☝ The FT and the App Trap

I got an e-mail from the Financial Times yesterday, announcing their new “FT App”. That sounded unusual; after all, the FT has had an iPad/iPhone app for some time. I took a look, and found the whole world of mobile publishing waiting for me in microcosm. It’s not open source, but I see the same yearning after freedom driving choices here.

What’s happened is that the FT has scrapped their native Apple app for the iPad and iPhone, and replaced it with a purpose-built HTML 5 web site that can be installed on the iPad home screen as an app. The result looks and feels just like the old native app. It doesn’t work on older devices like the first-generation iPod Touch (the redirect to m.ft.com amusingly says “slow device”), but on the iPad it’s pretty slick.

Why have they done this? Read my view on ComputerWorldUK.

☝ OpenOffice.Org and the LibreOffice Imperative

As expected, the Apache Software Foundation took the first steps to admitting the OpenOffice.org project to the Apache community, following Oracle’s IBM-designed proposal. It now faces a time of maturing and proving in Apache’s Incubator.

I’ve avoided publishing articles here during the Apache discussion as I have both a history and strong views. But with the end of voting, it’s time to document the story so far. You can read my views over on ComputerWorldUK.

If that’s TL;DR, here’s a summary:  The best thing end-users can do is ignore OpenOffice.org at Apache, and switch to LibreOffice instead until the dust settles and we can all see a better path forward.

✈ Google Cuts Off Travellers

Usually when I want to illustrate the capricious and arbitrary nature of cloud-provided services, I use other examples. But today Google has shown me that they too simply can’t be trusted to provide a service one relies upon. They are perfectly happy to leave you stranded without explanation or remedy.

As well as shutting down the Gizmo voice-over-IP service they bought, without any explanation or alternative but at least with a little warning sent via e-mail, they have also taken away the ability for anyone to use the “Call Phone” capability within Google Talk in GMail while outside the US. You probably won’t have used it if you had Gizmo set up, but now you need it – it’s gone.

So if you were using Google Voice for your phone calls while in the US and then relying on either using your Android phone with a VoIP client or the Voice support in Chat to manage your calls while you are travelling, forget it. They just turned it off, without warning, explanation or even the courtesy of a response to users in their online forums. That calling credit you have is now useless until you get back to the USA.

This is not the behaviour of a reliable service provider. I’m sure they are technically within their rights; there’s probably a load of weasel-words in some terms of service somewhere. But to provide a service that people depend upon and then withdraw it without warning, explanation, alternative or apology is simply unacceptable.

☆ Why You Need Document Freedom

It seems everything has a special day. Among all the various red letter days, you may not have run into Document Freedom Day, which this year is being celebrated on March 30th. Don’t for a second underestimate the importance of document freedom. It sounds dull – not just mundane, but the forgotten esoterica of the mundane – but it’s a crucial driver in the dominance of major software vendors. If the other elements of our Digital liberty are to be allowed to unfurl in their natural order, we need document freedom.

Upgrade Arms Race

The phrase “document freedom” refers to the long, subtle game that proprietary software vendors use to ensure they have control over their customers and are able to extract money from them long-term. The format which programs use to save work determines which software can be used to perform the work. By keeping it private, the vendor can make sure that there’s no other program you can use to manipulate the document.

Of course, since you already have the software that created the document that’s not a problem for you. But when you need to collaborate with others, it places the onus on the other person to have the same software as you. As the world became more meshed a “network effect” occurred and a new dynamic emerged, where members of a collaborative network would be forced to keep acquiring new software (framed as “upgrades” but actually a new purchase each time) in order to keep up with the software choices of the rest of the network.

Responding to competitive pressures, vendors may appear to ease their customers’ alarm at this upgrade arms-race by offering “compatibility”, “interoperability” or even “open formats”. But the problem remains all the time there’s really only one piece of software that others can effectively collaborate in a network. Being able to “import” a file is not the same as being able to collaborate. The proprietary vendors have made too much money from locking you in to release you voluntarily.

