-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Some business connected to FOSS in Ireland are seriously considering a certification framework called Certified Open. The interest in this matter is mainly centred around the Open Ireland group, though this is not exclusively their domain. As you may have gathered from this paragraph this is very much an 'open source' thing.
The word 'Free' has not really entered the Irish business sphere yet, though I personally believe the Irish Free Software Organisation is doing great work for promoting the cause in an articulate and convincing way. It's a matter of resources. As Ciaran and Glenn (chairman IFSO) told me, the focus has been on patents. I'm hoping to help out with getting engagement with businesses. It's a personal project (connected with my own business) and is already underway.
Anyway...
Certified Open is a framework designed to allow people to purchase ICT solutions with the confidence of knowing they'll avoid vendor lock-in and transitions to alternative platforms will be possible.
Certified Open originates in the UK under the auspices of the Open Source Academy. It is very new, currently unfinished, and is subject to review. The final working of the framework should be ready sometime around September.
Certified Open is quite vague now, but the current content is a cause for concern because of misapplications of language and concepts. The main document that I have briefly reviewed is the 'Certified Open Product Framework.' This document is clearly intended to provide an assessment method for judging products and services according to Open Source Initiative definitions, though it's falling short of that now.
Please find some initial thoughts on the Certified Open Product Framework below:
Section 'Client View: Operating System'
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes effectively on both Microsoft Windows and at least one Linux desk-top."
Windows is not the only propriety operative system and Linux is not the only open operating system. FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD all represent strong open alternatives. MacOS X, QNC and Unix all represent strong propriety alternatives.
Rewording suggestion:
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes on at least three operating systems, of which two must be compatible with the Open Source Definiton published by OSI."
Section 'Client View: Office System'
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes effectively on both Microsoft Office and at least one out of Star Office and Open Office, without relying on non-proprietary extensions."
Microsoft Office is neither open nor compliant with the ISO standard for office documentation (ODF). In addition, this statement suggests that a product that runs on two commercial systems (MS Office and StarOffice) constitutes an open product. This is incorrect and misleading.
There are other propriety and open office applications like KOffice, Abiword and WordPerfect Office. To discount them is potentially serious in light of the EU anti-trust proceedings against Microsoft. It could be understand as deceptive misrepresentation of what constitutes openness.
Rewording suggestion:
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes on at least two office suites, of which one must be compatible with the Open Source Definiton published by OSI."
Section 'Application View: Operating System'
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes effectively on at least one Linux Server distribution together with at least two other Serv OS's."
Again a bias towards a named product. It's not necessary, and it's not fair to other projects. Also, why two server operating systems that may be propriety?
Rewording suggestion #1:
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes effectively on at least three server operating systems, one of which must be compatible with the Open Source Definition published by OSI."
Rewording suggestion #2:
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes effectively on at least three server operating systems, two of which must be compatible with the Open Source Definition published by OSI."
Section 'Database View: Operating System'
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes effectively on at least one Linux Server distribution together with at least two other Serv OS's."
As above. Unnecessary bias towards a named system.
Rewording suggestion #1:
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes effectively on at least three server operating systems, one of which must be compatible with the Open Source Definition published by OSI."
Rewording suggestion #2:
"The product should be tested to demonstrate that it executes effectively on at least three server operating systems, two of which must be compatible with the Open Source Definition published by OSI."
==
Any certification programme must be clear, well-informed and without bias towards particular vendors or projects. If the certification programme chosen is weak it will be undermined by the proprietary competition, it will be rejected by the FOSS community at large and it may create issues regarding legal liability.
Certified Open has the potential to become a pan-European certification programme because it's being promoted by Open Forum Europe (http://www.openforumeurope.org). However, the issues with its definitions of what constitutes openness need to be reviewed.
I suggest engagement on this matter. The certification programme is going ahead and it's under review. I believe that the director of Certified Open (abellinger@iitt.org.uk) and people in Open Forum Europe (bob@openforumeurope.org) need to be told where the product framework is not working.
For a complete copy of the product framework and for more information on Certified Open please visit http://www.opensourceacademy.gov.uk/. Failing that, please email me directly at shane@opendawn.com and I'll send you a copy of the products framework.
If any really smart people out there can review the frameworks and reword for Free Software it would make my day :) To be fair, they are not aiming for Free Software. This is an open source thing. Therefore, it'd be nice at least to have documents that work a lot better with OSI open source concepts...
Regards
Shane
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@opendawn.com m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire) w: www.opendawn.com - --- OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
On Mon, 2006-06-26 at 22:08 +0100, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
Some business connected to FOSS in Ireland are seriously considering a certification framework called Certified Open. The interest in this matter is mainly centred around the Open Ireland group, though this is not exclusively their domain. As you may have gathered from this paragraph this is very much an 'open source' thing.
It's not an "open source" thing - it's about preventing lock in. You can still achieve Certified Open status if your product is not licensed on a free software / open source basis.
From the marketing brochure:
"Certified Open supports an organisation to develop all aspects of an open environment.
"Both by encouraging a mix and match of proprietary and Open Source Software, and by ensuring both internal and supplier staff have the level of skills necessary."
You'll find that OFE have started talking about "Open Solutions" rather than open source, which is moving in entirely the wrong direction.
I wish you luck trying to change it, but I'm afraid I already consider it a lost cause as it is already damaging our community in the UK. In particular, while you're addressing problems with the framework, you're not addressing the more fundamental problem of the fit of this type of certification with free software. Even though this is self-certified, you have to pay to register both products and skills. That automatically means any free software project that is not commercially supported is unlikely to be able to participate in this scheme, which I consider to be bias.
