From the Open Source Subgroup of |
|
EURIM’s Modernising
Government Working Party |
|
|
|
|
|
This
paper sets out to explain the background to Open Source Software (OSS) – what
it is, what it is not, how it developed, and how it differs from proprietary software. The paper gives an
overview of the debate on OSS, summarises some recent developments in both
the policy arena and the marketplace, and takes a look at the different
business models. Contributors
include BSI, Fujitsu, IBM, Microsoft, OeE, OpenForum Europe, The Corporate IT
Forum (tif). There
is a wide spectrum of very strongly held views in this arena and whilst this
paper attempts to characterise some of the main actors in the debate and
summarise their arguments and views, it has been necessary to generalise and
simplify these positions to a great extent. The detail required to give a
comprehensive account is beyond the scope of our activity. There are many excellent sources of
further information, which set this material into context and these references
are given in the paper. |
|
|
|
|
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATIONS |
|
|
Summary Points
|
|
Open Source
Software (OSS) is software whose source code (the
computer instructions that form the basis of a software program) is openly
published, is often developed by individuals using the internet to support
collegiate behaviour, and often by voluntary effort. OSS may typically be available for
download free of charge, but most business users will choose to obtain it
from a vendor in supported, packaged form. OSS is a serious alternative
solution to proprietary software for many ICT
applications and is now taking a significant market share in some parts of
the software market, notably infrastructure, and can be expected to advance
further over time. |
|
|
|
OSS
offers a new business model, one which is widely accepted as being here to
stay and will impact many in ICT, from supplier through to user, and which
supports a shift in emphasis in the industry away from the vending of
software code alone and towards code plus value added
services provision. |
|
|
|
In
a recent survey some Government users perceived the benefits of OSS as being
lower total cost of ownership (TCO), avoidance of lock-in,
and potential for easier sharing of applications amongst organisations.
However, OSS is not a cure-all. It is
currently suitable for a limited range of applications and its suitability
for those depends on a number of factors.
|
|
|
|
The
debate on the respective merits and de-merits of the proprietary and open source software models
appears to have become ideological and polarised. However, there are signs that pragmatic approaches are
increasingly being adopted by the different stakeholders. It is worth noting in recent years that
the proprietary software sector has begun to contribute its resources and
discipline to the development of OSS, and numbered among the most important
contributors are traditional software vendors such as IBM and HP. |
|
There
is room for both OSS and proprietary
models of software development to co-exist. The market now provides a
substantial middle ground where vendors, whether traditionally OSS or proprietary, are either
offering packaged versions of OSS, or are integrating or incorporating OSS
code within and alongside proprietary
software. Other proprietary developers are adopting models that
allow limited access to the source code Current
UK Government procurement policy states that there should be a level playing
field for procurement so that both can indeed co-exist at least in terms of
Government buying. [See OEE policy
statement[1]] |
|
In policy and strategy terms the UK is at a similar
stage to other EC member states, but other countries, notably Germany, take a
more proactive approach in terms of active initiatives to support the
introduction and use of open source. |
Recommendations
for Parliamentarians
|
|
Parliamentarians should
take an interest in these issues:- like many other developments in IT and
technology they have important implications for economic and societal
development. |
|
Parliamentarians
should recognise that as the UK moves towards a knowledge-based economy,
intellectual property rights will become an increasingly important issue. |
|
Parliamentarians
must be aware that the situation is complex, and there are too many
considerations, for one model to be generically favoured over another. The different software models should be
treated on a level playing field as far as public policy decisions are
concerned, and procurement decisions should be made on a value-for money
(VFM) basis. A
whole array of different models now exists in the marketplace and it is no
longer relevant to consider OSS and proprietary solutions as mutually
exclusive alternatives. OSS has in
many cases a commercial element and should be viewed as a valid competitor to
proprietary software. |
|
Although
Government policy is clear and encourages the consideration of open source
software (OSS) for appropriate applications alongside proprietary software, in view of the lack of
maturity of user understanding, the user community would welcome more
practical guidance in those areas where open source can be considered. Government
must develop a very thorough understanding of the different licensing models
that apply to OSS and their implications for the management of intellectual
property rights. If government does move towards increased use of OSS then
policy- |
THE ISSUES |
|
|
Complexity
|
|
i) Complexity of solutions.
The advantages of OSS for one application may not apply to another and
will differ according to the type of licence, size and structure of
organisation and support available, whether in-house or external. There is a complex matrix of things to
consider when comparing OSS and proprietary solutions, it is not a simple
choice. OGC has provided helpful
advice[2]
on general advantages and disadvantages and on assessing the merits of OSS in
procurement and on the broad areas of the software infrastructure and
application marketplace where OSS currently has strengths and
weaknesses. The most common arguments
for and against OSS are summarised below.
|
|
|
|
ii) Complexity of licence regimes – contrary to some perceptions,
strict licensing is not just the domain of proprietary software. There is a spectrum of licences for OSS, just as there is for
conventional software, and the most common licences are summarised below (see
licensing issues below, and Intellect’s position paper[3]).
|
|
|
Confusion
|
|
iii)
Confusion over polarised opinions
– Until relatively recently, the
debate had become polarised, positions were entrenched and arguments were
emotive and ideological. Users no
longer knew whom to believe. This was
partly an inevitable result of the way that open source was initiated – as a viable
alternative to proprietary
software produced overtly in opposition to it at the start. This hostility
still prevails among some elements, but there has recently been substantial
movement towards a middle ground where a more rational debate now thrives. Within the spectrum of opinions that
exist, there is a large central body that takes the view that there are some
circumstances in which proprietary software is more appropriate, some where
OSS offers advantages, and some where a combination of proprietary and OSS
provides the best solution. |
|
|
|
iv) Confusion over basic terminology.
There is enormous confusion over definitions and this is not helped by
the “cybernerd” jargon that inevitably creeps into all discussions. The glossary section of this paper and the
various analogies used in this paper are designed to help address this. |
|
|
BUSINESS PERSPECTIVES IN THE MARKETPLACE |
|
|
How the different models operate in the marketplace
|
|
Whilst
the Open Source and proprietary software development models appear relatively
distinct, some have noted a movement towards the middle[4]. This argument holds that whilst the
philosophical differences between the open source and proprietary models are
substantial, in practice, software developers are beginning to pursue
development, licensing, and business strategies that reflect elements of both
models. Among proprietary firms, two trends have been noted. The first is to
incorporate open source code into otherwise proprietary systems. Apple Computers’ use of the FreeBSD kernel within the company’s recently launched OS X operating system is cited as one such example. Another is
the decision by IBM to offer the Linux operating system
across all its servers and ensure interoperability
with its software products. |
|
|
|
The
second trend observed among proprietary firms is the adoption of attributes
of the open source model into a broader commercial strategy. For instance, Microsoft’s Shared Source
initiative is one example of a proprietary company seeking to emulate the
benefits of source code access associated with the open source model by
giving licensees the right to review – and in some cases modify – the source code
for several Microsoft platform products.
