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

[Tod Landis <landis@cruzio.com>]

Who, me?  This effort should be driven by experts from
the POSIX community. 

Obviously, I hope Microsoft doesn't lead this.  (See my earlier
comments about the ANSI standardizing effort toward a Virtual 
Device Interface)

Tod

Hans Reiser wrote:
> 
> 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