Cheers,
Alex.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Alex Hudson wrote:
It's not an "open source" thing - it's about preventing lock in. You can still achieve Certified Open status if your product is not licensed on a free software / open source basis.
I do apologise if I am confused and now perpetuate the confusion, but the Certified Open Product Framework (in the section 'Business Model') states: "The product should be made available to clients under an agreement that is compatible with the Open Source Definiton published by OSI."
In Ireland Certified Open is being (or will be) applied as an open source thing or - to be more accurate - companies that perceive themselves as open source wish to adopt Certified Open because it looks like (a) a nice way to get a pan European certificate programme and (b) it's something with an official looking profile.
What Certified Open actually is at this juncture appears to be a vague idea and an aspiration, albeit one backed by a well-funded group.
You'll find that OFE have started talking about "Open Solutions" rather than open source, which is moving in entirely the wrong direction.
Well, it's the wrong direction for us, but it may be the right direction for them in terms of their objectives. IIRC Bob was telling me that they are having quite a lot of success with the Danish government, and they are expanding their remit into the Czech Republic. This is why I'm worried. I'm not happy with Certified Open because its so full of holes and things that could go awfully wrong. However, whether I'm happy or not Certified Open is spreading.
I wish you luck trying to change it, but I'm afraid I already consider it a lost cause as it is already damaging our community in the UK. In particular, while you're addressing problems with the framework, you're not addressing the more fundamental problem of the fit of this type of certification with free software. Even though this is self-certified, you have to pay to register both products and skills. That automatically means any free software project that is not commercially supported is unlikely to be able to participate in this scheme, which I consider to be bias.
I don't think this type of certification fits Free Software. I think the GBN will fit Free Software :)
I do think that Certified Open needs to be engaged with so that it won't damage Free Software (and open source) in Europe or cause an awful mess and confusion. At the very least I feel an attempt at constructive engagement is worthwhile. It's possible that a lot of the nastiest bits of the current framework are due to oversight and lack of direct knowledge.
I emailed Alan Bellinger, the programme director in the UK. I just sent in some of my initial thoughts and concerns. His reply was:
"Thank you for this input Shane; I welcome it and believe it is both measured and constructive. Changes to the framework are managed through the Certified Open Council that is co-ordinated by Basil Cousins - hence the reason that I am copying him on this e-mail. We will ensure that your proposals are fully reviewed through the council and will also ensure that you are kept appraised of progress. Again, thank you very much for this measured and supportive input"
Hm. I'm going to look at the framework again and visit their website, and try to think of areas where what they are doing (a) misrepresents or conflicts with FOSS and (b) how their various frameworks might be reworded to actually support the four freedoms of software. Who knows if proposals will actually be included, but one thing is sure: they are going ahead with this.
Given that they are going ahead with this, it would be nice if they went ahead with a more FOSS friendly version.
Given that they might accept proposals, it would be nice if the wording could be changed to support the four freedoms of software.
This might be an opportunity for positive education. It might even get a result that improves the situation.
I hear all the cynics sighing. Yeah. I know. However, if we don't try we will never know if something can be changed :)
Shane
- -- Shane Martin Coughlan e: shane@opendawn.com m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire) w: www.opendawn.com - --- OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:58 +0100, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
I do apologise if I am confused and now perpetuate the confusion, but the Certified Open Product Framework (in the section 'Business Model') states: "The product should be made available to clients under an agreement that is compatible with the Open Source Definiton published by OSI."
Right, but this is weighted 3 marks out of 38. You can get 0 marks there, which would mean you don't get a rating in that category, but still get the 90%+ overall which qualifies you for Certified Open "Gold" status.
Also, you could always say that you'd make it available to clients on a cost basis (raises pinky; "one miiiillion dollars!") which would net you a Certified Open Bronze in that category.
Maybe I've misunderstood the marking scheme, but it doesn't look to me like being "open source" is a requirement, just a feature which can get you some extra points.
What Certified Open actually is at this juncture appears to be a vague idea and an aspiration, albeit one backed by a well-funded group.
Well, indeed.
I would recommend anyone thinking about it actually look at the scheme and see what's there.
I do think that Certified Open needs to be engaged with so that it won't damage Free Software (and open source) in Europe or cause an awful mess and confusion. At the very least I feel an attempt at constructive engagement is worthwhile. It's possible that a lot of the nastiest bits of the current framework are due to oversight and lack of direct knowledge.
You have more optimism than me, then. OFE and the others have had more than enough time to develop this, and they're supposed to be knowledgeable about this area - lack of oversight doesn't really cut it. They also claim community engagement, which as far as I can see is rubbish (perhaps it's different in other countries).
Given that they are going ahead with this, it would be nice if they went ahead with a more FOSS friendly version.
It would be nice; but I don't think we need to care. I don't see it being a successful scheme anyway - maybe when they finish it I'll look again, but at the moment it's worthless.
Good luck with your attempts, though ;)
Cheers,
Alex.
"Shane M. Coughlan" shane@shaneland.co.uk
[...] However, whether I'm happy or not Certified Open is spreading.
I think the best approach is to try to stop that spread. Certified Open seems so defective by design that it looks impossible to redirect it in a beneficial direction. The same names like Basil Cousins and Graham Taylor keep popping up.
The strongest way to stop that spread is by getting GBN - or a similar grassroots initiative - off the ground. Where are we at today, though? Still divided, with too much mudslinging.
When Certified Open implodes, it will hopefully taint everyone involved in it. Please don't let it taint free software groups.
Best wishes,