The BBC reports that Microsoft is adding support for the Welsh language to MS Windows (Microsoft works on native tongues). It is great that Microsoft is supporting language diversity. However, this diversity is being supported at Microsoft's sufferance. Should MS decide not to support a particular language, too bad, MS won't let you have access to Windows source to make the necessary changes yourself. There is no such problem with open source. If native speakers truly want to guarantee the continued existence of their minority languages, they would do well to embrace open source and commission a translated version of Linux.
Speaking of which, when will we have a Klingon Linux of Elvish Linux?
I don't post much about the ongoing SCO v. Linux lawsuits, though heaven knows there is much to discuss in the case. For incredible, indepth, precedent-setting blog coverage of these lawsuits, see the justly famous Groklaw.
Most recently, SCO has begun suing not only distributors of Linux, but users as well. In the first case brought against an end-user, SCO has sued Autozone for using Linux and thus violating SCO's copyrights (It's Autozone). All well and good, but there is something unusual about the case.
Netcraft is not involved directly in the case, it is an English company that conducts research and analysis on the internet. According to their about page, since 1995 they have been,
a respected authority on the market share of web servers, operating systems, hosting providers, ISPs, encrypted transactions, electronic commerce, scripting languages and content technologies on the internet.
Thus, it is no surprise that they would check up on what systems the court involved is running. They report that some of the computer systems for the court in charge of the SCO v. Autozone lawsuit run on Linux (Court that will hear SCO v AutoZone lawsuit itself runs Linux). Indeed,
Plaintiffs filing lawsuits must enter copies of their legal documents in Adobe PDF format in the court's Linux-based Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system, which will provide electronic updates of case information for the litigants and their lawyers.
This, I think, is a first. I have no idea if there is a precedent for this sort of thing. Here you have a court that is engaged in precisely the same conduct the plaintiff complains of. If a judge did this it would not only be an appearance of a conflict of interest, it would be a conflict of interest and clear case for recusal. What do you do when the court administration is involved? Can an entire court recuse itself? Is there any rule or precedent for this?
In related news, SCO public relations people continue their so-far successful campaign to get the world to hate them by comparing themselves to the RIAA ('We're just like the RIAA,' says SCO).
Ed Felten on his Freedom to Tinker blog breaks some incredibly good news - Windows 2000 and Windows NT4 source code has been leaked on the internet (Windows Source Code Leaked?). Microsoft has apparently confirmed the leak, according to the AP wirestory on SecurityFocus.com (Microsoft source code leaked over Internet) Though Felten is rightfully worried that malware authors will have a field day, there are a number of positive developments that can occur because of this (in no particular order):
There is also an interesting copyright question here. If I have a "license" for the executable version of MS Windows, is it a copyright violation for me to keep a backup copy of the source code? Am I violating copyright if I play with the source code at all?
Fellow Corante blogger Open Mind says it best with regard to Microsoft's new plan to reduce functionality in Windows XP in order to sell less expensive copies in Thailand (What a brilliant strategy...):
Customers should also wonder why Microsoft will be willing to cut Thai users a little slack with a less expensive version, but be unwilling to offer a "lite" version to price-sensitive customers elsewhere.
Read the whole thing.
John Palfrey takes an interesting and brief look at CBS's decision to air non-controversial issue ads, but not controversial ones, such as the MoveOn.org anti-Bush contest winner (Is anti-smoking not an issue?). Palfrey's intutition seems to be that there is something wrong with CBS's decision, though under existing law it is clearly constitutional. For example, Palfrey points to Marsh v. Alabama, a company-town case. Although it isn't legally on point, Palfrey seems to be making an analogy to the Super Bowl because of the game's incredible popularity. Just as it is bad policy for a company-town to restrict the pamphleteer, so it is bad policy for CBS to restrict its television commercial sales for the extremely popular Super Bowl (though Palfrey is not claiming it is unconstitutional).