Microsoft argues that this enhances transparency, making it easier for
sophisticated customers to debug applications and protect against viruses,
fosters deeper understanding of Microsoft products amongst developers and
educators, and encourages broad-based collaboration in the development of IT
industry standards. Such arguments are not supported by the OSS community. |
|
|
|
On the
other side of the spectrum, the argument holds that there is growing evidence
that a number of firms traditionally identified with open source software are
beginning to adopt aspects of the proprietary model. For example, several open source firms are
developing and selling proprietary software to complement their open source
offerings. In addition, many open
source companies are said to have begun modifying standard open source
programs in-house in order to meet the needs of specific customers or market
segments. These companies are working to adopt what they perceive to be the
best elements of proprietary software industry’s development, licensing and
business models within a basic open source framework. |
|
|
Evaluating the business case
|
|
The selection of Open Source solutions, just as for proprietary software, requires a balanced appraisal of the options, which should include:- |
|
|
|
·
Value for
Money over the whole life of the product (total cost of ownership). |
|
·
Support for
relevant standards (as detailed in the e-GIF and other
government frameworks and standards). This provides the freedom from lock-in.
|
|
·
Adherence to
OGC guidance on procurement. This has been carefully developed using inputs
from both the public sector and supply organisations and is constantly being
refined to improve the understanding of best practice. |
|
Both
public sector and business users should also recognise that:- |
|
a)
a spectrum
of business models exists, some of which are OSS or include elements of OSS. b)
OSS is
currently applicable only to a limited number of solutions, it is not a
cure-all. c)
OSS should
be assessed in the light of the business structure within which it will be
used. d)
a good
understanding of the different licensing models is essential to making an
informed decision. |
|
e)
there may be
community-based issues (such as repeat use of public investment) that may
influence the decision. and… f)
the
situation is too complicated to leap to the conclusion that one model is
inevitably better than another. |
|
|
CONCLUSION |
|
The
different software business models should be able to co-exist and government
and politicians should not seek to make broad-based policy preferences for
one model over another or attempt to pick winners and losers in the software market. Debate on the
respective merits and de-merits of the proprietary and open source software models had
become ideological and polarised to the extent that an individual’s
understanding of OSS was highly dependent on his source of information. A dispassionate observer can see that in
the UK, where we are fortunate to have free markets and a level playing field
for software procurement decision-making, there is room for both models of
software development and supply to co-exist.
We strongly recommend that politicians should take an interest in
these issues, as with many other developments in IT and technology, they have
important implications for economic and societal development. |
DEFINITIONS AND APPLICATIONS |
|
|
What is Open Source Software?
|
|
Open Source
Software (OSS) is software whose source code
(the computer instructions that form the basis of a software program) is
openly published, is often developed by individuals using the internet to
support collegiate behaviour, and often by voluntary effort. It is usually available at no charge under
a licence consistent with principles defined by the Open
Source Initiative (OSI). OSS may typically be available for
download free of charge, but most business users will choose to obtain it
from a vendor in supported, packaged form. Although the software is often
referred to as “free” the emphasis is on freedom of access (to the source
code) rather than free as in “free beer”. Broadly speaking, this OSS
licence ensures that the intellectual properly rights (IPR) are made
available to all. (See “licensing issues” below). Linux is an example of OSS. |
|
|
|
Proprietary software is software whose source
code is, in principle, not openly published, and is owned by organisations
who have usually invested significant resource into its development. That software too is protected by IPR and vendors usually strictly limit its redistribution
through licences. Only the
executable binary code (the strings of 1s and 0s)
derived from it is normally made available to the licensees. Proprietary
software vendors do not usually provide access to the source code, other than
via limited circumstances such as under the terms of escrow
agreements or under special licences such as Microsoft’s Shared Source
initiative. In all case they will retain their intellectual property rights
and control. Microsoft Windows is an
example of proprietary software. |
|
|
|
A number
of software suppliers have taken the view that OSS is here to stay, many
major proprietary application software companies are now offering Linux-based
versions of their software and others are concentrating on adding services to
OSS systems and applications. For instance Red Hat is a distributor of OSS
and provides commercial services packaging and supporting it. All IBM servers support Linux and
applications running under Linux, as do HP.
Sun Microsystems also supply open source products and office
applications. Vendors of OSS are
usually called Distributors because their primary income is derived not from
the sale of software, as, depending on the licence, users have the right to
share it freely with others - but from packaging, support and training
services. |
|
|
|
OSS has
already taken a significant market share in some parts of the software
infrastructure market, such as web servers. It is acknowledged that OSS is, and will
remain, a significant and serious competitor with proprietary solutions in
many ICT applications (see below). |
|
|
What kind of applications is OSS used for?
|
|
Open
Source Software has to date been predominantly used for infrastructure
solutions, typically covering the operating system used to run a server, the software used to support internet web-based
applications, security protection, shared resources for “file and print” and
mail messaging. In these areas it has
won a very significant share of the market, for example Linux is now the
second largest server operating system by market share (source IDC),
and Apache is the dominant web server application with 64% of all
applications (source, Netcraft Monthly Survey, July 2003) OSS is,
however, now expanding into other application areas and for other uses,
backed up by an increasing choice of development tools. Large enterprises are now piloting its use
for mainstream critical application development, although there is little
sign of it yet being considered as an alternative for packaged
applications. Alternative OSS
solutions are now emerging for the desktop, providing competing functionality
with office products from Microsoft. There are conflicting reports as to the
practical ease of use of these offerings and to date there is no sign of a
widespread switch to these offerings by major end user organisations.
