Re: Government purchases should require open source, not just POSIX.

[Hans Reiser <reiser@ricochet.net>]

Todd, please let me know if you view this as feasible.

A POSIX history:

POSIX is a standard created in the days of competing UNIX vendors who
had mostly similar but slightly differing API's (an Application
Programming Interface, or API, is the interface by which a program talks
to another program).  POSIX specifies an API, and any operating system
which conforms to that API will run any program which uses only the
POSIX API once that program is recompiled on that OS.  In practice there
are always some problems with POSIX not quite specifying everything
about the API, but the effect is that porting effort is greatly reduced
for an POSIX compliant OS.  Now the current open systems conforming spec
that all the Unix vendors try to supply is called Spec 1170.  Conforming
to Spec 1170 does not prevent a vendor from supplying more than 1170
specifies.  What makes embrace and extend obnoxious rather than an
attempt to innovate is not a theoretically definable distinction, but
rather the manner in which it is done.

What is needed to make 1170 conformance requirements work better is to
not just require Spec 1170 adherence, but to benchmark it and
qualitatively evaluate it, and to require that all configurations be
evaluated at the price which includes all of the pieces necessary to
make an OS an open system (for NT you can spend $300 on getting NFS, and
then $300 on Xwindows, etc.)

Open Source:  

My assessment would be that requiring open source is more important than
the above, and should deserve initial focus.

I propose that we design a specification of the license provisions
necessary for a license to be considered an "Open License", and then
seek to require government purchases to favor software conforming to the
terms of the Open License.  

The essence of the Open License spec would be that the source code must
be available in a form as accessible (comments can't be removed) to
outsiders as to the vendor, and that those outsiders must be allowed to
add to it and vary it, making appropriate provisions for labeling and
branding the code.

We could probably write it in such a way that it had some application to
hardware (especially buses, etc.) as well, by using terms that apply to
interfaces in general.  That might be worth thinking about....

Let me know if this is generally of interest.  If so, we can draft the
Open License Spec, and then ask the Gnu, Linux, and Netscape people to
comment on it.

Hans

James Love wrote:
> 
> Ralph has asked Todd Tpalgia <tpaglia@essential.org> to look at the procurement
> issues.  I don't think he is on this list, so you should write to him directly.
> By the way, what is "Postix compliance."
> 
>    Jamie
> 
> Hans Reiser wrote:
> >
> > I suggest that the government in its purchasing require open source with
> > a Netscape style license, not just POSIX compliance.  Such a requirement
> > is vendor independent, proper for government to require, in the
> > government interest in many ways, and fosters vastly more competitive
> > markets.
> >
> > Jamie, what do you think, would Essential feel comfortable advocating
> > that?  I note with admiration your work in creating social pressure for
> > making Linux an option on PCs by socially responsible hardware vendors,
> > and I know your group is quite influential in Washington.  It would
> > require a lot of pushing to get, and probably you would only get partial
> > success with it, but it would be a nice thing to advocate.
> >
> > Hans Reiser
> >
> > Erick Andrews wrote:
> > >
> > > On Sat, 2 May 1998 18:27:46 -0400 (EDT), Hans Reiser wrote:
> > >
> > > >I don't believe it would be proper for the government to favor or
> > > >disfavor a particular vendor in its purchases.  It is however proper for
> > > >them to require adherence to standards such as POSIX.  MS foils attempts
> > > >to use such requirements to foster open systems by adhering to POSIX in
> > > >such a way that one would not want to use the POSIX interface to Windows
> > > >NT, but it is there for use on paper.
> > > >
> > > >Hans
> > > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Hans,
> > >
> > > It is more than POSIX, as I am sure you are well aware.  Microsoft
> > > uses this strategy against many "competitors", trashing open standards
> > > to aggrandize their market share where they will.
> > >
> > > Their "embrace" and "extend" tactics do this.  I'd almost prefer to use
> > > the more descriptive English words "exculpate" then "expunge", for their
> > > snake-in-the-grass methods.  Just a bit more accurate, yeah?
> > >
> > > I also doubt that those who should be responsible for understanding and
> > > proposing alternate views, and not IT alone, like what POSIX is and can
> > > do for their government IT departments, either can't, or are not allowed to
> > > research it or propose it.  Bigotry and egoism!
> > >
> > > Most of the problem is shared incompetence and lack of good leadership;
> > > spineless.
> > >
> > > I wish to hell we know how to change this without court battles.
> > >
> > > Erick
> 
> --
> James Love
> Consumer Project on Technology
> P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036
> love@cptech.org | http://www.cptech.org
> voice 202.387.8030, fax 202.234.5176