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

[Hans Reiser <reiser@ricochet.net>]

I should add that in time we will want to amend the anti-trust laws to
explicitly require open interfaces (and thus open source).  The laws as
written implicitly require this, but just as Clayton was helpful for
making explicit the implicit illegality of tying, we should make
explicit the implicit illegality of closed interfaces.

Hans

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