However, such OSS solutions can be expected to grow in stature and use, but
only as they solve issues of integration and end user training. This area of the market is forecast by
open source advocates to change substantially over the next 12 months. |
|
|
LICENSING ISSUES |
|
In
developed economies, copyight attaches to all innovative works and this is
true of software. All software
developers can use their IPR to retain commercial advantage from their
intellectual creation and/or to control how their software is used. Contrary to some perceptions, OSS relies
on IPR just as much as proprietary software and this is implemented through
licensing terms that can be just as restrictive (in their own way). On the whole, proprietary developers use
licensing to stop uncontrolled copying and reverse engineering, and open
source developers use licensing to impose “freedom” conditions and the onward
inheritance of these to subsequent generation copies. Open Source licences are, on the whole,
designed to ensure that the source code always remains available and to
prevent people from unfairly capitalising on the efforts of the original
individual developers. A part of
the Open Source community, known as the Free Software
Federation (FSF) invented a system of copyright, called copyleft.
Copyleft requires that, when a program is redistributed, restrictions
cannot be added to deny other people access to the source code. Like other forms of copyright, copyleft is
implemented through licences and is legally enforceable. |
|
|
|
Among the
most widely used licences are the General Public Licence or GNU
GPL, which governs Linux, the Berkley Software Distribution (BSD) licence which is widely used in the academic community,
and Apache, which has a large part of the web-server market. OSS licences loosely fall into two groups,
“permissive” and “restrictive”. BSD is termed a permissive licence because
it allows the commercialisation
of changes made to the original work. GPL is termed a restrictive
licence and some critics even describe it as a “viral” licence. By this they are referring to the fact
that if OSS covered by GPL is used to develop derivative applications, or is
embedded in applications that are used to develop derivatives, then those
derivative applications are also subject to the GPL and their source code
must also be made available. In this
way the GPL “infects” other software and brings it under the same
non-commercial licensing terms.
However, GPL does not restrict the running of OSS programmes, only
copying, distribution and modification.
That means that you can use it to run applications freely but once you
start using it to build new things, then the terms of the GPL apply and you
may lose the IPR to your innovation. Recently OSI have sought to avoid further
proliferation and confusion over different licences by proposing two new
forms of licence – a “restricted” version –the Academic Free Licence (AFL)
and a “permissive variant – the Open Source Licence. Other than the difference between these
two terms, the licences share identical wording, and now both additionally
give warranty over provenance, provide a patent licence grant and termination
for patent action provision and will be enforceable under contract law as
well as copyright law. As can be
expected, the industry has found ways, despite the restrictions cited above,
to provide dual licensing for different categories of
user, without breaking licence terms, yet providing a viable business model. |
|
|
HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT |
Schools of
thought and ideologies
|
|
Some take the view that to get the
best software, the source code must be open, and development must be
collaborative. The rationale for this
is that open code allows everyone to see what is going on (rather like reading
the score of a Beethoven symphony rather than just listening to a recording)
and that collaboration encourages efficiency and creativity (effort is not
wasted in parallel activity). For
work to be truly open and collaborative, access to code must be shared and
equable – people must desist from protected rights of ownership that prevent
other people from seeing what they have done. There is a temptation to take a software application and modify
it, or use software to develop a new application and then sell it
commercially, with the new applications or modifications being protected by
IPR so no-one else can take the same advantage of them. Certain OS licenses seek to ensure that
this is prevented because, according to this school of thought, there is no
incentive to share expertise if one will not, in turn, benefit from
disclosures of others’ changes.
However, the significant number of programs that flourish under the
BSD licence, which provides complete source code access, yet does not prevent
users from restricting access to their changes, suggests that this is only
partially true. The Free Software Federation (FSF)
espouses the ideology that software should not be owned by anybody and should
be freely available to all, for any purpose except commercial gain from the
intellectual creation. Its founder,
Richard Stallman, was to a large extent the architect of the concept of “Free
Software”. |
|
The
Open Source Initiative (the
organisation that manages and promotes the Open Source definition) takes a
slightly broader view, whilst sharing some of the objectives of the FSF. Stallman has a very strong ideological
commitment to the concept of Free Software and firmly disassociates it from
that of Open Source, which he views to some extent as compromising the Free
Software ideals. Stallman and the FSF could perhaps be seen as Open Source
purists. |
|
The
term Open Source was initially coined to describe free software but avoid the
“radical implications” of “free” which some felt were
off-putting to the business community.
However, the definitions of OSS and Free Software have diverged
although they still might seem very close to an outsider. Free Software is by definition Open
Source, but not all Open Source Software is Free Software - for instance,
semi-free and even some proprietary
programs can be Open Source if the source code is made available, but these
would not be considered Free Software by the followers of the FSF. Some of
the licences accepted by the Open Source Initiative, such as the BSD, which
allows the commercialisation of changes made to the original work, are
considered unacceptable by the Free Software community. The distinction is
held to be important by the two movements and is explained in more detail in
the glossary which provides links to the definitions so they may be
compared. |
|
|
|
Whilst the objectives of the FSF and
the Open Source Movement are to ensure that software will always be
accessible and open to everyone, other people take the view that in software,
as in any other area of business, the prospect of making economic gain from
intellectual creativity is not only a legitimate business practice but also a
very effective driver for innovation and economic growth for the good of all.
Opponents of the FSF ask why software alone should be singled out for such an
anti-commercial approach and how the software industry, a massive employer
and contributor to economies worldwide, can sustain its existence and its key
role in driving technological innovation if required to apply this approach. The software industry generally
takes the view that there is a place for both models of software development
and open source and proprietary
software can co-exist very easily whilst playing to the particular strengths
of their respective models. As the UK
moves increasingly towards a knowledge-based economy, so intellectual
property issues become more important. |
|
|
Where did GNU/Linux come from?
|
|
In
the early days of software development, Richard Stallman was part of an
academic community that had worked on an operating system
called UNIXÒ. He created GNU (Gnu’s
Not UNIX) as an alternative operating system to UNIXÒ when the UNIXÒ source code ceased
to be openly available to the software developer community. An operating
system contains multiple parts, including a kernel and
various other tools and components, and Stallman was originally working on
building all these components under his GNU Project when a student called
Linus Torvalds, working independently of the GNU project, created a kernel
called Linux that was compatible with the other GNU project elements. This was timely because the GNU kernel was
developing more slowly than other GNU project elements, so the Linux kernel
was used instead. This suggests that
today’s GNU/Linux operating system is a mix of elements created from the GNU
project plus the Linux kernel created by Torvalds. Linus
Torvalds is regarded as the final arbiter of Linux, which means that in
theory he decides which changes are adopted and how the software
develops. In practice, however, there
is no evidence that Torvalds has been put into, or has put himself into that
position. Some say that the
existence of a final arbiter for Linux prevents the system from forking into
multiple versions and suffering the same fate as UNIXÒ which at one stage
fragmented into incompatible proprietary versions
(although now all UNIXÒ versions are warranted to conform to
set standards). However, others feel
that there are disadvantages to a single arbiter who in theory could be seen
as a bottleneck to development, or for whom the responsibility could become a
burden, although again, in practice this has not yet appeared to be the case.
