866 lines
39 KiB
HTML
866 lines
39 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
|
||
|
||
<html>
|
||
<head>
|
||
<title>Considerations on Updating the European Commission's Open
|
||
Source Strategy - Public Bodies - FSFE</title>
|
||
</head>
|
||
|
||
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
|
||
<p id="category"><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals.html">
|
||
Policy goals 2014 - 2019</a></p>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<h1>Considerations on Updating the European Commission's Open Source
|
||
Strategy</h1>
|
||
|
||
<div id="introduction">
|
||
<p>
|
||
The European Commission has a published <a
|
||
href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/informatics/oss_tech/index_en.htm">"Open
|
||
Source Strategy"</a>, describing the use it makes of
|
||
Free Software internally. In November
|
||
2014, the Commission asked FSFE for input to an
|
||
upcoming revision of this "strategy". In response to
|
||
this request, we produced the document below.
|
||
</p>
|
||
<p>
|
||
The EC's current "strategy" is rather limited in
|
||
scope and ambition, and the Commission has
|
||
indicated that future versions of the strategy will
|
||
remain within similar constraints. Accordingly, we
|
||
have opted to focus our input on achieving the
|
||
maximum possible amount of progress within those
|
||
limits. In parallel, we are continuing our efforts
|
||
to set the Commission, and other European
|
||
institutions, on a course for software freedom in
|
||
both policy and practice.
|
||
</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
<!-- Table of contents -->
|
||
<!--<h2>Table of Contents</h2>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-1">1. Introduction</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-2">2. Contributing to external Free Software
|
||
projects</a>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-2-1">2.1. Clarify copyright ownership among EC and
|
||
agencies</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-2-2">2.2. Create a policy</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-2-3">2.3. Make contributing simple</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-2-4">2.4. Incentivise developers to
|
||
contribute</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-2-5">2.5. Under which licenses should the
|
||
European Commission release contributions to Free Software
|
||
projects?</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-2-6">2.6. Contributor agreements</a></li>
|
||
</ul></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-3">3. Distributing software developed by or for
|
||
the EC</a>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-3-1">3.1. Why should the European Commission
|
||
release its own programs as Free Software?</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-3-2">3.2. Current Free Software releases by the
|
||
European Commission</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-3-3">3.3. Making releasing software under a Free
|
||
Software license easy</a></li>
|
||
</ul></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-4">4. Further considerations</a>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-4-1">4.1. Liability</a>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-4-1-1">4.1.1. Outbound liability</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-4-1-2">4.1.2. Inbound liability</a></li>
|
||
</ul></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-4-2">4.2. Remarks on software
|
||
procurement</a></li>
|
||
</ul></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-5">5. Conclusions</a></li>
|
||
</ul>-->
|
||
|
||
<!-- Introduction -->
|
||
<div><h2 id="sec-1">1. Introduction</h2>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>The purpose of this document is to provide input on a number of
|
||
specific questions to the team tasked with updating the EC's Open
|
||
Source Strategy, which is meant to guide the decisions of those in
|
||
charge of the Commission's IT systems and IT procurement, with respect
|
||
to contributing and releasing software under a Free Software license.<sup>
|
||
<a id="fnr.1" name="fnr.1" href="#fn.1">1</a></sup> The ultimate goal
|
||
of this paper is to enable the European Commission to maximise the
|
||
value for money it obtains from its IT systems, by leveraging the
|
||
advantages of Free Software and open file formats.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>This document does not constitute legal advice. If legal advice from a
|
||
specialist is required, FSFE will be honoured to facilitate contacts
|
||
with competent lawyers.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>While in this document we focus on the European Commission, the
|
||
information contained herein applies equally to other EU institutions,
|
||
as well as to public bodies more generally.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>The terms "Free Software" and "open source software" both refer to
|
||
computer programs which recipients may <a href="http://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html">
|
||
use, study, share, and improve</a>. In this document, the term "Free
|
||
Software" is preferred. Both terms cover the same set of programs<sup>
|
||
<a id="fnr.2" name="fnr.2" href="#fn.2">2</a></sup>.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<!-- Contributing to external Free Software projects -->
|
||
<div><h2 id="sec-2">2. Contributing to external Free Software projects</h2>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>The Commission, and other European institutions, are currently
|
||
making use of numerous Free Software programs and applications
|
||
<sup><a id="fnr.3" name="fnr.3" href="#fn.3">3</a></sup>.