Document Freedom Day Image

Open Formats

What’s the solution? Ideally, all software of the same genre would use the same format to save work. Then every program could open and work on a file, save its changes and pass the file to another program without any loss of the integrity of the file contents. There would always be differences in how each program handled the work; there might even be some capabilities of a program that no others had, which would be stored in the file for later use without harming the rest of the file. But by using an open, interoperable standard fully implemented by multiple programs, everyone would be free to make their own choices, without being compelled to be a customer of the same vendors as everyone else in the network of collaboration.

In the areas of word-processing, spreadsheets and presentations, such a file format exists – it’s called Open Document Format (ODF). It works with a wide range of different software, and when you save your work in ODF it can be passed to other people for their contribution. The only problem is how few people know. There are two issues; first, the problem is so subtle that they may not realise they are slaves to a corporate master, and second they may not know there’s a solution available.

Document Freedom Day

Document Freedom Day exists to address both of these problems. It has been running for a few years. It provides a day to raise the profile of document formats and demand that our governments, schools, religious bodies, employers and more all use open formats. When they do, we’re all free to engage with them using the computers and software of our choice rather than theirs.

Without document freedom phrases like “if you don’t use Microsoft Word you can’t apply” or “only works on a Mac” negate our choices and incrementally remove our freedoms. So celebrate Document Freedom Day 2011 this year, it’s on March 30th and you can join in easily. Obviously the first step is to start using open source software that supports ODF, like LibreOffice.

If you’re already using a program like LibreOffice, you could simply decide to respond to colleagues or friends who send you a closed format (“I’d love to read your document but I don’t have the program you used to make it – take a look at this web page”), or you could go further and join a local team celebrating in their own way. You might even explore your employer’s policies and challenge the bad practices that spread closed formats (“Why do we always send out Word files when all people need to do is read the document? Why don’t we have a company standard of using PDF for everything that doesn’t need editing?”).

But whichever you choose, it’s worth investing a little of your time to promote freedom instead of sitting quietly tolerating the status quo. As Marie von Ebner-Eschenbach is reputed to have said, the greatest enemy of freedom is a happy slave.

[First published in ComputerWorldUK]

☝ Why You Need Document Freedom

Document Freedom Day is March 30th this year. Why should you join in? See my article on ComputerWorldUK!

☆ FOSDEM Java

The Free Java DevRoom at FOSDEM was packed with people all day yesterday. At the beginning, Mark Reinhold (from Sun and now Oracle, the chief Java engineer) hoped to speak briefly about the new OpenJDK governance draft but faced plenty of searching questions about it – you’ll not get to see though, as Mark and Joe were unable to gain permission from Oracle for their talks to be recorded. But that was the last it was mentioned the rest of the day until my talk at 6pm.

In the interim were plenty of interesting talks, most notably Mario Torres and David Fu talking about their IcedRobot project to get Android apps to run on OpenJDK (and thus on any desktop). The room was packed out and had a line of people down the hall at the end of the day to hear Stephen O’Grady speak, and I was his warm-up act with a talk looking at the lessons I learned liberating Java into OpenJDK (I’ve uploaded my slides), putting the governance draft into context a little.  O’Grady explained – accompanied by plenty of data – how despite the rumours to the contrary and an overall decline in apparent usage around the whole web application platform tool-set, the indicators for Java as a developer language are still strong when taken in context.

In the evening, the Free Java attendees all went for a dinner sponsored by Oracle, Red Hat and Tarent – a crucial part of the annual Free Java activity and one of the main reasons it remains a strong annual community. Meeting actual people and sharing a meal with them makes it so much easier to work objectively and avoid demonising people, and Tom Marble and the organising team are to be congratulated for the work they have put in to make it all happen. FOSDEM remains the meeting point for European software freedom because of the work they and others like them contribute.

☆ Rating OpenJDK Governance

I used to be a member of the Interim Governance Board for the OpenJDK project I helped Sun start to host an open source implementation of the Java platform under the GPL. For various reasons, the governance was never fully defined and the entire subject has been silent for over a year. There’s other context I assume most readers understand listed on CWUK. This week, news emerged that I am no longer a Board member (neither a surprise nor an issue for me), and that a governance proposal has been published.

How does the proposed OpenJDK governance fare when ranked against the open-by-rule benchmark I outlined earlier in the week? Scoring below involves +1 for each positive implementation of a rule, zero for each non-detrimental implementation or omission and -1 for each implementation that detracts from an open-by-rule governance.