Torvalds, for instance, uses a set of trusted committees, who are responsible
to him but operate fairly autonomously.
If government does move towards the increased use of OSS then government must consider the need to put structures in place for arbitrating development decisions when OSS solutions are to be shared, to prevent incompatible or parallel versions being developed. |
|
|
PERSPECTIVES FOR AND AGAINST OSS |
|
|
Total cost of ownership
|
|
It is
generally accepted that OSS is available at much lower cost than proprietary
software: it can often be obtained free of charge, and even in packaged form
it is relatively cheap, and it may be run on lower cost hardware. However, the cost of purchasing or
licensing software alone is only a proportion – often a fraction - of the
total cost of ownership, which includes integration, maintenance and support
costs. Service and running costs have
to be added to the cost of OSS when not in packaged form. In some cases it is also necessary to
factor in potential revenue from future IPR when considering options. |
|
|
|
User
control |
|
For many
proponents of OSS the primary advantage of OSS over proprietary software is
that the user community has more control of the software. Users are not tied to a vendor’s upgrade
cycle, can tailor their software as they like and need not worry about
obsolescence because they can update it themselves, provided they have
the skills to develop it. |
|
|
|
Pace of Development |
|
Sharing
amongst a large community of users, easily done with the WorldWideWeb, means
that OSS has the potential to evolve very fast indeed. However, the pace of
evolution of OSS cannot be predicted, and improvements are added on an ad hoc
basis. On the one hand that means that improvements can be made to the
software and new versions issued whenever they are needed, but on the other,
if the community loses interest in that software, then development may slow
or even cease because it depends on a critical mass of users, many of whom
are volunteers. Although they are
open to feedback from users on bugs and problems, proprietary software
vendors tend to issue upgrades periodically but not frequently, although they
will often issue interim “patches” to solve specific problems. In the past this has left sophisticated
users feeling frustrated – they encounter a problem but cannot fix it for
themselves since they do not have access to the source code. On the other hand proprietary software
producers are committed to regular upgrades, are moving to a process of
continuous improvements, available to customers online, and usually provide a
consistent, high level of support for the lifetime of the software. |
Functionality and User-Friendliness
|
|
Some of
the frustrations voiced by individuals about proprietary systems are that
many home users only want and need very limited functionality – their
computer usage involves web browsing, writing a few letters and possibly
adding up figures for their tax return.
Most proprietary products are far more elaborate than people need, but
the perception is that cheap versions with very limited functionality and the
same user-friendly interface are not available. Critics say it is the equivalent of wanting a bicycle to nip up
to the post office twice a week, but all that is on offer is a Rolls
Royce. Bicycles aren’t
available. They argue that OSS has
made software “bicycles” available, but because the community that has
traditionally used OSS is very computer literate, they have not come in
user-friendly formats. In other
words, the bicycle arrives in bits and needs to be put together. You will
need the equivalent of a chain de-linker and a knowledge of gearing systems. Getting software in a basic format is no
problem for the cybernerd who can build his applications from the basic
components, but presents severe difficulties for the average user who
wouldn’t know where to start. This is
where new distributors (like Red Hat) come in, since they package the open
source software into a user-friendly format, so that it can be installed onto
the desktop (from a CD-Rom for instance) and they may offer support services.
Similarly, there is a rapidly developing role for integrators. This obviously
has a service cost attached which has to be weighed up against the cost of
purchasing proprietary software. |
|
|
Testing
|
|
Software
testing is a very expensive and time-consuming business and the proprietary
software sector employs highly trained developers who are paid to spend their
working time testing and reviewing software to eliminate bugs (faults) and
prevent illegal security breaches.
OSS, however, depends on volume adoption to shake out the bugs - on the basis that the more people are
allowed to test the software, the more opportunity there will be to find
bugs. Everyone can look at the source
code, can tinker about and suggest improvements or solutions (patches and
fixes) and try them out, then submit their suggestions to the author
(inventor) of the software who usually acts as arbiter. Provided that lots of
people test the software in this way the software can become very robust
because it is thoroughly scrutinised.
Some critics of this “many eyeballs” approach to security point out
that without a commercial incentive de-bugging is left somewhat to chance,
relying on the hope that volunteers will review the correct piece of
software, find the bug and have the necessary skills to address the problem.
However, there is no evidence that OSS is of lower quality than proprietary
offerings. It is worth noting that recent research has shown that many
proprietary sector developers work either in their own time, or funded by
their employer, on OSS development and this is likely to further improve the
reliability of OSS offerings. To an
extent the OSS testing model rests on reputation over time, so people can be
relatively confident in OSS like Linux and Apache but should test out most
OSS very carefully and extensively in the application environment before
relying on it. |
Support
|
|
Whilst
proprietary vendors invest in extensive training programmes to ensure a
steady supply of support skills in appropriate applications, OSS support can
be fragmented or difficult to obtain, because there are fewer trained
administrators for open source systems. However, this problem appears to be
diminishing as an increasing number of large suppliers (eg IBM, Sun and HP)
are investing heavily in supporting OSS.
The same can be said for supporting documentation, which is another
issue that should diminish as OS solutions become more mainstream. |
|
|
Security
|
|
OS
proponents believe that OSS is less vulnerable to attacks and hacking than
proprietary software because it was developed via the internet under real
conditions of exposure, and, because the code is freely available for
inspection to a large peer group, weaknesses can be quickly overcome in early
design. Although there are fewer
recorded instances of successful attacks on OSS, it is not such an attractive
target as proprietary systems, so it may not be subject to a comparable
number of attacks. Also, just like other aspects of development, locating
security flaws successfully through voluntary effort depends on a critical
mass of users. Opinions are divided as to whether OSS is inevitably more
secure than proprietary software programmes. |
|
|
Stability
|
|
There is
a lingering perception that OSS is produced by men in flip-flops living in
beach huts in California, and that therefore the stability of OS offerings
depends on the state of the surf.
This may just possibly be true of some OSS offerings – generally the
ones that never see the light of day.
It is certainly not the case for mainstream products where global
communities are involved in their development and testing. |
|
|
Due Diligence
|
|
Some
critics are concerned that whilst a customer who runs an OSS program has no
obligations to the author, he has no rights either and there is no guarantee
that the code he is using is free from copyright or other IPR infringement,
or liabilities to third parties.