|
||
At the same time, the Commission admits that it is "in a situation
|
||
of effective captivity with Microsoft as regards its desktop
|
||
operating systems and office productivity tools"<sup><a id="fnr.4"
|
||
name="fnr.4" class="footref" href="#fn.4">4</a></sup>. Making
|
||
greater use of Free Software tools is an essential step in loosening
|
||
the bonds of this captivity. In addition, the Commission's IT
|
||
services are adapting, patching and improving Free Software
|
||
programs for their own use. If the European Commission contributes
|
||
to outside Free Software tools which it uses itself, those
|
||
contributions will help to make those tools more useful, quickly
|
||
and in a cost-effective manner.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Permitting such contributions is the most cost-effective way of
|
||
improving the tools that the Commission is using. Ideally, these
|
||
contributions will become part of the mainline project; this would
|
||
eliminate the need for the Commission's developers to repeatedly apply
|
||
Commission-specific patches to subsequent versions of the programs in
|
||
question, freeing up their time for more useful tasks. (It should be
|
||
noted that such improvements are out of the question with non-free
|
||
software; here, the Commission is fully dependent on the vendor of the
|
||
program for any fixes or improvements.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Already in 2005, the Commission published a "Guideline for Public
|
||
Administrations on Partnering with Free Software Developers"
|
||
<sup><a id="fnr.5" name="fnr.5" href="#fn.5">5</a></sup>, which
|
||
remains a useful resource.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>It is useful to distinguish between contributing to an external
|
||
project as a way to improve it (e.g. by providing upstream patches and
|
||
modules), and releasing an internally-developed program to the public
|
||
under a Free Software license.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Contributions to an existing project are only a matter of internal
|
||
organization of the Commission. Contrary to what happens if the public
|
||
entity distributes software under a closed or "proprietary" license
|
||
software which may compete with existing applications in the same
|
||
market, contributing to a public Free Software project does not put
|
||
the Commission in a situation of competition with commercial actors.</p></div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-2-1">2.1. Clarify copyright ownership among EC and agencies</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>Currently, the copyright on code and documentation created
|
||
by Commission staff is held by the Commission. The contracts
|
||
with service suppliers normally state that all software
|
||
developed for the Commission in the context of the contract
|
||
is owned by the Commission. The relevant director-general
|
||
decides on issues related to copyright and trademarks, after
|
||
having consulted the legal service and the Joint Research
|
||
Centre.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>When contributions are created by contractors external to
|
||
the Commission, copyright ownership will depend on the terms
|
||
of the contract in question. Where the Commission holds
|
||
copyright on the work created under these contracts, it may
|
||
decide to distribute the work in question under a Free
|
||
Software license of its choice.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Alternatively, the EC could choose to let copyright in
|
||
the newly created code and documentation remain with the
|
||
contractor, and impose a contractual obligation for the
|
||
contractor to publish these assets in a suitable manner under
|
||
a Free Software license (and perhaps participate in their
|
||
maintenance for a specified period of time).</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>As the expert on the specific project, the contractor is
|
||
in a much better position to handle the distribution of the
|
||
software and documentation in a productive and sustainable
|
||
way, by bringing the necessary technical and legal expertise
|
||
to bear. At the same time, it is important to recognise that
|
||
distributing software is not among the Commission's primary
|
||
responsibilities; this task should therefore be handled in
|
||
the most efficient manner possible. For this approach to work,
|
||
the Commission however needs to set the right requirements
|
||
and incentives. (This is an approach adopted in Sweden, for
|
||
example.)</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-2-2">2.2. Create a policy</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>Contributions to outside Free Software projects by
|
||
developers working for the Commission could be enabled
|
||
through a simple policy signed by the relevant Director
|
||
General. This policy could be approved after consultation
|
||
with the legal service and the joint research centre.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>As an important first step, the EC should state publicly
|
||
that developers working on Commission software projects and
|
||
using or implementing Free Software solutions can contribute
|
||
to the upstream projects any bug fixes and new functionality.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Where a more explicit policy is required, it should be as
|
||
simple as possible, both in administrative and linguistic
|
||
terms. The policy should contain the following elements:</p>
|
||
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li>Rationale for the policy
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li>e.g. Free Software serves to avoid lock-in,
|
||
and enables a more effective IT strategies in
|
||
the public sector.</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Operational part, describing steps that developers
|
||
should follow:
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li>Identification of the Free Software project
|
||
to which developers will contribute (the "target
|
||
project")</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Identification of copyright and trademark
|
||
ownership regime for potential contributions from
|
||
the EC</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Identification of the target project's license
|
||
and contribution policy</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Identification of person(s) involved in the