I agree with Palfrey's intutition that what CBS is doing is wrong. However, I don't think the problem has anything to do with the Super Bowl (should speech be more subject to regulation because it is popular?), but with our telecommunications regulatory scheme in general. Broadcasters, cable and satellite networks have the power to discriminate because the government has given them that power. Speakers, of course, should have the right to discriminate, that is what freedom of expression is all about. However, broadcasters, cable and satellite networks are not merely speakers but distributors as well. Of critical importance is that these networks are the creation of government regulation.
As I've argued previously, creating and maintaining such distribution monopolies is precisely one of the things the First Amendment was meant to prohibit (It's Freedom of the Press, Stupid). Letting broadcasters descriminate in what they will broadcast is like letting Chevrolet build a bridge on public land and then decide what cars get to cross it, or having railroads built using eminent (I almost wrote, "public") domain and then deciding who gets to transport goods via train. Interestingly, a similar analogy is used in Marsh v. Alabama, noted above:
Thus, the owners of privately held bridges, ferries, turnpikes and railroads may not operate them as freely as a farmer does his farm. Since these facilities are built and operated primarily to benefit the public and since their operation is essentially a public function, it is subject to state regulation. And, though the issue is not directly analogous to the one before us we do want to point out by way of illustration that such regulation may not result in an operation of these facilities, even by privately owned companies, which unconstitutionally interferes with and discriminates against interstate commerce. [emphasis added]
Palfrey ends his post with this:
But, leaving the Constitutionality question aside, and thinking hard about the relevant policy questions, I'm still unconvinced that CBS is wholly in the right on this one.
Late last week Hewlett Packard Chief Executive Carly Fiorina declared that starting this year all HP digital entertainment products will use software that respects the copyrights of artists. In other words, HP would become one of the leading proponents of DRM (HP Goes Off the Rails).
This week, Fiorina is celebrating the fact that HP raked in the bucks selling Linux-related products and services in 2003, according to a C|Net News article (Linux brings in $2.5 billion for HP). HP is selling Linux-based collections of hardware and software, as well as thin clients that plug into central Linux servers. Revenues for Linux-related products and services in 2003 increased $500 million or 25% over 2002. Sounds like a nice, healthy, growing business to be in.
Apparently, not a business HP really wants to see take off, however. Someone at HP should inform Fiorina that DRM and Linux don't work too well together.
Here's an idea Fiorina: the heck with sucking up to Hollywood; start selling Linux-based digital entertainment products to consumers. Who wouldn't want a central Linux server that sends multimedia to a bunch of thin clients throughout the house?
C|Net News reports that more government organizations, this time in Israel and Texas, are adopting or testing open source desktop software, such as OpenOffice, as an alternative to Microsoft Office software (OpenOffice makes government inroads). This is great news. However, I'm not nearly as concerned that the government uses Microsoft software as that the government organizations are not committed to open formats. Sure, the government should be able to use Microsoft Office software if it is more efficient, but the government should publish and receive documents in open formats. I shouldn't need proprietary software to open a government document properly. I applaud the switch to open source, but I would cheer a firm commitment to open formats.
I haven't been following court technology very closely lately (mostly through frustration with their resistance to truly open court publishing), but this story caught my eye. The San Antonio Business Journal reports that PEC Solutions (motto: "Web-enabling Government") has received a contract from the Administrative Office of the US Courts to switch the Federal Judiciary's IT infrastructure to Linux (U.S. Courts hires vendor to migrate to Linux/Intel platform). Read the press release: PEC Solutions to Migrate Federal Judiciary’s National IT Infrastructure to Linux/Intel Platform. From the press release:
PEC will support the transition of the Judiciary’s mission-sensitive applications, including case management, finance and accounting, probation and pretrial services, and case-tracking management systems to the Linux standard. PEC will provide Linux operating system and applications technical support and assistance, including planning, advice and recommendations, help desk support, installation and testing support, and full problem resolution.
First, the CEO of Red Hat says you should stick with Windows for the desktop, in this Silicon.com story (Red Hat CEO says you should buy Windows). On the other hand C|Net News is reporting that IBM will announce on Monday support for the Linux desktop(IBM warms to desktop Linux). Actually, the two positions are much closer than I've made them seem. Neither IBM or Red Hat is proposing Linux for the consumer desktop, but rather for the business or enterprise-oriented desktop. This is a significant move. Microsoft gained a lot of momentum from the ease with which people could switch between home and business PCs running Windows. If the Linux desktop does gain traction in the workplace, it won't be long before it makes significant moves into the home.