With no single developer there is no obvious way to protect supply and
satisfy auditors. The current
litigation called by SCO[5]
is a case in point. Secondly,
OSS does not cover contingent liability – i.e. the consequences of software
failure. Proponents of OSS say that this is a practical necessity for the
developer, who cannot know how and where his prodigy will be used, that
proprietary licenses are also exclusive, and cite the Java licence which
advises against its use in mission-critical situations and excludes liability
for the consequences of failure.
However, a paying customer in an identified relationship with a
proprietary software vendor is afforded some cover under legislation such as
consumer protection law, so proprietary vendors cannot disclaim liability
entirely. |
|
|
Interoperability and Portability
|
|
OSS is
supplier-independent and is not tied to one supplier because it is developed
and maintained through collegiate working by individuals. This makes it portable to a wide range of
platforms, which gives greater choice and enables users to avoid proprietary lock-in.
That said, proprietary vendors do co-operate with one another to
provide services, and frequently support standards such as the e-GIF which
provide purchasers with protection from proprietary lock-in. Proponents of OSS believe that it also
allows easier pooling of applications amongst public sector organisations
although there is as yet no framework within which to achieve this. |
|
Open Industry Standards
OSS is built
around open industry standards although source code availability is not
synonymous with open standards, while proprietary vendors are not
traditionally associated with open standards. However, proprietary vendors are increasingly supporting open
standards that support interoperability, such as W3C XML. There is frequently some confusion around
what, precisely, the terms “open standard” and “open source” mean in the
consideration of interoperability.
Although these two terms are frequently used in close conjunction they
are not synonymous. A recent
submission from the Coordinating Committee of Business Interlocutors (CCBI)
to the World Symposium on Information Society (WSIS) recently stated these
differences as follows: “an open
standard is a technical specification whereas open source is a software
development model, which, like any other software development model, may or
may not implement open standards”. “standards
do not require either proprietary or open source software for their adoption
or utility, and in some cases may combine technology or intellectual property
developed under both software development models. Furthermore, when these
standards are open and available to all through reasonable and
non-discriminatory licensing, they help all developers create products that
interoperate with each other.” |
|
|
SECTION III – GOVERNMENT POLICY
|
WHAT IS BEING DONE AND BY WHOM? |
|
|
Current situation – what is the policy?
|
|
Both
the European Commission and the UK Government are positively encouraging the
consideration of open source software (OSS) for appropriate applications
alongside proprietary
software. The EU supports the use of
open source in the e-Europe Initiative An information Society for all [6] and makes this clear in the June
2000 Action Plan[7] ,
which states “during 2001 the European Commission and member states will
promote the use of open source software in the public sector and e-government
best practice through exchange of experiences across the Union (through the
IST* and IDA* programmes)”. |
|
|
|
The
UK Government wants a “level playing field” and “acknowledges the competitive
viability of OSS solutions”. Government policy[8]
states that OSS solutions will be considered alongside proprietary ones in IT
procurements, with contracts being awarded on a value-for-money basis, that
Government will only use products that support open standards and will seek
to avoid lock-in to proprietary IT products and services, and that Government
will consider obtaining rights to software code where this achieves value for
money. UK Government has already
mandated open standards and specifications in its e-Government
Interoperability Framework (e-GIF). |
|
|
How is policy
being implemented?
|
|
The UK Government’s policy was well received by
the public sector and industry and implementation is fully underway. UK Government and European Commission OSS
activities are summarised below. |
|
|
|
Implementation of OSS policy in the UK |
|
UK
Government is actively implementing policy through a number of initiatives: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
·
An OSS Community
Special Interest Group has been established with the objective of keeping UK
government informed on relevant issues in the OSS community. |
|
The
government’s OSS Policy will be revised when appropriate to reflect
developments. Recent
research by Open Forum Europe has indicated,
however, that whilst the Policy document is well known, little pragmatic
support or leadership is perceived as being available into how and where OSS
could most effectively be considered. |
|
|
|
Implementation of OSS policy
in the EC |
|
In the EC OSS policy is being
implemented principally through IDA (Interchange of Data between
Administrations) and the Sixth Framework.
|
|
|
|
IDA is a European Commission
driven strategic initiative using advances in information and communications
technology to support rapid electronic exchange of information between Member
State administrations. The objective is to improve Community decision-making,
facilitate operation of the internal market and accelerate policy
implementation. Initially, IDA helped set up infrastructure, establish common
formats and integrate new ICT based business processes. It is now improving
network services, tools, security and interoperability. IDA action lines specifically relevant to
OSS proposed for the 2003 IDA Work Programme are: |
|
·
The establishment of competence centres for OSS:- the key output would be an improved information base on the usage of
open source software in Europe's public sector, to promote the spread of
good practice in the use of open source software
by public administrations. An information focal point on OSS will be established
under the eGovernment observatory, detailing the lessons
learnt, providing specialist technical and economic advice on specific
issues, encouraging contacts between national and regional initiatives
through workshops and leading to, at a later stage, the creation of an
inventory of government-sponsored applications. This proposed action would
build on the work of the Feasibility Study on the pooling of OSS published in
June 2002*. |
|
·
Open Source migration assessment:- the objectives are to continue to examine
the costs incurred in changing from a proprietary-based office IT
infrastructure to Open Source Software; and to define a reference OSS desktop
PC environment. The costs and
benefits of deploying Open Source Software would be addressed via case
studies of administrations contemplating a migration to OSS. Recommendations
and guidelines to public administrations wishing to migrate to open source
software are due in summer 2003[11].
|
|
· OSS-based e-Learning tools:- the objectives are to consider emerging specifications, define functional requirements and survey available open source software-based tools for e-learning within a new and fast-developing e-learning market. |
|
|
|
The Sixth
Framework Programme for research and technological development is a major
strategic tool to support the creation of the European Research Area (ERA)
which aims to provide a structure to coordinate research activities and
converge research and innovation policies at both EU and national levels. Within the Programme, a significant number
of research projects are using or developing OSS solutions. |
|
|
Other National Government Approaches to OSS
While most national governments take a pragmatic
approach similar to the UK, some have taken a more proactive approach to
supporting OSS as the preferred procurement model. In Europe, Germany is
perceived to be taking the strongest line and has implemented a number of
supporting initiatives. A Ministry of
the Interior agreement was signed in June 2002 to give special conditions for
administrations buying Linux/OSS and OSS is now used widely across both the
state and local governments. Other
countries have provided practical support via the establishment of regional
capability centres. The capability
centre in the Netherlands (TBC) and the Extramadura region in Spain are
examples of this approach. Proponents of OSS report vocal support in nations
where there has not been a strong history of widespread use of IT. For those
who take this view, the driver may well be political, on the basis that OSS
provides the most effective re-use of community resource and public
investment, as a fiscal opportunity to reduce balance of payment issues by
reducing the license spend exiting the country or to reinvigorate or develop
an internal software industry, recognising the lower cost base and market
cost of entry. This view is not shared by the proprietary vendor
community. |
|
|
|
|
|
Binary Code is the string of 0s and 1s that make up the
instructions that a computer can understand.