|
||
process, and their approval (if required)</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Identification of required documentation</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Example header files</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
<p>For cases where explicit approval is required, the policy
|
||
should stipulate a clear approval path, a time period during
|
||
which the developer can expect to receive approval, e.g. one
|
||
week.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-2-3">2.3. Make contributing simple</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>If useful adaptations of software tools to the Commission's
|
||
needs are actually to occur, making such improvements simple
|
||
is the first step. In order to ensure that these improvements
|
||
will be contained in future versions of the outside project,
|
||
it is important to simplify the process for developers to
|
||
contribute these improvements "upstream" to the outside project
|
||
<sup><a id="fnr.6" name="fnr.6" href="#fn.6">6</a></sup>.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>We recommend to use the above-mentioned policy to give
|
||
developers working for the Commission and other European
|
||
institutions blanket permissions for small contributions
|
||
that are directly related to Free Software projects which
|
||
are currently in use within the institution in question.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>For more substantial contributions, or in cases where the
|
||
usefulness of the contribution requires further explanation,
|
||
we suggest that the Commission Free Software policy should
|
||
outline and set up a simple, efficient approval process.
|
||
This process should provide developers with a clear decision
|
||
path, and a clear timeline indicating how long after their
|
||
inquiry they can expect to receive a decision.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>In order to make the process efficient, we recommend to
|
||
apply the Commission's rules on public statements by its
|
||
employees in a sensible manner. As a rule, source code does
|
||
not serve to convey views or opinions. Concerns that
|
||
developers through their contributions might make statements
|
||
that would be potentially damaging to the Commission are in
|
||
our view largely unwarranted. While it is theoretically
|
||
conceivable that a developer might choose to make damaging
|
||
statements as part of his or her contribution, current
|
||
Commission employment rules and policies provide ample means
|
||
to handle any such incidents, in the very unlikely case that
|
||
they were to occur at all.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Theoretically, one could argue that while the
|
||
contributions will not convey views or opinions, the fact
|
||
that the Commission contributes to a particular Free Software
|
||
product may be conceived as a statement of support/approval
|
||
of this product. While the author has never once encountered
|
||
this sort of problem in practice during the past 10 years,
|
||
such concerns could be addressed with a public disclaimer
|
||
posted alongside an explanation of the Commission's contribution
|
||
policy, or even alongside the updated Open Source Strategy.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-2-3">2.4. Incentivise developers to contribute</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>If useful adaptations of software tools to the Commission's
|
||
needs are actually to occur, making such improvements simple
|
||
is only the first step. In addition, we recommend a few simple
|
||
measures to incentivise developers in this regard.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>The first measure is to set up efficient and painless
|
||
processes for contribution. Not only should contributing to
|
||
the mainline project not require additional effort; doing so
|
||
should ideally be <i>easier</i> for a developer than applying
|
||
a patch only to the copy of the software that is being used
|
||
within the Commission.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>The second measure is to permit developers to attach their name to
|
||
their contributions, while the copyright remains with the European
|
||
Commission or another EU institution. Contributions to Free Software
|
||
projects are an important and valued component of a developer's
|
||
experience and resume, since they permit future employers to get a
|
||
realistic impression of a potential hire's skills. Permitting
|
||
developers to attach their name to the contributions they make would
|
||
allow them to build up a portfolio of demonstrable work experience
|
||
during their time with the Commission, and would make the Commission
|
||
a more attractive employer.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>In practice, the best path would be to allow developers to write the
|
||
copyright notices on their contribution in roughly the following way:</p>
|
||
|
||
<blockquote><p>This code contributed by Jane Smith
|
||
<jane.smith@ec.europa.eu>. © 2014 European
|
||
Commission.</p></blockquote>
|
||
|
||
<p>It should be noted that both measures are simple steps
|
||
to take, and require little more than an administrative
|
||
decision. They also do not add costs; on the contrary, they
|
||
may well contribute to reducing costs for maintenance and
|
||
adaptions in the medium term.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-2-5">2.5. Under which licenses should the European
|
||
Commission release contributions to Free Software projects?</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>When developers associated with the Commission contribute
|
||
to existing Free Software projects, such contributions will
|
||
as a rule need to be made under the same Free Software license
|
||
as the main project. In fact, most projects would refuse
|
||
contributions under any other license, because mixing different
|
||
licenses in the same project would quickly lead to conflicting
|
||
sets of copyright rules, creating problems that are difficult
|
||
or impossible to resolve.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-2-6">2.6. Contributor agreements</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>Some Free Software projects demand that contributors
|
||
assign the copyright in their contributions to an organisation,
|
||
usually either a company or a foundation acting as a fiduciary.
