From 0 To 70 Computers With No Money And Open Source Software

from the when-'for-the-children'-actually-means-something dept

For today's children, an education is not complete unless it comes with some form of computer interaction. In order to become fully functioning adults, these kids need to learn basic computer skills. Unfortunately for many schools, this goal runs in opposition to slashed budgets and bureaucratic apathy. What is an educator to do when he realizes that the computers that kids need are not going to be part of any budget the school has to offer?

Thanks to I Love Ubuntu, we have at least one answer answer. Robert Litt, a 6th grade teacher from Alameda County, faced just such a predicament. He needed to provide his students with computers but had no money and little support from the administration. So he set about building the computer lab his students needed using donated computers and the Ubuntu Linux operating system.

Why go with Ubuntu over the much more common Windows? Cost.

Most of the computers’ problems could be fixed by wiping the disks and reinstalling the operating system—but buying new software for every donated computer would be prohibitively expensive. So Robert began to research more affordable options. An acquaintance at the Alameda County Computer Recyclers suggested he use a free operating system, such as GNU/Linux.

This is one of the key issues of those hit with budget constraints. Computers can be expensive and having a proprietary operating system such as Windows can add to the cost. By going the Linux route, Robert was able to stick to his $0 budget and still provide the neccesary computers for the students. His early success in bringing in 18 computers led to additional excitement from both students and staff. He was then able to expand the computer lab to 70 computers through these means.

This success in building a quality lab has expanded the ability of the teachers at the school to teach meaningful computer skills to the students.

“The digital divide is growing in a hidden statistic,” Robert says, “the actual teaching of technology in a meaningful way.” He shows students how to do math on spreadsheets, how to make simple websites, how to put together slide presentations, all on free software. These are the computer skills that, students tell him, they are later expected simply to know.

By going this route, Robert was party to keeping the cost of education down, something that many people are trying to accomplish. It also brings in a fresh approach to teaching in the digital age. By stepping outside of his comfort zone when it comes to computers, Robert was able to expand his skill set. He now has an opportunity to share that new knowledge and skill with the students and hopefully expand the way in which they interact with technology. Something these kids and and future kids will be doing far more frequently.

Filed Under: computers, labs, linux, open source, ubuntu

Two Open Source Communities Battle It Out Over Trademarks

from the why-can't-trademarks-be-open-source dept

Trademarks are a fickle beast. It seems that no matter what you do, no matter what you name your product or service, no matter how you color your shape your logo, someone comes along and claims that you are infringing their own trademark. Sometimes the trademarks are within the same industry, sometimes they seem to have absolutely nothing to do with each other. Yet, for some companies it doesn't matter. All that matters is that you are using something they think is too close.

Not long ago, an organization was formed to promote the creation and use of open source hardware, hardware that has an open spec and design that others can copy and modify. This organization, Open Source Hardware Association, upon creation, had the community vote on a logo to represent the initiative and brand any hardware meeting its qualifications. Unfortunately, another open source organization, the Open Source Initiative, feels that the logo chosen by the OSHWA community is much too close to its own. According to the complaint, OSHWA's logo looks too similar to OSI's logo. You can see the two below.

The main similarity that has OSI complaining is the keyhole shaped opening in the middle of the two logos. Because of this similarity, OSI feels that people might associate its organization with the products of OSHWA. OSI feels that it could be problematic as it doesn't want its brand diluted.

Perhaps it should be approaching this dispute differently. The OSHWA logo was chosen by the community. Which means that on some level, the open source community felt inspired by the work of the OSI and wanted to pay homage to it. Perhaps the OSI has recognized that fact as it is offering OSHWA a licensing offer. Unfortunately, OSHWA feels that even that license will not work.

OSI has indicated that they would grant a trademark license to OSHWA. This would give OSI the means to protect their trademark. However, accepting such a license would establish OSI as the owner of the crowdsourced ‘gear’ logo. It would make OSI responsible for deciding where and when the logo can be used, effectively giving OSI control of defining what can and cannot be labeled as open source hardware.

Such a license would limit OSHWA's autonomy as an organization. Something that neither it nor its community want. So it is weighing other options as well. These include ignoring OSI's complaint or sourcing a new logo. Fortunately, it looks as if OSHWA and its community are leaning more toward the latter than the former.