Computers work in Binary – powers of 2, whereas normally we work in
Decimal – powers of 10. Hence 234 in
binary is 2 x 22 + 3 x 21 + 4 x 20 = 8 + 6 +
4 = 18 whereas in decimal this number is 2 x 102 + 3 x 101
+ 4 x 100 = 200 + 30 + 4.
Binary code suits electronic equipment because of the on-off /
charged-uncharged / positive-negative associations. |
|
|
|
BSD stands for ``Berkeley
Software Distribution'' and it is an open source license that is more
permissive than the GPL or General Public License because it allows the
commercial exploitation of changes to the original work. It is widely used in the academic community.
See http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php
for a copy of the BSD licence. |
|
|
|
A Compiler is a program that translates Source code into
Object code which can then be translated into Machine code. Source code is the basic language in which
the instructions are written by the programme. Machine code is the language that computers can understand in
order to execute the instructions and object code is a kind of intermediary
language. The compiler collects and
reorganises the instructions in the source code to produce object code. Sometimes computers can read object code
because it is close enough to the machine code that they understand. Other times the object code needs to be
converted to executable machine code by using programmes called assemblers,
binders, linkers and loaders. Compilers
are specific to certain computer types and programming languages. A particular compiler, therefore
translates a certain kind of programming language into code that is readable
on certain kinds of machines. This is
a bit like a translator that can translate German into Russian as opposed to
one that can translate German into French or French into English, except that
there can be an intermediate language involved too. Source: http://www.webopedia.com For
more information see: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/C/compiler.html |
|
|
|
Copyleft is a general method for making a program free
software and requiring all modified and extended versions of the program to
be free software as well. Copylefting ensures that anyone who redistributes
the software, with or without changes, must pass along the freedom to further
copy and change it. |
|
|
|
Distinction between
Open Source and Free Software
Open Source and Free Software are clearly differentiated – see http://members.optushome.com.au/brendansweb/opensource/ for links to definitions of both, or
go to http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for Free Software definition and to http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php for Open Source definition. |
|
|
|
Dual Licensing is based on the simultaneous use of
both open source and proprietary licenses and has emerged as a way to
maintain sustainable sources of revenue whilst using an open source
development and licensing model. The
same software can be available under two different licenses – a GPL type
licence where the copyleft extends to derivatives and a proprietary licence
where there is no such restriction.
Dual licensing is explained in much more detail in Mikko Välimäki’s paper Dual Licensing in Open Source
Software, published in Systèmes d’Information et Management, Vol 8 No. 1 pp
63-75, 2003. http://www.hiit.fi/u/valimaki/dual_licensing.pdf |
|
ERP is short for enterprise resource
planning, a business management system that integrates all facets
of the business, including planning, manufacturing, sales, and marketing. As
the ERP methodology has become more popular, software applications have
emerged to help business managers implement ERP in business activities such
as inventory control, order tracking, customer service, finance and human
resources. Source: http://www.webopedia.com See: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/E/ERP.html |
|
e-GIF is short for the Electronic Government Interoperability Framework. e-GIF is a set of policies and standards to enable information to flow seamlessly across the public sector and provide citizens and businesses with better access to public services. e-GIF covers the integration of data across government departmental boundaries, interconnectivity of systems, access to information and management of all information content. This encompasses information interchange, how you describe data (use of meta data is covered by the e-GMF; electronic Government Metadata Framework), and the use of Internet standards (HTTP, SOAP, HTML, XML etc). Source: Tessella - http://www.tessella.com/literature/articles/otherarticles/egif.htm |
|
|
|
Escrow Software escrow applies where a
trusted third party (TTP) to customers and suppliers holds software
safely. In a volatile market,
customers want to know that if something happened to their supplier, they
could still use the software, so the TTP keeps it and is able to ensure that
the software wills till be available even if the original vendor no longer
exists. |
|
Escrow
also applies more generally to ensure buyers and sellers fulfil business
agreements, particularly when paying online. Instead of paying a seller
directly, buyers pay an escrow company, which then shuttles the payment to
the seller-only after the buyer receives and approves the goods. Source: http://www.i-escrow.com/ |
|
|
|
A Firewall is a
system designed to prevent unauthorized access to or from a private network.
Firewalls can be implemented in both hardware and software, or a combination
of both. Firewalls are frequently used to prevent unauthorized Internet users
from accessing private networks connected to the Internet, especially
intranets. All messages entering or leaving the intranet pass through the
firewall, which examines each message and blocks those that do not meet the
specified security criteria. Source: http://www.webopedia.com See also: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/f/firewall.html |
|
Forking happens when software
develops down divergent paths, or when offshoots of the software develop The result may be independent products
that are not interoperable. This
happened to UNIX where different proprietary versions developed. |
|
Free Software is software, where the user
has freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. The concept of Free Software is an ideology,
around the idea that software should not be owned by anyone. Although zero cost is implied, the “Free”
should be interpreted in the same way as “Free Speech” rather than “Free
Beer”. The Free Software Federation say that it is
free software if, “as a
user:- ·
You have the freedom to run
the program, for any purpose. ·
You have the freedom to
modify the program to suit your needs. (To make this freedom effective in
practice, you must have access to the source code, since making changes in a
program without having the source code is exceedingly difficult.) ·
You have the freedom to
redistribute copies, either gratis or for a fee. ·
You have the freedom to
distribute modified versions of the program, so that the community can
benefit from your improvements. The "free" refers
to freedom, not to price so there is no contradiction between selling copies
and free software.” Source: http://www.fsf.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html |
|
The Free Software Federation (FSF) is the principal organisational
sponsor of the GNU project with a mission to preserve, protect and promote
the freedom to use, study, copy, modify and redistribute computer software
and to defend the rights of free software users. See: http://www.gnu.org/ |
|
|
|
The GNU Project was launched in 1984 to develop a complete
Unix-like operating system which is free software: the GNU system. (GNU is a
recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix"; it is pronounced
"guh-NEW".) Variants of the GNU operating system, which use the
kernel Linux, are now widely used; though these systems are often referred to
as "Linux", they are more accurately called GNU/Linux systems. Source:
http://www.gnu.org/ |
|
GPL or General Public Licence, usually referred to as GNU
GPL. This is a specific example
of a free software licence
and is designed to ensure that the source code for the software stays in the public domain,
using copyleft clauses.