Rule Data Evaluation Score
Open, Meritocratic Oligarchy “The Governing Board consists of five individuals:

  • The Chair, appointed by Oracle;
  • The Vice-Chair, appointed by IBM;
  • The OpenJDK Lead, appointed by Oracle; and
  • Two At-Large Members, nominated and elected as described below.”
This is initially a closed plutocracy comprising mostly people who have never been involved in OpenJDK, as long-term Free Java leader Mark Wielaard has pointed out. The initial Board is all appointed by Oracle and IBM and they have picked only people they can trust to represent them and taken few risks (only Doug Lea has spoken out in the past, when he resigned from the JCP) and omitted key OpenJDK contributors Red Hat and Google (and recent joiner Apple). Future Boards will always comprise at least two Oracle staff and one IBM member. Interestingly, this is not conformant with the original OpenJDK Charter, which gave a majority of seats to elected representatives.

There is scope for the Board to be grown in the future and it’s theoretically possible eventually for the Board to have community-appointed members outnumbering the Oracle-IBM axis, but the rules are poorly defined and there’s undoubtedly scope for them to be gamed in order to maintain control.

Scoring 0 for closed/open given the benefit of doubt for the possible expansion process; -1 for non-meritocratic majority; -1 for non-representative oligarchy.

-2
Modern license (not mentioned in governance) OpenJDK uses a complex licensing arrangement based on GPLv2 plus a variety of exceptions. GPLv2 has decent implied patent protection according to most legal sources I have consulted. It’s actually a good combination of licensing both for software freedom and as the basis for Oracle to build a business around the code, but it’s not mentioned anywhere in the governance so could presumably change at any time based solely on Oracle’s choices.

If the governance committed to maintaining GPL as the license I’d score this as +1 but the lack of mention makes it 0.

0
Copyright aggregation “A Contributor is a Participant who has signed the Oracle Contributor Agreement or who works for an organization that has signed that agreement or its equivalent. Only a Contributor may submit anything larger than a simple patch.” Copyright is explicitly aggregated solely in Oracle’s hands. There are actually good historic reasons for this and without it I doubt that either IBM or Apple would be involved in OpenJDK since it would be impossible for Oracle to privately license the resulting Java implementation to them under terms they would accept (neither of them like GPL). Furthermore it allows the existing Java licensing arrangements to be sustained, meaning OpenJDK can be the locus of development for Java SE.

While I would rather see the overall copyright vested in a non-profit foundation, the pragmatic balance of factors means I score this as 0.

0
Trademark policy (not mentioned in governance) The OpenJDK trademarks are all dealt with outside the scope of the governance and are the exclusive property of Oracle who even claim control of their use within the source, a context I’m surprised to see alleged trademark law is applicable. This clearly scores -1. -1
Roadmap “If a Governing Board member objects in good faith to a technical or release decision made by the OpenJDK Lead then that decision may be appealed via the following process.”

JDK Release Projects may only be proposed by the OpenJDK Lead and may only be Sponsored by the Governing Board.”

“Every OpenJDK Member will have the opportunity to propose features for inclusion in JDK Release Projects, and decisions about which features to include will be made in a transparent manner.”

Despite being intended to ensure “that sufficient infrastructure is available to Community members” there’s no mention of how releases will be conducted – there should at least be baseline principles. There’s an appeals process, but it is only open to Board members and there’s a clear intent that the roadmap is at Oracle’s sole discretion. This especially applies to JDK releases. The nod towards transparency is a positive sign but contradicted by the appeals process.
 

While this is all nothing new, it’s hardly “open-by-rule” so a clear -1.

-1
Multiple co-developers There’s a cross-section at FOSDEM. OpenJDK is blessed with enthusiastic co-development from both independent community participants and from corporations like Red Hat, Google and now Apple. It’s a shame verging on an insult that they weren’t involved in creating or starting the governance, but overall this is OpenJDK’s biggest strength and a clear +1 score. +1
Forking feasible IcedTea, multiple co-developers, Classpath history The code is under the GPL, but the copyright is aggregated by Oracle and the trademarks all belong to them. There are enough co-developers outside Oracle to sustain a fork (after all, Classpath was a viable Java implementation before and IcedTea is still running). Chances are that IBM is subject to a no-forking agreement in return for lending its credibility to the governance. The documentation is subject to rules intentionally designed to prevent them being used on a fork.