But while it is busy dealing with this conflict, it cannot continue with its core mission of promoting the use of open source hardware. This dispute has even been scaring some people away from participating until it can be worked out.

Dave Vandenbout, who runs X Engineering Software Systems in North Carolina, was putting the gear mark on open-source boards, but is suspending that until the issue is sorted out. The gear logo told people that the board is open-source and they can build upon it if they wish.

"If it is found that the Gear logo infringes OSI's trademark, then I suppose I could receive a cease-and-desist letter. That might be pretty disastrous for me if I had to actually scrap my inventory," Vandenbout said.

This is certainly not a good way to start an open source movement. If this dispute keeps up, it might undermine all the effort its founders and board have put in to building a brand. If it cannot build confidence in hardware makers now, it might not recover. Fortunately, it is doing all it can and keeping the community informed about new developments. Something that will really help it stay strong.

OSHWA has stated in an update to its blog post that it is going into renewed talks with OSI and hopes to come to a conclusion that will be agreeable to all parties. Hopefully, it will also keep both parties out of the court room. Yet, I find it a tad disappointing that two organizations whose main stated goal is promoting the use and building upon the work of others through open source are even having such a dispute at all. You would think that such a philosophy would transcend the nature of their core work to other areas such as trademark.

Filed Under: open source, trademark
Companies: open source hardware association, open source initiative

Should Software Created By The Federal Gov't Be Open Source Licensed... Or Public Domain?

from the debate-time dept

Anil Dash recently alerted me to a White House petition to get "government-developed software" under an open source license for the sake of allowing others to build on it and approve it.

Top Three Reasons to Mandate Open Sourcing of Custom Federal Software:

Openness: Open Sourcing ensures basic fairness and transparency by making software and related artifacts available to the citizens who provided funding, consistent with the President’s 2009 declaration that “Information maintained by the Federal Government is a national asset.”

Economic Multiplier: Making Provides an economic stimulus by serving as the raw material that supports a competitive software development and services industry.

Supports the Federal “Shared First” Agenda: Maximizes value to the government by significantly increasing reuse and collaborative development between federal agencies and the private sector, consistent with the current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “Shared First” initiative.

While I certainly share the sentiment expressed in those reasons, I got into a bit of a debate on Twitter about this, because existing law (i.e., 17 USC 105) already says that "Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government." In other words, anything created by the US government is already public domain. Of course, public domain and open source are two different things -- but if something is public domain, it could preclude the ability to then slap a license on it, since those licenses are effectively built off of copyright, and claim specific limitations, which the government might not be able to actually claim over the software. Of course, they don't always seem to follow this, as we noted recently in our post about the NSA open sourcing its database technology, Accumulo.

The flip side, of course, is that even if something is public domain, the government could still keep it a secret -- as is the case with many Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports. So you can see the argument for pushing for an open source license, rather than just an admission of public domainness. Furthermore, as amac helpfully pointed out, there are significant exceptions to the rules saying the feds can't copyright (for example, contractors or just those funded by the government can copyright their works and then even assign them to the federal government). Furthermore, it may only be seen as public domain in the US, rather than elsewhere.

And, on top of that, Dash made a reasonable point that his focus is on advocating pragmatism in dealing with this -- and he believes that pushing for open source licenses is, perhaps the most pragmatic.

I don't disagree with Dash, but I fear the idea of setting up the belief that the federal government needs to set a particular license for a work to be useful to the public to build on. It only increases the idea that public domain works can be "owned" and limited in ways that is simply not true. I would think that a much more useful solution is a two-fold one: first an admission that government-created software is, in fact, public domain and second, a policy decision and statement that not only will such works be public domain, but, as a matter of standard procedure, that the federal government will also release the code for others to build on with no particular limitations and with encouragement to then share the results in kind.