The GPL requires that any changes to the original work also take on the same licence
terms. This means that anyone distributing OSS, making modifications or
improvements to OSS or using OSS to create derivative products must make the
source code of such derivatives publicly available. Some view this as a restrictive licence because it restricts
the opportunity to benefit commercially from developing the software. Others
would say the opposite, because it ensures unrestricted access to the source
code. See http://www.fsf.org/copyleft/gpl.html
for copies of the GPL. |
|
|
|
Hacker in this context is used to describe a member of the software
developer community, its original meaning, and NOT someone trying to hack
illegally into systems. e.g. Richard Stallman,
founder of the Free Software Federation and architect of GNU, is a hacker. |
|
IDA – Interchange of Data between
Administrations. IDA is a European Commission driven strategic
initiative using advances in information and communications technology to
support rapid electronic exchange of information between Member State
administrations. The objective is to improve Community decision-making,
facilitate operation of the internal market and accelerate policy
implementation. Source: http://europa.eu.int/ISPO/ida/jsps/index.jsp?fuseAction=home |
|
|
|
Interoperability is the ability of systems or software to “talk to” other systems, either directly,
because they are compatible, or via an interface or portal. Interoperability eliminates repeated data
entry (with consequent risk of error) because information held in one system
can be accessed via another system.
Interoperability relies on data management standards (ownership, security,
quality, sourcing) and interface standards (format, protocols and
process). e.g.The Police National Computer (PNC) is now
linked to a Motor insurance and Driver databases so that police can check
insurance and licence records of cars directly via the PNC. Local Authority One-Stop-Shops are an
example of limited interoperability where information from different systems
is available through a portal or screen, but the information is not combined
and is held separately. Source: EURIM Briefing 36: Interoperability – Joined Up Government Needs Joined Up Systems http://www.eurim.org/briefings/BR36_final.htm See also e-GIF definitions. |
|
|
|
Incompatible versions – software versions that are no longer interoperable. |
|
|
|
An Interpreter is a programme that translates programming
language from the original code in which it is written to an intermediate
code and then executes it, so there is no need for machine code. |
|
|
|
IPR - Intellectual Property Rights – the system for protecting
ownership of a creation that does not exist in tangible form. Such rights are protected through patents,
copyright, trademarks, etc. Source: Oxford English Reference
Dictionary |
|
|
|
The Kernel is the central module of an
operating system. It is the part of the operating system that loads first,
and it remains in main memory. Because it stays in memory, it is important
for the kernel to be as small as possible while still providing all the
essential services required by other parts of the operating system and
applications. Typically, the kernel is responsible for memory management,
process and task management, and disk management. Source: http://www.webopedia.com see: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/k/kernel.html |
|
|
|
Linux
–
Pronounced lee-nucks or lih-nucks. A
freely distributable open source operating systemr that runs on a number of
hardware platforms. The Linux Kernel was developed mainly by Linus
Torvalds. Because it is free and it
runs on many platforms, including PCs and Macintoshes, Linux has become and
extremely popular alternative to proprietary operating systems that has
gained popularity because of its stability as an operating system,
particularly for hosting web servers.
Linux is freely available over the Internet. Source: Webopedia - http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/L/Linux.html |
|
|
|
Meta Data is data about data – how
you describe data. The use of meta
data is covered by the e-GMF; electronic Government Metadata Framework. The
e-Government Metadata Standard lays down the schemes to be used by
government agencies when creating metadata for their information
resources or designing systems to search their information. The e-GMS is
needed to ensure maximum consistency of metadata across public sector
organisations. The GCL (Government Category List) is a classified list of
headings for use with the subject element of the e-GMS. All electronic
documents, web pages and other resources in the public sector should all have
the relevant terms in their metadata. Source: http://www.boxuk.com/server/show/ConWebDoc.183/cms/xml |
|
|
|
Open (as in open source software or open standards) is meant in the sense of fulfilling the
following requirements: ·
the costs for the use of the
standard are low and are not an obstacle to access to it; ·
the standard has been
published; ·
the standard is adopted on
the basis of an open decision-making procedure (consensus or majority
decision etc); ·
the intellectual property
rights to the standard are vested in a not-for-profit organisation, which
operates a completely free access policy; ·
there are no constraints on the re-use of the
standard. Source: Dutch Programme for Open Standards and Open
Source Software in Government (OS/SOS) |
|
|
|
Open Forum Europe is a new initiative, whose objective
is to accelerate and broaden the market take-up of Open Source Software (OSS)
including Linus. Major vendors and
distributors, software houses, services and integration companies, as well as
major users are all supporting the project. Source: http://www.openforumeurope.org/ |
|
|
|
The Open Source Initiative
is a non-profit making organisation dedicated to managing and promoting the
Open Source Definition, specifically through OSI certified software. See http://www.opensource.ac.uk/mirrors/www.opensource.org/ |
|
Open Source Software (OSS ) is software whose source code is openly
published, is often (but not always) developed by voluntary efforts and is
usually (but not always) available at no charge under a licence defined by
the Open Source Initiative (OSI) which prevents it from being redistributed
under a more restrictive licence. OGC Guidance on implementing
OSS defines it as ”Software where the source code (the language in which the
program is written) is freely distributed with the right to modify the code,
and on the condition that redistribution is not restricted, and indeed is
obtainable for no more than the reasonable cost of reproduction” See http://www.ogc.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?docid=2498 OGC also note: In contrast, vendors of closed,
proprietary, software provide only executable binary code, and not the human
readable source from which that code is derived. Proprietary software vendors usually also place very specific
limits on redistribution of the software” . e.g. Linux is an open source operating system.