|
||
These agreements have the purpose of making projects with a
|
||
large number of contributors easier to manage on the legal
|
||
level.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>If developers, or the organisations where they work, are required to
|
||
sign a contribution agreement in order to contribute to a project, we
|
||
recommend to submit the proposed agreement to a competent lawyer for
|
||
consideration. Most likely, such questions will need to be decided by
|
||
the Director General after having consulted the Commission's Legal
|
||
Service and the relevant department in the Joint Research Centre. A
|
||
repository of approved contribution agreements could be maintained, to
|
||
avoide repeated legal review. The required effort should be weighed
|
||
against the benefit of having the software in question adapted to the
|
||
Commission's needs<sup><a id="fnr.7" name="fnr.7" href="#fn.7">7</a></sup>.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<!-- Distributing software developed by or for the EC -->
|
||
<div><h2 id="sec-3">3 Distributing software developed by or for the EC</h2>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>Public administrations are always at liberty to develop software for
|
||
their own purposes, or contract out such work to third parties. Once
|
||
this software has been developed, the public administration may decide
|
||
to make the program available to others as well.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-3-1">3.1. Why should the European Commission release
|
||
its own programs as Free Software?</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>Software is a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivalry_%2528economics%2529">non-rival</a>
|
||
good: If a citizen or company makes use of a computer program
|
||
paid for by the European Commission, this use does not in any
|
||
way interfere with the Commission's own use of that program<sup><a id="fnr.8" name="fnr.8" href="#fn.8">8</a></sup>.
|
||
Quite to the contrary: The program might actually generate
|
||
additional value for the citizen or company which was not
|
||
previously available. According to a study by Carlo Daffara, Free
|
||
Software contributes 450 billion Euro each year to Europe's economy,
|
||
in direct savings and increased productivity and efficiency<sup><a id="fnr.9" name="fnr.9" href="#fn.9">9</a></sup>.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>It is important to understand that the value of any software released
|
||
by the Commission under a Free Software license is in the eye of the
|
||
beholder, i.e. the external user. As with Open Data, external users
|
||
may put these programs to useful purposes that the Commission could
|
||
not predict ahead of time, thus generating added value for Europe's
|
||
economy at no additional cost to the taxpayer<sup><a id="fnr.10" name="fnr.10" href="#fn.10">10</a></sup>.