Filed Under: copyright, government, open source, public domain, software

Senate Not Concerned About How Often NSA Spies On Americans, But Very Concerned That It Built Open Source Software To Do So

from the priorities,-people dept

Wired has a troubling story of how the Senate Armed Services Committee is pushing a bill that would likely kill off an open source NoSQL project that came out of the NSA called Accumulo. Like many other such NoSQL efforts, the NSA basically took some Google white papers about its BigTable distributed database setup, and built its own open source version, with a few improvements... and then open sourced the whole thing and put it under the Apache Foundation. It's kind of rare to see such a secretive agency like the NSA open source anything, but it does seem like the kind of thing that ought to be encouraged.

Unfortunately, the Senate Armed Services Committee sees things very differently. As part of a 600-page bill that's being floated, it actually calls out Accumulo by name, and suggests that it violates a policy that says the government shouldn't build its own software when there are other competing commercial offerings on the market. The reasoning is basically that the government shouldn't spend resources reinventing the wheel if it can spend fewer resources using existing code. You can see the basic reasoning behind that, but applying it here makes little sense. As the article notes, here we're talking about software that's already been developed and released -- not a new effort to rebuild existing software. In fact, those who follow this stuff closely note that Accumulo did "break new ground" with some of its features when it was being built. To then kill it afterwards seems not just counterproductive, but could also create a chilling effect for government open source efforts, which seem like something we should be encouraging, not killing.

What's really odd is the close interest that the Senate seems to be paying to this. The discussion is very specific, naming Accumulo and some of the competing offerings on the market. They're specifically calling out this one product. Of course, as Julian Sanchez notes, there's a bit of irony in the fact that the very same Senate appears to have absolutely no interest in finding out how often the NSA spies on Americans... but sure is concerned about what database it uses to store all of the information it's getting.

Of course... all of this raises a separate issue in my mind: can the NSA even open source Accumulo? I though that creations of the federal government were automatically public domain, rather than under copyright. And, thus, putting it under a specific license might, in fact, present limitations that the government can't actually impose on the software.... Thus, shouldn't the software code actually be completely open as a public domain project? The government should be able set up an Apache-like setup, but one without any restrictions on the code.

Filed Under: accumulo, bigtable, databases, nosql, nsa, open source, senate, spying

Beyond Open Access: Open Source Scientific Software

from the sauce-for-the-goose,-sauce-for-the-gander dept

Although the traditional image of a science laboratory typically consists of a room full of test tubes or microscopes, the reality is that computers now play a central role there, just as they do for business and life in general.

Computers need software, and some of that software will be specially written or adapted from existing code to meet the particular needs of the scientists' work. This makes computer software a vital component of the scientific process. It also means that being able to check that code for errors is as important as being able to check the rest of the experiment's methodology. And yet very rarely can other scientists do that, because the code employed is not made available.

A new paper in Science points out that this needs to change:

The publication and open exchange of knowledge and material form the backbone of scientific progress and reproducibility and are obligatory for publicly funded research. Despite increasing reliance on computing in every domain of scientific endeavor, the computer source code critical to understanding and evaluating computer programs is commonly withheld, effectively rendering these programs "black boxes" in the research work flow. Exempting from basic publication and disclosure standards such a ubiquitous category of research tool carries substantial negative consequences. Eliminating this disparity will require concerted policy action by funding agencies and journal publishers, as well as changes in the way research institutions receiving public funds manage their intellectual property (IP).

As that notes, the open exchange of knowledge and materials are obligatory for publicly-funded research, and there's no reason why it should be any different for software that is written in order to conduct the experiment. After all, this, too, has been funded by the tax-payers, who therefore have a right to enjoy the results. There may not be much they can do with it directly, but they can still benefit when other scientists are able to build on the code of others, instead of needing to re-invent the digital wheel for their own experiments.

The paper makes an important point that deserves a wide audience, because it's about a public policy issue. So it's a huge pity that, ironically, it is not published under an open access licence, and can only be read by Science's subscribers.

Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+

Filed Under: open access, open source, science

Musician Wonders What It Would Take To Become An Open Source Musician

from the going-beyond-creative-commons dept

Kevin H alerts us to the news that electronic music/DJ artist The Polish Ambassador recently began musing on Facebook about what it would mean to be an "open source" musician:

According to Wikipedia, "Open Source" is a philosophy that promotes free redistribution and access to a project's design and implementation details. The end user who edits the program is then allowed to send his/her input to the author for possible inclusion in the project.

