[Fsfe-uk] OSS R&D Discussion Event

[Alex Hudson]

Guys,

We received this:

> DTI and the Office of the e-Envoy are exploring the implications
> of using the Open Source Software model as the default exploitation
> route for software developed under Government funding.  Initial
> consultation with a number of players in the area has resulted in the
> development of four policy points in draft form, which could tie
> an overall policy to the steps needed to implement it. These
> preliminary ideas now need to be submitted to a more broadly-based
> industrial consultation.  Please email Lee Vousden
> (address@hidden) if you would like to see and comment
> on the current draft. The closing date for comments is Friday 
> 2nd May 2003.

Naturally, I've gone and got the consultation (note the tight
deadline!!). Here are the main four points of the policy:

     1. A default should be established which should apply if no
        exploitation route is specified for government-funded R&D
        software outputs.
     2. The default position is to adopt an OSS license which complies
        with the OSI definition (which includes GPL and Berkeley style
        licenses) or a UK-specific analogue of it.
     3. For those who use a specified exploitation route that is not
        consistent with the default at 2, an OSS license consistent with
        2 should be adopted for the original government-funded software
        code, following a 2 year period.
     4. All government-funded software should be accompanied by
        appropriate documentation which will assist the exploitation via
        the OSS license.

If you get a copy, they will provide rationale and other supporting
material for these points. Also, you can ask Lee for a non-proprietary
format copy - they come in Microsoft Office (two .docs and a power
point), but I have converted them to HTML and Lee is able to give you a
copy of this. I have asked if I am able to distribute them, and didn't
get a response, but if really desperate I can probably point you to a
man who might be able to give you a copy. They were very responsive for
me, though.

Now, clearly AFFS will want to respond to this - here's your chance to
help form our opinion! Because this is a draft consultation, it's
nothing like a white paper or anything - we're talking about giving them
advice one a draft which would be proposed and could concievably become
a proposal for a white paper. However, this is where we need to make
people aware of some issues.

Personally, my thoughts are that 1. is pretty much okay. 2. isn't great,
we would prefer the FSF for APSL reasons. We don't want a UK-specific
licence (I understand this to mean open-source for UK residents only,
not a UK-BSD licence or something. I'm not sure whether this is the
correct interpretation, but I have evidence to back it up ;). 4. is also
good, although we would probably want to add something more concrete
here (GFDL compatibility, IMHO). But, point 3...

I'm not sure what to make of point 3. In theory, I like it a bit - it
sounds a bit Aladdin, it's not perfect, but not a bad compromise.
However, I can see that it would be an easy way to impose a two-year
lock-out on Free Software developers for no specific gain. Hence, I
don't like it. 

My initial instinct is to a) attempt to separate the concerns of
commercialisation and proprietisation, b) address both points separately
(a dual licensing scheme would be a potential alternative, and I think I
like it better). I think this is where we need to think hardest though -
what alternatives to this would be maximally good? 

Obviously, even though the AFFS is going to respond, it would be good
for people to both give their input here and make a personal response
themselves - even if you don't necessarily agree with everything that
AFFS might say, I think there are significant difficulties with this
proposal as it stands. If you get the PowerPoint, you'll also note some
worrying noises about patenting the software which would destroy any
potential Free Software route (this is something else I would like to
see the policy points address).

Please discuss! I'm going to start drafting something this evening,
unless someone has a better idea :), so that we have a chance of
responding intelligently before the 2nd - that's two days away, for
those people without calendars.

Cheers,

Alex.

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part