][ stefano maffulli

Bradley is right to be excited for the phone call he received from a socially responsible investment company. While social responsibility has become a big issue for many companies, corporate reports focus mainly on projects to protect the environment, to sustain developing countries and to improve working conditions of their employees and contractors. So far, use and support of Free Software doesn’t appear in social responsibility reports. Companies instead mention more and more their support to Free Software (often using the term “Open Source”) in their marketing brochures. As a bad result, many people believe that Oracle is an ‘Open Source’ company, together with Google, nVidia and Intel since these have ‘Linux’ and ‘OSS’ all over.

I think we need a way to measure how close the actions of corporations are to the values of the Free Software movement and put such measure into corporate reports. We might discover that what they do is (or is not) far away from what they say in their brochures.  This index (call it Free Software Fairness Index) could serve as a basis for classification of Free Software Business, on which socially responsible investment funds can decide to invest. This FSF Index could be an indicator of the adherence of the companies’ actions to the principles of the GNU Manifesto.

It’s not simple to summarize real life actions into a number, but there examples out there that we can draw inspiration from.  What do you think?

Roberto reports about the Lazio e-Citizen project chose Moodle to deliver courses to educate elderly citizens (age 60 and more) to use computers and Internet, but they don’t say that openly.  I found it offensive, that AICA and all the other groups involved in the project failed not only to give credit to the Moodle project, but they also created artificial requirements for the solution  making it look like the training lessons need Windows 2000 or later versions and for the browser: Internet Explorer 6.0 or superior.  Goodbye browser interoperability, farewell Moodle’s effort to be platform independent.

It’s annoying to realize that Moodle was exploited so radically, it feels like a rip off. To give credit to the developers of the Free Software you use to deliver your services is the least you can and should do.  You should also contribute back your changes and learn to be a good citizen in the digital world, where freedom must be preserved.  I think the Affero GPLv3 is a better license for Moodle and other web based software as the best way to protect their asset from such rip off. Funambol wisely chose it immediately and more projects are using it, too.  Credibility and reputation are between the most important assets for Free Software developers and they should be guarded properly.

Probably, even if Moodle used the AGPLv3, it may have not prevented the Lazio eCitizen project from hiding it under the hood but at least it may have forced them to release back their changes. I suspect we will see more of these misguided/misinformed uses of Free Software in the future. We should get the best legal protection and get ready to educate people to behave correctly.

The GNU Affero General Public License v3 is now officially an ‘open source’ license, approved by the Open Source Initiative.

Funambol started the approval process of the best license available to protect copyleft, and business based on it, from predatory practices. Fabrizio (Funambol’s CEO) celebrates the sweet victory on his blog mentioning the ’strange’ coincidence of Google caring only for GPL. For Google the ASP loophole is the key to their business, while they don’t like the A of Affero.

It’s a good day for all the companies that use the AGPLv3. I found some like Wavemaker, OSSDiscovery, Colosa and I wish Palamida started tracking AGPLv3 adoption too (Update: Blackduck Software already tracks AGPLv3 adoption). Here Funambol’s full press release with quote from Wavemaker’s CEO and Eben Moglen.

Update (thanks to Andi Zink):  Doug Levin’s post contains more software licensed under AGPL.

As Fabrizio reported, Funambol submitted the Affero GNU  GPLv3 to the Open Source Initiative for approval (it was my first task as Funambol Community Manager).  OSI’s stamp on AGPLv3 makes business sense for Funambol, afaik the first big free software project to adopt AGPLv3 as soon as it was announced. Open Source is a recognized brand,  a magnet for media attention and helps drive value to companies.  Free software business needs a common brand as a marketing tool and OSI provides that.

I still believe that OSI’s refusal to talk about principles is its biggest weakness (even though lately Raymond noted that there are principles behind licenses) and a very dangerous one.  On the other hand, OSI has no competition (or help) especially after the failure to launch the GNU Business Network by FSFE.