Apache is open source. Source: OGC, OeE. See also OSI website definition: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php |
|
|
|
An Operating System is the underlying technology
that enables software applications to run on the computer hardware – the
interface between them. The operating
system is the most important program on a computer and enables the computer
to run other programs. It also
performs basic tasks like recognising input from the keyboard, sending output
to the screen, and keeping files and programs separate. e.g.Microsoft Windows is an operating system. Source: http://www.webopedia.com , see http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/O/operating_system.html |
|
|
|
Permissive Licence - tends to describe a licence that allows commercial benefit to be
gained from derivatives or modifications to OSS whilst ensuring that the
original source code remains open. It is worth noting that the
confusion over licensing is not helped by the descriptive terms used. For
instance, very different types of licence are described as “restrictive”
depending on perspective - FSF
proponents believe that proprietary
licences are restrictive because they restrict freedom to use the software. In contrast, others would term the OSS
licences restrictive because they restrict the commercial benefits that use
or development of the software can provide. |
|
|
|
Proprietary Lock-in or Vendor lock-in is a situation in which a customer is
dependent on a vendor for products and services and cannot move to another
vendor without substantial costs. This is often a result of incompatibility
between different computer systems which intentionally or unintentionally
force a customer to continue to use products and services from a particular
vendor. Open Standardisation
processes are meant to provide a way to reduce the risk of vendor lock-in
when creating new standards. One
argument for OSS is that it reduces the risk of vendor lock-in. Source: Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vendor_lock-in |
|
|
|
Proprietary Software is software that is
privately owned and controlled. A proprietary design or technique is one that
is owned by a company. It also implies that the company has not divulged
specifications that would allow other companies to duplicate the product.
Generally proprietary software is software for which there is no access to
the source code, although there are exceptions (See below). Some refer to
proprietary software as closed source. For the purposes of this
EURIM paper, we differentiate between 'proprietary' and 'commercial'
software. NB - these two terms are not necessarily related, even as
opposites. They describe different states. We see 'proprietary' software as where the
ownership of the intellectual capital in the software is vested in an
individual or company as their property. They may well make this property
openly available for use free of charge by others, while retaining their
ownership. Owners of proprietary software may keep the technical detail of
the software code private to themselves and only license its use to
customers, or they may choose another relationship with users - exposing the
source code to some while keeping it secret from others and with a range of
payment options - while still retaining the intellectual property. We see commercial as relating
to software - whether based on proprietary code or on open source code -
which forms the basis of a commercial transaction. Thus 'commercial' could apply
to the terms of use of software developed using LINUX, depending on the
product licence terms. More often it will apply to proprietary software made
available on normal business terms.
An example of
proprietary but non-commercial software is JAVA language, which has been made
openly available to software developers worldwide at no charge, while
remaining the property of Sun Microsystems (TM). |
|
|
|
Proxy Servers are servers that act as
interfaces between users and other servers, such as web servers. They intercept requests before they reach
the server and answer them if they can, if not they send the request on to
the server. In this way they act as a
memory cache, a bit like the temporary internet files on a PC, but much
bigger, and this speeds up access to information. They can also act as filters to prevent users accessing certain
kinds of website. |
|
“Radical Implications of Free Software”. The concept of “free software” was seen by some to have radical
implications as part of a larger “free” or anti-capitalist movement. It was also felt that people in business
would underestimate free software simply because it was free, on the mistaken
assumption that anything that was a giveaway couldn’t be any good. Hence the term “open source” was developed
to play down these associations whilst reinforcing the concept of access to
the source code. It also reflects better the reality that the software is not
necessarily free of cost. |
|
|
|
Restrictive Licence:- Some use the term restrictive
licence to describe a licence like the GPL which restricts the way in which
the software can be used commercially because further work on the software to
develop it, make modifications or derivatives cannot be protected by IPR. However, others take the opposite view,
and would describe proprietary licences as restrictive because they limit the
ways in which software can be used, and access to the source code is
restricted. |
|
|
|
A Server is really a computer that provides some kind of service for
other computers on a network. There
are different kinds of server – print servers are computers that manage
printers, file servers are computers that manage lots of files. Because other computers (and often whole
networks) rely on them, servers are usually high specification, and may also
have built in contingency setups, for example back up power sources should
there be a power failure. |
|
|
|
Source code is the original instructions
for a programme, and is the only format that is written in a language that
can be understood by humans. In order for it to be read by machines, source
code has to be translated into Executable code, or sets of instructions that
a machine can carry out. Machine code is an executable code. Usually, the
code that is supplied with software is in a machine language format which
means that they will automatically give instructions that the computer
hardware understands and can execute, but cannot be read or modified. Source code is readable and can therefore
be modified. See www.iunknown.com/Files/Test.pdf
for an example of some source code. Source: http://www.webopedia.com See http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/s/source_code.html |
|
UNIX (pronounced yoo-niks) is an operating system
first developed at Bell Labs in the early 1970s. UNIX was designed to be a
small, flexible system used exclusively by programmers and as a result it has
traditionally been user-unfriendly. UNIX was one of the first operating
systems to be written in a high-level programming language, namely C, which
made it very portable because it could be installed on virtually any computer
for which a C compiler existed. This
natural portability combined with its low price made it a popular choice
among universities. (It was inexpensive because antitrust regulations
prohibited Bell Labs from marketing it as a full-scale product.) Bell Labs distributed the operating system in its
source language form, so anyone who obtained a copy could modify and
customize it for his own purposes. By the end of the 1970s, dozens of
different versions of UNIX were running at various sites. Source: http://www.webopedia.com See: http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/U/UNIX.html |
|
Value Added Services Provision means the inclusion of support and other services
with the software. |
|
|
|
W3C XML stands for the World Wide
Web Consortium Extensible Markup Language. Extensible Markup Language is a
simple, very flexible text format derived from SGML (ISO 8879). Originally designed to meet the challenges
of large scale electronic publishing, XML is also playing an increasingly
important role in the exchange of a wide variety of data on the Web and
elsewhere. Source:
http://www.w3.org/XML/ |
|
|
|
A Web Server is a
computer that delivers web pages. Any
computer can become a web server by installing server software and connecting
it to the internet. There are many
web server software applications such as Apache, Microsoft or Netscape. When
you search for a website using a browser it requests it from the web server
which then finds and serves up the home (index) page unless a more specific
page is requested. Source: http://www.webopedia.com |
|
|
(to be copied from web-based
glossary)
[2] http://www.ogc.gov.uk/embedded_object.asp?docid=2498
[3] Check Intellect’s paper title
[5] SCO’s lawsuit against IBM, filed March 2003 – see http://www.sco.com/ibmlawsuit/amendedcomplaintjune16.html
[10] QinetiQ study: see http://www.ogc.gov.uk/index.asp?id=21908&