If an artist like The Polish Ambassador were to become an open sourced project what might that look like? Is there room/possibility for art/music/brands to become open source? Is it already happening? Could this ideology serve some purpose? Maybe a way to get other people's ideas out there? A way to collaborate? A way to merge efforts of like minded folks? A way to create art from art? A way to generate $ for end users/charities? It seems to me the possibilities are endless. We all use open sourced software every day. Linux, Firefox, etc, but I haven't heard of many artists that when I think of their name, I also think, "O yea, she/he's that open source artist." Maybe there's a reason for this, maybe not. With Twitter/Facebook and the web in general, technologically speaking, we have never been more connected. Would love to hear your thoughts and ideas. Could "open source artists" be an evolutionary step for art?

Of course, many folks in the "free culture" world would point to Creative Commons as the artistic equivalent of an open source offering. However, two interesting things strike me. First, as of the time I'm writing this post, no one in the dozens of comments posted to that story mentions CC at all. Second, the request actually goes a bit further than CC. It's not just about making the works free to distribute or use... but the second part: sending it back to the original creator for possible inclusion in the project. Now, again, we have seen some examples of this with various remix projects. In particular, I'm reminded of the experiment by K-OS, where rather than having fans remix an album, he pre-released all the stems, and let fans create their own original mixes, and then took the best for each song and released a combo album: one of his own mixes, and a second of the best fan mixes. In the hip-hop world, releasing instrumentals or acapellas for fans and other artists to remix (and building contests or other promotions around that) is fairly common—but only a few artists have gone further and offered up the individual bits and pieces. Perhaps that's along the lines of what The Polish Ambassador is looking for.

Either way, this has me wondering if there isn't something Creative Commons could include in their offerings, or if if this goes beyond that. It is an interesting point however. One of the thrills people get in working on open source software isn't the fact that they can do what they want with it, but that they can collaborate to make the project better. Open source developers feel well-earned pride when a contribution gets included in a larger project. Imagine the same situation with musicians. What if your favorite band released your remix of their song? That is, what if they effectively worked with you and said your version was one they really liked -- such that you got the official stamp of approval that had the work more widely distributed? Again, it appears that some artists are doing this on the margins, but it seems like the kind of thing that could be more clearly formalized and promoted as a cool way for artists to connect with fans and for fans to gain some form of validation for their own help with certain projects.

Oh, and in the meantime, it appears that The Polish Ambassador is currently offering up its entire discography for free -- 7 hours worth of music, all in FLAC format.

Filed Under: creative commons, dj, k-os, open source, remix, the polish ambassador

Report Shows MPAA 'Experts' Seriously Misrepresented The Uses Of Hotfile

from the substantial-non-infringing-uses dept

We've been following the surprisingly weak case that the MPAA filed against Hotfile for some time -- and, in some ways it's become even more important lately as a sort of "civil analog" to the criminal case against Megaupload. Hotfile and Megaupload have many similarities, and the arguments against both seem to make the same highly questionable assumptions -- taking perfectly legitimate actions and insisting that they must have been done for nefarious purposes. For example, in both cases, the fact that the companies offered "affiliate programs" that allowed users to make some revenue on frequently downloaded works was used as evidence that they were inducing infringement. But what the facts are showing is that this was quite often used to create legitimate and lucrative new business models for creators themselves. When Megaupload was taken down, for example, hip hop superstar Busta Rhymes argued vociferously that it was a fantastic way to make money -- with much, much better terms than major labels. That's because he (and lots of other artists) could release their own content through these platforms, allow consumers to get them for free, and get a large cut of the ad and subscription revenue.

It appears that this was also a popular use on Hotfile. TorrentFreak obtained a filing from copyright expert and law professor James Boyle, in which he points out that open source developers were using Hotfile's affiliate program as a business model, and, in fact that open source downloads were incredibly popular on the platform, very likely representing one-third of the top 100 downloads, adding up to millions of downloads.

The standard for infringement under the Betamax ruling is supposed to be if there are substantial non-infringing uses of the technology, and that certainly appears to be the case here.

