Show me the code: Spatial analysis and open source

This paper considers the intersection of academic spatial analysis with the open source revolution. Its basic premise is that the potential for cross-fertilization between the two is rich, yet some misperceptions about these two communities pose challenges to realizing these opportunities. The paper provides a primer on the open source movement for academicians with an eye towards correcting these misperceptions. It identifies a number of ways in which increased adoption of open source practices in spatial analysis can enhance the development of the next generation of tools and the wider practice of scientific research and education.open source; spatial analysis

SCALED APPROACH TO OPEN SOURCING DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY PRODUCED SOFTWARE

The Department of Defense (DoD) must continue to develop, sustain, and update its software-based capabilities. For the Department of the Navy (DoN), the life cycle costs of software continue to grow; over time, developing code will not be cost effective. An alternative to developing code is to further integrate open source software (OSS) into DoN programs. OSS is software that grants users the ability to view, use, and change the software source code. The use of OSS has been extensively researched, as addressed in the MITRE Corporation’s study on free and open source software (FOSS) in the DoD, completed in 2003. Despite favorable reports and published DoD policy, and the widespread successful use of OSS in current software, program managers are reluctant to fully integrate OSS into the DoN due to concerns with legal requirements, cybersecurity, total expenses, and the ability to implement and control OSS on classified systems while adhering to security regulations. This study utilized a quantitative, scaled approach to determine the risks and benefits to open sourcing for all DoN software. Several OSS case studies were examined. This research concluded that while OSS has been tested and proven cost-effective in certain areas of the DoN, it may not be the most efficient solution for all DoN projects. Therefore, the DoN should consider further implementation of OSS in security, software development, infrastructure support, and for program lifecycle cost reductions.DoN Secretariat Historianhttp://archive.org/details/scaledapproachto1094560404Captain, United States Marine CorpsCaptain, United States Marine CorpsApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited

‘Open source has won and lost the war’: Legitimising commercial–communal hybridisation in a FOSS project

International audienceInformation technology (IT) firms are paying developers in Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) projects, leading to the emergence of hybrid forms of work. In order to understand how the firm–project hybridisation process occurs, we present the results of an online survey of participants in the Debian project, as well as interviews with Debian Developers. We find that the intermingling of the commercial logic of the firm and the communal logic of the project requires rhetorical legitimation. We analyse the discourses used to legitimise firm–project cooperation as well as the organisational mechanisms which facilitate this cooperation. A first phase of legitimation, based on firm adoption of open licenses and developer self-fulfilment, aims to erase the commercial/communal divide. A second more recent phase seeks to professionalise work relations inside the project and, in doing so, challenges the social order which restricts participation in FOSS. Ultimately, hybridisation raises the question of the fair distribution of the profits firms derive from FOSS

Rethinking UCITA: Lessons from the Open Source Movement

For those within the information technology (IT) industry, the phrase “open source” has been as prominent at water cooler and boardroom discussions over the last several years as the phrase “out source.” Open source is at once a software development model, a business model, a social movement, and a philosophy that has recently garnered attention from outside of the IT sphere. As such, the topic has become increasingly fertile ground for academic scholarship from several disciplines. Economists, legal academics and practitioners, computer engineers, and social commentators have offered their varying perspectives on open source software. Whether or not this attention is warranted, and whether or not this is truly “an idea whose time has finally come,” remains unclear. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) recently proposed the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA) for adoption by all the states. At present, only two states have adopted UCITA and the prevailing logic suggests that further adoption will be an uphill struggle. In large part, UCITA was controversial because it was perceived as overly protective of large commercial computer software developers–most notably, Microsoft. A diverse and energetic collection of interests, aligned against UCITA, has succeeded thus far in derailing its progress. Although the argument that Microsoft is hampered by a lack of uniformity and certainty in the law is not likely to engender a great deal of sympathy, that same argument in the context of open source software might be more convincing. In this Comment, I argue that the open source movement necessitates a rethinking of UCITA, or at least a UCITA-like uniform code to govern software licensing transactions. If UCITA benefits the open source movement, then former opponents may be willing to take another look at the statute. For a number of reasons, a rethinking of UCITA, in light of the open source movement as well as some important amendments to UCITA itself, leads to the conclusion that UCITA should now be adopted by the states

The General Public License Version 3.0: Making or Breaking the FOSS Movement

Free and open source software (FOSS) is a big deal. FOSS has become an undeniably important element for businesses and the global economy in general, as companies increasingly use it internally and attempt to monetize it. Governments have even gotten into the act, as a recent study notes that FOSS plays a critical role in the US Department of Defense\u27s systems. Others have pushed for the adoption of FOSS to help third-world countries develop. Given many of its technological and developmental advantages, FOSS\u27s use, adoption, and development are only projected to grow.[...] The FSF created the most popular version of the GPL, GPL Version 2.0 (GPLv2), in 1991, but since then many technological changes have occurred that, according to the FSF, have rendered GPLv2 outdated. Consequently, the FSF recently underwent a process to revise GPLv2. Version 3 of the GPL (GPLv3), published on June 29, 2007, is the final product of that process.[...] The GNU General Public License (GPL), created by the Free Software Foundation (FSF) to govern the use of many FOSS projects, is also a big deal. Though the dispersed development of FOSS makes calculating the percentage of FOSS projects licensed under GPL difficult, some accounts suggest that the percentage is quite high. It is certainly the most well-known and most frequently used FOSS license. Like FOSS, the GPL is here to stay.[...] [T]wo camps within the FOSS world have emerged to articulate their stances on GPLv3. These two camps are the same two groups that have been at odds over FOSS development since at least 1998: the Free Software Foundation (FSF) on the one hand, and those more closely aligned with the Open Source Initiative\u27s (OSI) approach to FOSS development on the other. The FSF maintains an almost religious adherence to certain ethical tenets of free software doctrine, while OSI adherents are more pragmatic about their approach to FOSS development. GPLv3, and especially the DRM and patent provisions, highlights some of these two groups\u27 differences in philosophy. Some also fret that GPLv3 may ultimately foreshadow the dissolution of their uneasy compromise. This Article proceeds as follows. Section II details the philosophical differences between the FSF and OSI and what these differences have meant to FOSS licensing, and FOSS development in general, until now. Section III details the DRM and patent changes provided in GPLv3 and discusses both sides\u27 reactions to those changes. It then examines what these GPLv3 changes, and the reactions from both parties, could mean for FOSS licensing and development in the future. Section IV concludes by recapping some of the main findings of this study. This Article\u27s thesis is that the two parties\u27 differences pale in comparison to their commonalities, and that GPLv3, despite its possible problem areas, will be an effective means for dealing with two growing problems that threaten the FOSS world. GPLv3 may add new social and legal complications to FOSS development, but, as with GPLv2, GPLv3\u27s unifying potential is greater than its possible balkanizing effects. In the end, GPLv3 is a calculated risk worth taking