-----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