Boyle also points out other ridiculous problems with Hollywood's "expert" report trying to claim that Hotfile was almost always used for infringement. For example, he notes that the report appears to have purposely excluded approximately 60% of the files on Hotfile. Hollywood's experts ignored files that were never downloaded or only downloaded once. Yet, as Boyle points out, the point of a cyberlocker is to store files -- and many people likely put files up so that they could be stored in case they were ever needed. Thus ignoring the 60% of files that were never downloaded or only downloaded once, excludes the fact that many of those may have been for perfectly reasonable and legitimate purposes of backup, storage or place/time-shifting. Basically, it looks like the MPAA's "experts" ignored anything that was inconvenient.

And it gets worse. The so-called "experts" that the MPAA found seemed to classify works as "highly likely infringing" despite there being significant evidence that they were perfectly legitimate works to be shared. Perhaps the most egregious example was a copy of a Russian book on embroidery published in 1871. No matter how you look at it, a book published in 1871 is in the public domain. But the MPAA's expert listed it as highly likely infringing. Then, when called out on that, the expert said that maybe there were new works in the book and would only downgrade his classification to "unknowable" rather than admitting it was public domain.

Mr. Zebrak’s classification here was inexplicable tome in my rebuttal report and remains so now. He argues that there could be copyrightable selection and arrangement in the illustrations of this work, even though both the original work and the illustrations are clearly in the public domain. I dealt with and dismissed this possibility in my rebuttal report – indeed the site to which he cites in his original argument for infringing status explicitly identifies this exact book, in unchanged order and arrangement, as being published in 1871 in St. Petersburg. This book is at the most conservative possible classification,“highly likely in the public domain.” Mr. Zebrak will not concede even this, though he does at least change his classification to “Unknowable.” Again, I think the refusal to admit evenoverwhelming evidence like this indicates a predisposition to find infringement that is worryingly strong – and that predisposition appears to be a general one, which therefore has significance far beyond the files I was able to examine in the time available to me.

Similarly troubling, the MPAA's experts took a freely distributable podcast, and insisted that, too, was "highly likely infringing." Podcasts are usually distributed for free, and since bandwidth costs are expensive, many podcast creators love using cyberlockers like Hotfile or Megaupload as a free storage and distribution platform. But the MPAA's "expert" insists that it's highly likely infringing. And it gets worse: even after the creator of the podcast said he was happy with its free redistribution, the MPAA's expert used iTunes terms of service to argue that it was still infringing. Except iTunes terms of service have nothing to do with the podcast:

Photography 101 Podcast: This podcast is an example, again, of the same theme .As I pointed out in my rebuttal report, the podcast is in fact offered for free download online and its author confirms that he does not object to its redistribution. Mr. Zebrak – somewhat puzzlingly – introduces the iTunes terms of service into the picture, apparently imagining that iTunes has the ability to affect the copyright status of a work in which it holds no copyright. It does not. Mr. Wittenburg holds the copyright in his podcasts. He allows people to download them freely and to repost them and says so explicitly in his affidavit. There is no evidence that the version of the podcast posted on Hotfile even came from iTunes. Mr. Wittenburg refers to the podcasts being available in multiple locations online. Even if it did, the iTunes terms of service are a red herring. I may give a lecture which I record and post online, posting it also on iTunes. I hold the copyright and I may choose to allow posting and reposting as I wish. Copyright law gives iTunes no rights over the program and no rights to circumscribe what I allow with my own podcast – they have no copyright to infringe – and thus the claim that the file is "highly likely infringing" cannot be supported on this basis.

Reports like this raise significant concerns about the claims against Hotfile (and similar sites).

Filed Under: affiliate program, busta rhymes, mpaa, open source
Companies: hotfile, megaupload

Digital Native Government Agency Embraces The Power Of Open Source

from the open-source-for-open-government dept

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a young federal agency (founded in July 2011), and as such has a history of getting it when it comes to the digital world. They launched by taking online suggestions, they run an active blog, and now they've revealed their internal software policy and its dedication to open source, both as a user and a contributor (emphasis in the original):

We agree, and the first section of our source code policy is unequivocal: We use open-source software, and we do so because it helps us fulfill our mission.