What’s interesting is that Funambol’s management has got the Free/Libre Software principles right.  As Fabrizio writes:

Big Google, a company that could not stand the ASP loophole because they built their entire business on it, manages to get that provision out of GPL v3 and runs to get it approved by the OSI (BTW, it was approved).

Now it is the Funambol turn. Hoping more people will choose AGPL versus GPL, because giving hosters and portals a free lunch is just a bad idea. If they want to use it for free, at least get their code back.

The market will give the answer about the AGPLv3 adoption, but I’m confident that this year will be fun to be into this community.

Ieri ho partecipato alla tavola rotonda dopo il convegno Open Source come modello di business da cui sono rientrato poco impressionato: mi sembrava tutto troppo 1.0, già visto. Non mi hanno impressionato le ricerche presentate da un dottorando di ingegneria, I modelli manageriali dei progetti Open Source e Qualità e costi del software Open Source. Non so perché, ma davo per scontato che fossero noti i lavori di Rossi e Bonaccorsi (2002), Daffara (COSPA, FLOSSMETRICS), IDABC, UNU-Merit, ecc che “Open Source” non è legato ad un solo modo (distribuito) di sviluppare software, che i repository di SourceForge contengono pochi progetti attivi ed economicamente significativi, che la qualità del codice è mediamente alta (ma che non ci sono termini di paragone con la qualità del codice proprietario, essendo questo invisibile) e altro … Pensavo di sentire qualcosa di nuovo almeno dagli USA, invece il professor Anthony I. Wasserman (Executive Director of the Center for Open Source Investigation, Carnegie Mellon West) si è limitato ad un’introduzione generica al tema. Interessante l’intervento di Massimiliano Magi Spinetti di ABI Lab, sui risultati dell’analisi domanda e offerta nel settore bancario. È stato un convegno introduttivo al tema, speriamo che la Fondazione Politecnico ne organizzi presto una nuova edizione con nuovi contenuti. Evidentemente c’è ancora molta comunicazione da fare.

Nel mio breve intervento alla tavola rotonda ho provato a spiegare che il Software Libero o Open Source non è un settore distaccato, non è un mercato diverso. Il settore è lo stesso, quello dello sviluppo software e le regole del business rimangono tutte valide. La differenza la fanno solo le licenze, gli strumenti legali che concedono diritti di uso, studio, modifica e distribuzione ai clienti. Punto. Open Source non è un modello di business ma è una leva strategica a disposizione del management, sia di chi compra che di vende software o servizi. E ho aggiunto che è una leva imprescindibile: nel settore è in atto una disruption, uno sconvolgimento degli equilibri stabiliti destinato a buttare fuori dal mercato tutti gli incumbent (e i fallimenti di Silicon Graphics e SCO o le nuove strategie di IBM e Sun lo dimostrano). Un caso da manuale di innovazione radicale con cui tutti gli attori, domanda e offerta, devono confrontarsi senza esclusione.

Per questo alla domanda “cosa possono fare le aziende italiane? L’Open Source può aiutarle?” non potevo che far notare che il FLOSS va valutato obbligatoriamente anche per le aziende italiane, se vogliono sperare di continuare ad esistere. D’accordo con il prof. Fuggetta: molte opportunità esistono nei sistemi embedded, tutti i sistemi di automazione meccanica, automotive, negli elettrodomestici. Solo con il FLOSS si può sperare di restare sulla curva dell’innovazione e mantenere la speranza di non essere buttati fuori dal mercato.

Update: Andrea Genovese su 7thfloor dà una visione più ampia del convegno in generale.

Politecnico di Torino and Regione Piemonte have launced SeLiLi, Servizio Licenze Libere, a service to offer information and consulting services on legal, technological and economical matters regarding copyright licenses. Given the credibility of the Politecnico and in particular to the group that maintains the Creative Commons licenses I think they can do a good job spreading news in Italy.

SeLiLi’s mission includes giving advice on copyright for all kind of creative arts, from graphic arts to software, making its scope wider than that of FSFE’s Freedom Task Force. This, BTW, proves that everybody, for-profits and non-profits, have to face competition. I wish the best to these friends in Torino.