Overall, this is a tough rule to score but on balance I think forking would be tough but possible. Given all the factors making it tough, I score this as 0.

0
Transparency “I’m happy to report that, since last November, I’ve been doing just
that: Drafting a set of Community Bylaws in collaboration with John
Duimovich and Jason Gartner of IBM, Mike Milinkovich of Eclipse,
Prof. Doug Lea of SUNY Oswego, and Adam Messinger of Oracle.”
Despite having roots in the work of the previous governance board (which also inherited ideas from OpenSolaris), the governance itself has come from nowhere and that bodes ill for future transparency, no matter how often the word is used in the document. The track record for OpenJDK has shown a mixed history for transparency. The corporate pressures are likely to mean lots of back-room dealings and the governance does little to prevent them.

Again, tough to score. I’m tempted to score this as -1 but the fact there’s  a public governance at all and that Mark promises there will be a ratification step (albeit undefined) makes me give the benefit of the doubt and thus a score of 0.

0
Summary (scale -10 to +10) -3

-3That score isn’t as bad as it could be, but given that

“The goal of these Bylaws is to foster the long-term health and growth of the Community by enabling and encouraging its members to act in an open, transparent, and meritocratic manner.”

I think there’s still plenty of work required to make them fit for purpose. I’m offering these comments in the spirit of contribution and dialogue. I’d be pleased to help the OpenJDK project in any way I can if they wish during the drafting and ratification process. I’ll be at FOSDEM this weekend speaking on this subject in the Free Java DevRoom, so meet me there if you’d like to discuss anything.

I have hoped from the beginning that OpenJDK would be an open-by-rule community in which everyone with a commitment to Java can participate as equals. Let’s hope this new development can deliver on that vision.

☞ Fixing The JCP

  • A very astute move by Oracle here. They are proposing that the seat on the Java Community Process Executive Committee vacated by Apache should be filled by the São Paulo-based Brazilian Java User Group SouJava, represented by my charming and smart friend and former Sun colleague Bruno Souza (who incidentally also represents ForgeRock in Brazil and is a co-author here on webmink.com). 

    I think that given the circumstances this is the best outcome that could have been achieved and I hope Bruno and SouJava will be able to use their new position of influence to fix the broken things (like the opaque decision-making and the ability to have FOSS-hostile licensing terms on JSRs).

Also:

☆ Apple and Google and ODF

I’m in Latvia today speaking at the Latvian Open Technology Association annual conference – my slides are online. The speaker before me was from the government and made an important announcement; that from now on, all government departments in Latvia must accept documents in ODF.

It’s not just Latvia. Moves like this are in progress across Europe as public administrations seek to ensure citizens can engage with government without being forced to pay for the means to do so. All the same, many citizens will want to use software other than LibreOffice to edit ODF documents.

So I remain surprised that neither Apple nor Google are taking ODF support seriously. Apple still don’t support ODF in their applications (despite it being available in their TextEdit gadget on Mac OS X) or the iPhone or iPad, and the ODF support in Google Docs is so weak that documents I try to upload from LibreOffice are routinely rejected in ODF and yet accepted if I save the identical document in .doc format. It’s ironic that the best proprietary ODF support right now is from Microsoft.

Ⓕ OpenIDM Design Summit Announced

One of the key control points in enterprise software is the provisioning or IDM software. It’s the point all the threads of directory, authentication, authorisation and provisioning come together and it’s the part that the proprietary vendors are least willing to surrender to that great deposer of control points, community-based open source software.

When ForgeRock (where I work) got started, some companies who had been promised an open source IDM by a vendor who then reneged on the promise asked if we’d join them building one. After about nine months collaborative work, the result was the OpenIDM project, for which ForgeRock announced support back in October.

That wasn’t the end of the process of course, and the pace is being maintained. I’m delighted to see that the emerging community is organising an OpenIDM Design Summit in two weeks in Oslo (January 26-27), both as a meeting point for the developers building it and as a meeting for the developers and businesses deploying it (mainly in Scandinavia at the moment, but the meeting will be in English). ForgeRock is providing the facilities and the agenda looks very interesting.