|
||
Since distributing software is not among the primary responsibilities
|
||
of the European Commission, it is important that this process
|
||
should be designed to be as efficient as possible.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>The European Commission is ultimately funded through the taxes of
|
||
European citizens. It is only logical that wherever possible, the
|
||
assets created with public funds should be made available to the
|
||
public. On its Joinup portal<sup><a id="fnr.11" name="fnr.11" href="#fn.11">11</a></sup>,
|
||
the Commission offers a platform for public administrations
|
||
to make their software available for re-use. Some European
|
||
regions, such as Andalusia and the Basque Country in Spain,
|
||
are requiring all programs developed with public funds to be
|
||
made available as Free Software. These policies follow an
|
||
economic logic of stimulating the development of competent IT
|
||
companies in those regions, and we consider them an example which the
|
||
European Commission might wish to follow.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-3-2">3.2. Current Free Software releases by the
|
||
European Commission</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>The European Commission has developed a Free Software license of its
|
||
own explicitely for this purpose: The European Union Public License
|
||
(EUPL)<sup><a id="fnr.12" name="fnr.12" href="#fn.12">12</a></sup>.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Already now, the The European Commission is making numerous Free
|
||
Software solutions publicly available through the <a href="https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/">Joinup</a> repository
|
||
and collaborative platform, a project by DG DIGIT's ISA
|
||
Programme. Examples include:</p>
|
||
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li>Open ePrior (now being implemented by the Belgian Federal and the
|
||
government of the Flemish region)</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Open eTrustEX</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>ECI Validation Tool for Statements of Support (VTECI)</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>ECI Online Collection Software (OCS)</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>SPOCS-Simple Procedures Online for Crossborder Services</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Tarîqa</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Multilingual Electronic Dossier</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Inspire Registry</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Inspire Geoportal</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Inspire validator</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>mAggregator</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>mDownloader</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>ePetition (renamed euSurvey)</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Stork</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Joinup (now reused by the government of Vietnam,
|
||
South Australia and Australia and New Zealand)</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>OS toolbox</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Echo Offline eSingle form</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
<p>These examples indicate that the EC already has substantial practical
|
||
experience in sharing software. We recommend to systematically review
|
||
the lessons learned, identify potential improvements to the process,
|
||
and implement them.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-3-3">3.3. Making releasing software under a Free Software license easy</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>As discussed in relation to contributions to existing projects
|
||
discussed above, the decision procedure within the Commission is the
|
||
same in both cases: the relevant Director General consult the Legal
|
||
Service and the Joint Research Centre and takes a decision.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>When releasing software, we recommend that the Commission should
|
||
follow accepted best practices of the Free Software
|
||
community. Projects should have a modular structure, and should
|
||
ideally be hosted on a public version control platform that makes it
|
||
easy for both in-house and outside developers to contribute to the
|
||
project.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Before distributing or publishing newly developed software, the
|
||
Commission should carefully check that the finished program complies
|
||
with all license requirements on inbound code (i.e. existing Free
|
||
Software components used in the project). The EC should also select a
|
||
Free Software license under which to distribute the project. In the
|
||
past, the Commission has given preference to the
|
||
<a href="https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl">European Union Public
|
||
License</a> (EUPL). Depending on the inbound code being reused, it may be
|
||
necessary to distribute the project under another license, such as the
|
||
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl">GNU General Public License</a>.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<!-- Further considerations -->
|
||
|
||
<div><h2 id="sec-4">4. Further considerations</h2></div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-4-1">4.1. Liability</h3></div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h4 id="sec-4-1-1">4.1.1. Outbound liability</h4>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>The question of liability is sometimes raised in connection with
|
||
oublic bodies releasing Free Software, or to contribute to external
|
||
Free Software projects. While this is a prudent consideration to
|
||
undertake, it does not present an obstacle to such releases or
|
||
contributions in practice.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>This section is based on a legal opinion published by Dr
|
||
