After several months of leisurely development (I've read through everything on the Internet several times, and notified everyone who was wrong), I have finally gotten obnam, my backup application, into a state where it successfully backs up my laptop's hard disk to a USB disk. I therefore declare it to be perfe... no, wait, I don't. It's slow. It's probably buggy in ways that will make you want to abandon computers forever. It's also slow. And buggy. Did I mention it is slow, making backups at only a few megabytes per second? Disclaimers aside, I am happy to have gotten obnam to this stage. It's not nearly ready, but it's getting along nicely. If you've been curious about obnam ever since I first mentioned it in 2007, now might be a good time to try it out. I would be very interested in hearing any feedback. Obnam is implemented using copy-on-write B-trees, and I've also released my B-tree implementation. See the NEWS file in each source tree for information for what's changed since the previous release. Links:

• Obnam
• btree

I have made Debian packages of obnam, btree, and some of my other stuff that they need, for all, amd64, and i386 architectures. The repository is at http://code.liw.fi/debian/, so add this to your sources.list if you want to use that:

deb http://code.liw.fi/debian squeeze main

Note, however, that I do not guarantee that this repository will be in any useful state at any given time. I use it, and rely on it, and will fix things when they bother me, but that's all the guarantee I give. (Do you get the impression I've read too many contracts?) Once obnam is ready, and Debian squeeze is released, I'll upload it to Debian, and then you'll get it for any architecture Debian runs one. If anyone wants to help me maintain the packages for Debian, please e-mail me. If, on the other hand, you'd like to help make obnam faster, or better, the bug tracker has some pointers. Right now speed is perhaps the biggest problem. The B-tree library needs optimizing, as does obnam itself. And the LRU cache I use. The worst missing feature is encryption support. I do my backups to a local hard disk, which is full-disk encrypted, which is why I haven't cared about implementing encryption yet. Also, I need to design a good way to manage keys, etc. Help with that would be quite welcome.

There s this great feature in modern operating systems called the page cache. Simply put, it keeps in memory what normally is stored on disk and helps both read and write performance. While it s all nice for a day to day use, it often gets in the way when one wants to track performance issues with cold cache (when the files you need to access are not in the page cache yet). A commonly used command to flush the Linux page cache is the following:

# echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches

Unfortunately, its effect is broad, and it flushes the whole page cache. When working on cold startup performance of an application like Firefox, what you really want is to have your page cache in a state close to what it was before you started the application. One way to get in a better position than flushing the entire page cache is to reboot: the page cache will be filled with system and desktop environment libraries during the boot process, making the application startup closer to what you want. But it takes time. A whole lot of it. In one of my what if moments, I wondered what happens to the page cache when using posix_fadvise with the POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED hint. Guess what? It actually reliably flushes the page cache for the given range in the given file. At least it does so with Debian Squeeze s Linux kernel. Provided you have a list of files your application loads that aren t already in the page cache, you can flush these files and only these from the page cache. The following source code compiles to a tool to which you give a list of files as arguments, and that flushes these files:

#include <unistd.h>
#include <fcntl.h>
#include <sys/stat.h>

int main(int argc, char *argv[])  
  int i, fd;
  for (i = 1; i < argc; i++)  
    if ((fd = open(argv[i], O_RDONLY)) != -1)  
      struct stat st;
      fstat(fd, &st);
      posix_fadvise(fd, 0, st.st_size, POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED);
      close(fd);
     
   
  return 0;
 

It s actually a pretty scary feature, especially on multi-user environments, because any user can flush any file she can open, repeatedly, possibly hitting system performance. By the way, on systems using lxc (and maybe other containers, I don t know), running the echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches command from a root shell in a container does flush the host page cache, which could be dangerous for VPS hosting services using these solutions. Update: I have to revise my judgment, it appears posix_fadvise(,,,POSIX_FADV_DONTNEED) doesn t flush (parts of) files that are still in use by other processes, which still makes it very useful for my usecase, but also makes it less dangerous than I thought. The drop_cache problem is still real with lxc, though.

