
|
|
|
6.1 |
ML
agreed to amend this paragraph to ensure that the slightly over-simplistic
account of the creation of the Linux kernel and its relationship to GNU was
accurate. |
ML |
|
|
6.2 |
Some mention
of the autonomous trusted committee that has authority over some decisions
but are responsible to Linus should be mentioned in the sentence about
Torvalds being the final arbiter of Linux. |
EF/ML |
|
|
6.3 |
Rather than mentioning
that FSF opposes intellectual gain, which was contested by Stallman, the
paper should say that the FSF took an anti-commercial approach to software
code, although they were not necessarily against economic gain from IPR and
reference a Stallman quote about it.
ML agreed to forward the relevant quotation. |
EF/ML |
|
|
6.4 |
It
was agreed that the importance of the arbiter should be stressed. DK agreed to draft a question that stated
that politicians must judge whether this was the right process to be in place
for the development of software, bearing in mind the potential social and
economic consequences if OSS was used in the public domain. |
NG / DK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7 |
|
How the different models operate |
|
|
|
7.1 |
No further amends. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
|
How has open source developed… |
|
|
|
8.1 |
EF suggested that this would be a
good point to insert the ethical point that the Open Group had asked to
submit. |
|
|
|
8.2 |
CG requested insertion of “or funded
by their employers” after in their own time.
He agreed to provide proof that this was indeed the case. |
CG |
|
|
|
|
|
|
9 |
|
What is being done and by whom? |
|
|
|
9.1 |
A
point was needed on implementation – or lack of it – of government policy.
Policy was clear, evidence for implementation was lacking. |
EF |
|
|
9.2 |
Other
national gov approaches - ML asked
whether it had been mandated by any government. GT agreed to check and ensure that if correct, this point was
qualified. |
GT |
|
|
9.3 |
“Mandated” to be replaced with
“default” after Germany is taking the strongest line and has..” |
|
|
|
9.4 |
GT agreed to re-word these insertions
either with reference to specific facts or to use reported quotes. |
GT |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
|
Issues
|
|
|
|
10.1 |
In Polarised
opinions, insert “for many” before the debate. Delete “these views represent one end”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11 |
|
Table of arguments |
|
|
|
11.1 |
It was agreed that the table of
arguments would be simplified to four paragraphs covering the key issues –
standards, security, TCO and documentation - and the varying points of
view. Any other issues raised in the
table but not dealt with elsewhere would be flagged for the next review. |
EF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
12 |
|
Evaluating
the business case
|
|
|
|
12.1 |
DR noted that
this section gave an opportunity for user input into the paper and agreed to
consider whether any further comments from the commercial user perspective
were needed.
|
DR |
|
|
12.2 |
It was agreed
that otherwise the section read well and that it did not need amendment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13 |
|
Next steps
|
|
|
|
13.1 |
EF agreed to circulate meeting notes
and actions and make the agreed changes to the document. Those who had agreed to submit paragraphs
or other amendments would then be able to do this to a fresh document. EF
would then circulate a subsequent version of the paper in which these
amendments were highlighted. |
EF |
|
|
13.2 |
It was agreed that the final version
of the document would be in .rtf format. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
14 |
|
Date
of next meeting
|
|
|
|
14.1 |
It was agreed that a provisional
meeting would be scheduled for 28th August, 10.30-12.30 but would
only be held if necessary. If
revisions could be agreed electronically, so much the better. |
EF |
|
|
|
|
|
Attendance –
23rd July 2003
F name
|
Surname |
Organisation |
Email |
|
|
Chris |
Godwin |
IBM |
||
|
Matt |
Lambert |
Microsoft |
||
|
Nig |
Greenaway |
Fujitsu Services |
||
|
David |
Keech |
BSI |
||
|
David |
Roberts |
Corporate IT Forum |
||
|
Ollie |
Ross |
Corporate IT Forum |
|
|
|
Graham |
Taylor |
Open Forum Europe |
||
|
Emma |
Fryer |
EURIM |
||
Apologies
|
|
|
||
|
John |
Borras |
OeE |
||
|
Dick |
Emery |
|
||
|
Caroline |
Halcrow |
OeE |
||
|
Graham |
Hansell |
Sitelynx |
||
|
Andrew |
Hardie |
|
||
|
Andy |
Hopkirk |
NCC |
||
|
Elizabeth |
Kanter |
Nortel Networks |
||
|
Steve |
Nunn |
The Open Group |
||
|
Lord |
Renwick |
EURIM |
||
|
David |
Rose |
The Open Group |
||
|
Jeff |
Rose |
BT |
||
|
Philip |
Virgo |
EURIM |
||
|
Beatrice |
Rogers |
Intellect |
||
|
Kay |
Withers |
Parliamentary researcher |
||