Till Jaeger and Dr Carsten Schulz, which in addition to being the
|
||
leading document in this field can be considered to have stood the
|
||
test of time<sup><a id="fnr.13" name="fnr.13" href="#fn.13">13</a></sup>.
|
||
The opinion is based on German liability law, which carries
|
||
perhaps the most stringent liability rules in the EU.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>According to Jaeger and Schulz, software that is distributed free of
|
||
charge has the legal status of a gift. This means that the
|
||
institution providing the software (in this case, the Commission or
|
||
another European institution) will only be liable for defects which
|
||
it has maliciously concealed<sup><a id="fnr.14" name="fnr.14" href="#fn.14">14</a></sup>.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Should the program turn out to infringe any third-party rights (such
|
||
as copyright, patents or trademarks held by others), the Commission
|
||
would only be liable if it had introduced such infringements knowingly
|
||
and willingly.<sup><a id="fnr.15" name="fnr.15" href="#fn.15">15</a></sup>.</p>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<p>In addition to these considerations, it is worth pointing out that
|
||
neither the author of this document (despite a decade of personal
|
||
experience in the field) nor any of the experts that have contributed
|
||
to this text are aware of a single successful liability complaint
|
||
brought against a person or institution who has distributed Free
|
||
Software free of charge.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h4 id="sec-4-1-2">4.1.2. Inbound liability</h4>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>Where the Commission uses Free Software produced externally, the
|
||
developers and distributors of the programs in question normally
|
||
cannot be held liable for any problems or malfunctions. Where the
|
||
Commission deems it necessary to have an external party to hold liable
|
||
for problems, it may enter into a service contract with a suitable
|
||
company.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>It is worth noting that in practice, there is little or no difference
|
||
between Free and non-free software in this regard. The makers of
|
||
non-free programs typically design their end-user license agreements
|
||
to exclude liability to the maximum extent possible under the
|
||
law. This means that even in extreme circumstances, software makers
|
||
can only be held liable for defects which they have maliciously
|
||
concealed.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<div><h3 id="sec-4-2">4.2. Remarks on software procurement</h3>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>Free Software represents only a part of the software used by the
|
||
Commission. Significant benefits are available from updates to the
|
||
Commission's approach to software procurement.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>IT procurement is a complex and dynamic field. It would therefore be
|
||
prudent for the Commission to stay abreast with the rapid development
|
||
of best practices in the field. A particularly valuable example are
|
||
the "Red Lines for IT procurement" announced by the UK Government in
|
||
January 2014<sup><a id="fnr.16" name="fnr.16" href="#fn.16">16</a></sup>.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Besides putting an explicit limit on the size of individual contracts,
|
||
these rules state that:</p>
|
||
|
||
<blockquote><ul>
|
||
<li>companies with a contract for service provision will not be
|
||
allowed to provide system integration in the same part of
|
||
government</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>there will be no automatic contract extensions; the government
|
||
won’t extend existing contracts unless there is a compelling
|
||
case</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>new hosting contracts will not last for more than 2 years</li>
|
||
</ul></blockquote>
|
||
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p><img src="/graphics/UKGsuppliers2010.png" alt="UKGsuppliers2010.png" /></p>
|
||
<p>Figure 1: Geographical distribution of the UK Government's IT supply chain, 2010</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<p>Pointing out that "[s]marter purchasing realised savings of £3.8
|
||
billion in 2012 to 2013 alone", the government's chief procurement
|
||
officer said that these steps were intended to counter monopolistic or
|
||
oligopolistic behaviour among suppliers<sup><a id="fnr.17" name="fnr.17" href="#fn.17">17</a></sup>
|
||
of precisely the sort that have lead the Commission into its
|
||
current "effective captivity" to Microsoft in particular.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>When procuring new solutions, the Commission should consider future
|
||
exit costs during the process of assessing new solutions, along the
|
||
lines of the UK Government's Technology Code of Practice:</p>
|
||
|
||
<blockquote>
|
||
<p>"Ensure a level-playing field for open source software. Demonstrate
|
||
an active and fair consideration of using open source software –
|
||
taking account of the total lifetime cost of ownership of the
|
||
solution, including exit and transition costs."<sup><a id="fnr.18" name="fnr.18" href="#fn.18">18</a></sup></p>
|
||
</blockquote>
|
||
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p><img src="/graphics/UKGsuppliers2014.png" alt="UKGsuppliers2014.png" /></p>
|
||
<p>Figure 2: Geographical distribution of the UK Government's IT supply chain, 2014</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<p>In addition, the UK Government's Open Standards principles deal with
|
||
the issue of exit costs:</p>
|
||
|
||
<blockquote>
|
||
<p>"As part of examining the total cost of ownership of a
|
||
government IT solution, the costs of exit for a component should be
|
||
estimated at the start of implementation. As unlocking costs are
|
||
identified, these must be associated with the incumbent
|
||
supplier/system and not be associated with cost of new IT projects."<sup><a id="fnr.19" name="fnr.19" href="#fn.19">19</a></sup></p>