I've been following but not posting on the SCO v. World copyright battle over Linux. However, this post from Groklaw is definitely worth passing on (The Grinch Who Stole Linux).
By the way, parody or satire?
C|Net News reports that Amazon is now selling Linare Linux PCs for $199 (Desktop PC company begins Amazon deal). You can check out the PC here on Amazon here: Linare PC (1.3-GHz AMD Duron, 128 MB RAM, 30 GB Hard Drive, CD-ROM). While Walmart has been selling similar systems (Linux OS PCs) for some time, Walmart is not usually a store you associate with PCs.
One small problem with the Amazon technical specs page which I hope they change soon:
Special Features: Licence [sic] Free Operating System [emphasis in original]
RMS might take offense to calling something under the GNU license "license free."
Okay, so I've been reading the FCC's Broadcast Flag requirements and I've noticed what appear to be a couple of potential loopholes for those interested in maintaining consumer rights past the July 1, 2005 deadline (Report and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). According to the FCC's new report, it is illegal for manufacturers and distributers in the US to provide non-DRM'd equipment (effective July 1, 2005) to US citizens, but perfectly legal to manufacture the devices here and sell or distribute them overseas:
§ 73.9009 Manufacture for Exportation.
The requirements of this subpart do not apply to Demodulators, Covered Demodulator Products or Peripheral TSP Products manufactured in the United States solely for export.
The FCC, apparently, believes that foreigners won't be pirates, but US citizens and residents will. Either that, or the FCC believes that foreign residents deserve to have media functionality that US citzens don't.
Whatever.
This reminds me of the old cryptographic requirements, only in reverse. In the earlier days of the web, there were a number of websites that provided cryptographic programs for download, as long as the downloaders were in the US, since it was illegal to export the programs, but not to distribute them domestically. The websites offering the programs for download made some attempt to block people from downloading the programs overseas.
Here, the situation is reversed. It is illegal to distribute domestically, but not to export. Thus, you can write an open source demodulator without DRM, as long as it is solely for export. I imagine you can make the program downloadable, as long as you make some effort to ensure people can't download the program from within the US.
This is a significant improvement over the DMCA, which prohibits virtually all distribution. Under the DMCA, you can't distribute DeCSS at all. Under this regulation, you could distribute the equivalent of DeCSS, as long as you distributed it only to those outside the US. Thus, for open source software developers in the US, they can distribute their work overseas (which will then be redistributed right back to the US).
Caveat: This is based on a quick reading of the regulation. I may be missing something that closes this loophole.
The New York Times (reg. req.) has a confusing report on the competing visions for the future of computing from Microsoft and IBM (Two Companies at Odds Over the Internet's Future). Not surprisingly, Microsoft denigrates IBM's vision:
"I.B.M. is talking about taking all the things we do now and outsourcing it," Mr. Gates said last week in an interview. "The utility model suggests that it is not about empowerment."
And Microsoft is about empowerment? Mr. Gates must be using a different dictionary then I do. Well, actually, Mr. Gates can afford to have the dictionary changed or at least he acts as if he can. Speaking of outsourcing ... what exactly do you call it when you buy your software on a subscription basis (the model Microsoft is trying to move the market towards)? If I don't actually own my software, but only have access so long as I pay the Microsoft tax subscription fee, isn't that outsourcing my software solution?
Microsoft executives compare the first stage of the Internet to the mainframe era, with the Web server computer the equivalent of the mainframe and the browser as the equivalent of the simple, "dumb" terminal of the mainframe days. The personal computer, they say, brought an explosion of creativity and opportunity as millions of people began using computers and programming themselves. Some were professionals, they note, but many others were ordinary people using the simple programming tools in a spreadsheet, for example, to simulate and test new ideas for a business.