Open-source software works because it enables people from around the world to share their contributions with each other. The CFPB has benefited tremendously from other people’s efforts, so it’s only right that we give back to the community by sharing our work with others.

This brings us to the second part of our policy: When we build our own software or contract with a third party to build it for us, we will share the code with the public at no charge. Exceptions will be made when source code exposes sensitive details that would put the Bureau at risk for security breaches; but we believe that, in general, hiding source code does not make the software safer.

We’re sharing our code for a few reasons:

• First, it is the right thing to do: the Bureau will use public dollars to create the source code, so the public should have access to that creation.
• Second, it gives the public a window into how a government agency conducts its business. Our job is to protect consumers and to regulate financial institutions, and every citizen deserves to know exactly how we perform those missions.
• Third, code sharing makes our products better. By letting the development community propose modifications , our software will become more stable, more secure, and more powerful with less time and expense from our team. Sharing our code positions us to maintain a technological pace that would otherwise be impossible for a government agency.

The CFPB is serious about building great technology. This policy will not necessarily make that an easy job, but it will make the goal achievable.

While governments around the world have been moving to embrace open source for a long time, adoption has been pretty slow in the U.S., though it is steadily growing as more federal agencies revise their guidelines and regulations, and some states pass laws requiring the consideration of open source options. But as a new agency that actively pursues the opportunities presented by technology, the CFPB is ahead of the curve. TechCrunch's Scott Merrill got additional details, like the fact that they are trying to lead by example:

I asked Willey what kind of advocacy — if any — the CFPB was doing (or planning to do) for open source software within the government. He shared that they’re using GitHub Enterprise internally, and have fielded a number of questions from other agencies about how they procured that and set it up. “It’s hard for us to have these conversations with other agencies without implicitly advocating an open source philosophy,” Willey told me. “So instead of trying to sell open source to other agencies on principle, we’re finding that it’s a lot easier to prove the value of open source software by showing our colleagues the great results it has gotten us.”

I was curious whether the CFPB’s policy is the natural result of more digital natives taking government jobs. According to Willey, it was “simply the byproduct of building a government organization from scratch in the information age: we are able to craft our technology philosophy with a modern perspective.”

It's good to see people in government placing an emphasis on staying at the forefront of technology, especially in terms of open source. The entire philosophy of open source is perfectly matched to the ideals of a transparent, accountable government that serves and belongs to its citizens, and hopefully the CFPB will lead more agencies in that direction.

Filed Under: cfpb, github, government, open source, software

New York Times Adapts Open Source Mini-Game For Some Meta-Journalism

from the more-than-just-a-gimmick dept

By now you've probably caught a link or two to the New York Times' layout-obliterating mini-game embedded in an article about so-called "stupid games". The article itself is an interesting (if slightly long-winded) history and mild (if slightly self-indulgent) condemnation of the "dark side" of hyperaddictive games from Tetris to Angry Birds, and while I don't agree with much of the message, I'm glad to see it's garnering quite a bit of attention for this clever idea to illustrate the point by including a distracting game right there on the page.

The Nieman Journalism Lab got some details on how the game was created, including the fact that it's a fairly simple adaptation of another open source game. Jon Huang, the man behind the NYT version, sounds like a guy who really understands and embraces the potential of open sharing:

“I give all the credit to the guys behind Kick Ass. They’re a really excited pair of 18-year-old twins in Sweden,” Huang told me Wednesday. “I love that’s how the Internet works these days.”

Kick Ass is the open source game that made the Times’ interactive possible. It’s essentially a bookmarklet that allows you to wreak havoc on any given site you find yourself on. It was a perfect fit for the the theme of Sam Anderson’s Sunday magazine story, which examines the rise of games like Angry Birds, Plants vs. Zombies, and others that inhibit a world very different from what we might traditionally think of as regular video games.

They also rightly praise Huang and the NYT for their creative use of technology and multimedia to enhance journalism—though, it seems worth pointing out that the more the game enhances the message of the article, the more it paradoxically weakens it as well: by using a completely pointless but addictive game found on github to improve a story, they've proven that such toys can have uses beyond what is immediately apparent.

Filed Under: gaming, multimedia, open source
Companies: new york times