|
||
</blockquote>
|
||
|
||
<p>Taken together, the UK Government's Open Standards policy and the
|
||
changes made to IT procurement have already resulted in a significant
|
||
diversification of the government's IT supply chain, as indicated by
|
||
the changed geographical distribution of the government's IT
|
||
suppliers (see Figures 1 and 2).</p>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<p>Concerning framework agreements, Sweden's central procurement agency
|
||
Kammarkollegiet offers a useful example. The agency has recently
|
||
published a set of framework agreements for software and
|
||
services. Each agreement covers Free Software, non-free software, and
|
||
cloud services at the same level, making it possible to directly
|
||
compare value for money for each particular use case.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<!-- Conclusions -->
|
||
|
||
<div><h2 id="sec-5">5. Conclusions</h2>
|
||
<div>
|
||
<p>The European Commission stands to gain significant advantages from
|
||
allowing its developers and contractors to contribute to outside Free
|
||
Software projects. By distributing its own programs as Free Software,
|
||
the Commission can enable the interoperability gains and efficiency
|
||
savings that come with reuse. Such releases also make valuable assets
|
||
available to the taxpayers who paid for them, enabling further
|
||
economic exploitation. Provided that appropriate policies and
|
||
processes are put in place, neither contributions to outside projects
|
||
nor the release of programs as Free Software carries any significant
|
||
risks or downsides for the Commission.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Main considerations related to contributing to external
|
||
Free Software projects:</p>
|
||
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li>Allowing the EC's developers and contractors to contribute to
|
||
upstream projects currently in use at the Commission is an
|
||
effective way of ensuring that these programs fill suit the
|
||
Commission's needs in future. Such contributions will not, as a
|
||
rule, put the Commission in competition with commercial actors.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>The first step in enabling developers and contractors to contribute
|
||
to upstream projects is to clarify who holds copyright in their
|
||
contributions, and therefore is in a position to decide on the
|
||
license conditions under which the contribution shall be distributed.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>To actually enable contributions to outside upstream projects, the
|
||
EC should publish a statement clarifying that such contributions by
|
||
Commission staff and contractors are permitted and desired.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>As a next step, the Commission should create a simple policy for
|
||
more substantial contributions and other cases where explicit
|
||
approval is required. This policy should state a clear approval
|
||
path for contribution requests, along with the maximum time that
|
||
the requesting developer will have to wait for an answer.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Besides making the process of contributing to outside projects as
|
||
simple as possible, the Commission can incentivise its developers
|
||
to engage in such contributions by allowing them to include their
|
||
name in the copyright notice (while copyright remains with the EC).</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
<p>Main considerations related to the EC releasing programs developed by
|
||
the EC as Free Software:</p>
|
||
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li>Software created by or for the European Commission is ultimately
|
||
funded by European taxpayers. The Commission should make such
|
||
software available for reuse by default; Free Software licenses
|
||
provide an efficient mechanism for this.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>Already now, the EC distributes numerous programs under Free
|
||
Software licenses, and has gained significant experience in this
|
||
regard.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>When distributing its own programs as Free Software, the Commission
|
||
is free to choosing a license which it considers suitable. If
|
||
pre-existing Free Software components were used in the project, the
|
||
EC's choice of license will have to fulfil the license requirements
|
||
of those inbound components.</li>
|
||
|
||
<li>The EC would only be liable for defects in programs it distributes
|
||
if it has maliciously concealed those defects. In practice, it is
|
||
extremely unlikely that such programs will present a source of
|
||
liability claims against the Commission.</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
<p>In addition to these considerations, we recommend that the EC should
|
||
review its approach to software procurement to take into account best
|
||
practices that were recently developed, such as the standards and
|
||
procurement policies issued by the UK government in 2013-14.</p>
|
||
</div>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<!-- Footnotes -->
|
||
<blockquote>
|
||
<h2>Footnotes: </h2>
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.1" name="fn.1" href="#fnr.1">1</a></sup>
|
||
The author wishes to express his gratitude to the following
|
||
experts who contributed to this document: Karel de Vriendt, Carlo
|
||
Piana, Malcolm Bain, Gijs Hillenius, Daniel Melin, Mirko Böhm. Any mistakes are
|
||
the author's own.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.2" name="fn.2" href="#fnr.2">2</a></sup>
|
||
A detailed explanation is available at
|
||
<a href="http://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html">http://fsfe.org/about/basics/freesoftware.en.html</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.3" name="fn.3" href="#fnr.3">3</a></sup>
|
||