Microsoft praising the "explosion of creativity and opportunity as millions of people began using computers and programming themselves?" Has the world gone mad? Did I somehow slip into the same parallel dimension where Spock has a goatee? Is Microsoft actually encouraging PC empowerment at the expense of centralized, chokepointed systems such as a privately owned monopolized operating system?
The next stage of computing, employing the Web services software standards, will do the same thing for the Internet, Microsoft executives say. "The Internet will be programmable," Microsoft's chief technical officer, Craig Mundie, said. "And there's no reason why the bulk of humanity won't be able to apply the tools we're talking about to this new world."
Ummm, isn't Microsoft's vision that the only tools you can use will be Microsoft's tools? Well, perhaps not the only tools, just the preferred tools:
But, of course, the Microsoft message is that the preferred technology for building and experiencing the next generation of the Internet is Windows.
Ah, turns out I am still in the right dimension.
ZDNet Australia has a great story on the birth of SAMBA, which is one of the most important programs to bridge the open source and closed source worlds (Special report: The birth of Samba). Fascinating stuff if you are interested in open source.
via Open Mind
Robert Scoble, who is blogging for and about Microsoft's next major operating system, Longhorn, on the Scobleizer LonghornBlog, has posted a piece soliciting Microsoft haters to actually help Microsoft improve its products (How to Hate Microsoft). It is an interesting look at how Microsoft is exploring new ways to meet the challenge of open source and there are some good comments and replies. I particularly like this comment on open standards and this reply to another question on open standards. Though I doubt Microsoft would really care, what is the answer to this question?:
OK, you're a Microsoft executive now. Why again would you invest in developing [open] standards such as those?
via Scripting News
The European Commission's Interchange of Data between Administrators (IDA) strategic initiative has announced the publication of a document that will:
1. ... [H]help Administrators decide whether a migration to OSS should be undertaken.
2. ... [D]escribe in broad technical terms how such a migration could be carried out.
The home page for the guidelines is here (The IDA Open Source Migration Guidelines) and describes them thus:
The IDA Open Source Migration Guidelines provide practical and detailed recommendations on how to migrate to Open Source Software (OSS)-based office applications, calendaring, e-mail and other standard applications.
They have been developed with guidance from public sector IT experts from Denmark, Finland, Italy, Germany, Malta, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Turkey. The relevance and readability of the Migration Guidelines were validated with the help of the regional authorities of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Germany.
The actual 198-page book is here (The IDA Open Source Migration Guidelines [PDF]) and seems to be quite comprehensive. The guidelines were produced in partnership with netproject.
Very cool. I remember discussing this with some Italian bureaucrats a couple of years ago. They had little idea what I was talking about. Much progress has been made since then, apparently.
Gnomoradio is a new open source project that integrates music file sharing with Creative Commons licenses. Basically, music under a CC license will be available on this network via a combination of file sharing methods. Since the music is under a CC license, the network and sharing is clearly legal. Moreover, collaborative filtering techniques and other social software elements will be integrated. Read the press release (Announcing the Gnomoradio Project, and Calling for Musicians). The project sounds very, very cool. Unfortunately, there is no executable currently available. I've actually been sort of expecting a project like this to come along; I hope it is successful and becomes popular.
via Lessig Blog
The article isn't available online without a subscription, but the Capital Hill newspaper Roll Call is reporting that Microsoft and House Chief Administrative Officer Jay Eagen have signed a three-year contract, which will mean that House offices will be eligible for licenses for Microsoft Office and upgrades for Microsoft Windows without having to pay fees from their Members’ Representational Allowance. Apparently, according to an anonymous House aide:
offices have declined to upgrade older systems, such as Microsoft Windows 98, because of the cost.
The contract “remove[s] the barrier of, ‘Gee, I can’t afford to do this upgrade,’” the aide said.
Too bad that deal isn't available to the general public. More importantly, too bad that representatives won't be faced with the expense of keeping up with Microsoft upgrades. When things seem "free" you don't pay nearly as much attention to what the actually cost.
Apparently, the House maintains a list of minimum technical requirements the offices are supposed to meet. It would be interesting to get ahold of that list. I wonder if it includes requirements for the use of open standards where possible.