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/informatics/oss_tech/index_en.htm">http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/informatics/oss_tech/index_en.htm</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.4" name="fn.4" href="#fnr.4">4</a></sup>
|
||
European Commission, "Future Office Automation Environment",
|
||
p.1. Document released by Secretary General Catherine Day in response
|
||
to questions from MEP Andersdotter on January 31, 2014.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.5" name="fn.5" href="#fnr.5">5</a></sup>
|
||
<a href="https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/case/guidelines-public-administrations-partnering-free-software-developers-2005">https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/elibrary/case/guidelines-public-administrations-partnering-free-software-developers-2005</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.6" name="fn.6" href="#fnr.6">6</a></sup>
|
||
An important resource in this regard is the
|
||
<a href="https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/sites/default/files/84/fc/28/Report%2520on%2520policies%2520and%2520initiatives%2520on%2520sharing%2520and%2520re-use%2520of%2520assets.pdf">Report on policies
|
||
and initiatives on sharing and re-use</a> published
|
||
by the ISA programme in February 2013.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.7" name="fn.7" href="#fnr.7">7</a></sup>
|
||
FSFE offers a <a href="http://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/fla.en.html">Fiduciary Licensing Agreement</a>
|
||
as a legal tool for Free Software projects that wish
|
||
to centralise their copyright in a single legal entity.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.8" name="fn.8" ref="#fnr.8">8</a></sup>
|
||
The opposite would be the case
|
||
for an office chair or desk: It could not reasonably
|
||
be used by a Commission official at the same time
|
||
as it is being used by a citizen or company.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.9" name="fn.9" href="#fnr.9">9</a></sup>
|
||
Daffara, Carlo (2012): Estimating
|
||
the Economic Contribution of Open Source Software to
|
||
the European Economy. In: Shane Coughlan (ed.):
|
||
First OpenForum Academy Conference Proceedings. Available at
|
||
<a href="http://www.openforumacademy.org/library/ofa-research/first-conference-proceedingsA4.pdf">http://www.openforumacademy.org/library/ofa-research/first-conference-proceedingsA4.pdf</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.10" name="fn.10" href="#fnr.10">10</a></sup>
|
||
See <a href="http://data.gov.uk/about">http://data.gov.uk/about</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.11" name="fn.11" href="#fnr.11">11</a></sup>
|
||
<a href="http://joinup.ec.europa.eu">http://joinup.ec.europa.eu</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.12" name="fn.12" href="#fnr.12">12</a></sup>
|
||
See <a href="https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl">https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/software/page/eupl</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.13" name="fn.13" href="#fnr.13">13</a></sup>
|
||
Dr Till Jaeger, Dr Carsten Schulz:
|
||
Gutachten zu ausgewählten rechtlichen Aspekten der
|
||
Open Source Software. JBB Rechtsanwälte, 2005.
|
||
Available at <i>www.ifross.org/ifross\_html/art47.pdf</i>.
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.14" name="fn.14" href="#fnr.14">14</a></sup>
|
||
Jaeger/Schulz 2005, p.67
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.15" name="fn.15" href="#fnr.15">15</a></sup>
|
||
Jaeger/Schulz 2005, p.69
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.16" name="fn.16" href="#fnr.16">16</a></sup>
|
||
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-draws-the-line-on-bloated-and-wasteful-it-contracts">https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-draws-the-line-on-bloated-and-wasteful-it-contracts</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.17" name="fn.17" href="#fnr.17">17</a></sup>
|
||
See <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25884915">http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-25884915</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.18" name="fn.18" href="#fnr.18">18</a></sup>
|
||
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/technology/code-of-practice.html">https://www.gov.uk/service-manual/technology/code-of-practice.html</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<p><sup><a id="fn.19" name="fn.19" href="#fnr.19">19</a></sup>
|
||
<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/open-standards-principles/open-standards-principles#principle-4-we-adopt-open-standards-that-support-sustainable-cost">Gov.uk Open Standards Principle 4</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
</blockquote>
|
||
|
||
</body>
|
||
|
||
<sidebar promo="our-work">
|
||
<h2>Table of Contents</h2>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-1">1. Introduction</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-2">2. Contributing to external Free Software
|
||
projects</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-3">3. Distributing software developed by or for
|
||
the EC</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-4">4. Further considerations</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="#sec-5">5. Conclusions</a></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
<h2>Our policy goals</h2>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/consumer-rights.html">Consumer rights and device sovereignty</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/privacy.html">Privacy, surveillance and cryptography</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/policy-goals/distributed-systems.html">Distributed systems</a></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
</sidebar>
|
||
|
||
<author id="gerloff" />
|
||
<date>
|
||
<original content="2014-12-15" />
|
||
</date>
|
||
<download type="pdf" content="/activities/policy/eu/20141215.FSFE.EC_OSS_Strategy-input.pdf"/>
|
||
</html>
|
||
<!--
|
||
Local Variables: ***
|
||
mode: xml ***
|
||
End: ***
|
||
-->
|