It gives me pleasure to announce RDiffFS, a virtual filesystem for browsing backups created by the rdiff-backup tool. Assuming that "/backup" is the location of a series of backups created using rdiff-backup, here is a usage example:

$ rdifffs /backup/dest/ /mnt
$ ls -l /mnt
total 5
drwxr-xr-x 4 jon jon 4096 Feb  7  2010 2010-09-04T16:38:10+01:00
drwxr-xr-x 4 jon jon 4096 Feb  7  2010 2010-12-29T10:51:50Z
drwxr-xr-x 4 jon jon 4096 Feb  7  2010 2010-12-29T10:52:30Z
lr-xr-xr-x 2 jon jon   11 Jan  1  1970 current -> 2010-12-29T10:52:30Z
$ for i in /mnt/*/a; do c=$(cat "$i"); printf "%32s:\t%s\n" "$i" "$c"; done
/mnt/2010-09-04T16:38:10+01:00/a:   foo
     /mnt/2010-12-29T10:51:50Z/a:   bar
     /mnt/2010-12-29T10:52:30Z/a:   baz
                  /mnt/current/a:   baz

I will write more about the creation of rdifffs at a later date: in particular my choice of implementation language, but I don't want to clutter up this announcement with all that. Suffice to say, I started writing a "quick tool" nearly a year ago, and I have become increasingly desperate to announce it. At present, rdifffs should be considered alpha quality software. It can browse my real-world backup, albeit slowly, and with several metadata bugs. This is more than archfs can manage. It can read files from the most recent backup, and most files from incremental backups, but not all.

DAViCal 0.9.9.4 is now available, along with AWL 0.46. This is a recommended upgrade with a focus on stability and reliability. Release notes are on the wiki at http://wiki.davical.org/w/Release_Notes/0.9.9.4. Most of the changes are subtle: fixes to small bugs or adjustments to correctness in respect to standards. In particular there were some errors in handling of various requests for addressbook data, and the support for WebDAV synchronisation is updated to draft -04 of the specification. One notable addition is the new '/feed.php/username/calendar/' URL which will provide an Atom feed of the events added to a calendar. This is pretty experimental at present, but any problems with it won't affect the rest of DAViCal so I felt it safe to include in a stable release series. I've also created a DAViCal Announce mailing list which in the future will be the primary place that notifications like this are sent to, so those of you who are subscribed here but really only want to see announcements should subscribe to that list. In a few weeks time (well, when I remember, I guess :-) I want to move the DAViCal General mailing list to a lists.davical.org mailing list. As of today I've moved the DAViCal developers mailing list there already (pretty easy since it did not involve moving servers) but the old address for that one will continue to work indefinitely. Also, as of yesterday, the sourceforge.net project name for DAViCal finally got changed, so DAViCal is now at http://sourceforge.net/projects/davical - yay! At the end of January I will be presenting about Calendaring and Free Software at Linux.Conf.AU 2011 in Brisbane - I hope you've all got your tickets already, because there isn't much time left now :-)

So when I was travveling to my parent's for christmas it looked like I'd have limited computer access. My Netbook is quite OK for reading mail but not really useable for any real hacking. And my trusty Thinkpad (Z61m) was oopsing when X was running so not much useable either. But as some Live CDs placed here were working well I decided that this would be fixed by an reinstall. And as I was reinstalling anyway I decided I could just choose kfreebsd-amd64. Turned out to be a quite entertaining decision with lots of stuff to hack away with wireless Bad news: there's no wireless support on Debian GNU/kFreeBSD at the moment. This problem is tracked as Bug #601803 so for wireless internet you will need a (plain) Freebsd chroot. Haven't tried this myself yet -- busy figuring other stuff out. SBCL Having a FreeBSD chroot I decided to give SBCL on GNU/kFreeBSD another try after having failed to get it working in a VM some time ago. With quite some help on SBCL's IRC channel I managed to build a patch that enables building (you need to force a :os-provides-dlopen to the feature list additionally). There's currently no multi-threading working so I hae a project for the rest of the hoidays (well lots of other stuff to do as well ;)) Audio Some more user-related stuff now. As it is this time of the year I wanted to listen to some 27c3 streams so I needed working audio. However there's no OSS device available. Turned out you just need to kldload the right module (here snd_hda) to get sound working. Volume was rather low although hardware controls of the soundcard where at max. As that's all OSS there's no point looking for alsamixer. Turns out aumix can do that here. IPv6 aiccu stuff Installing aiccu, copying the config in and starting did not work out as well. I already tried to do that from within the FreeBSD chroot already (which doesn't work for some reason) until I discovered just loading the if_tun kernel module solves the aiccu on Debian issue quite well. To get a default route up the last step was finding /lib/freebsd/route again -- /sbin/route is a wrapper around that abstracting differences in BSD route but not supporting IPv6.

Telechips also appear to have released the source for their TCC89XX devices, which ought to provide at least some level of support for the Augen devices.

(I promise that I will talk about things that aren't GPL-related in the near future)

John Goerzen blogs about moving pianos complete with outdoors music. While I don't have a similar story, my dad does. It doesn't involve a pickup (what with that being the standard american car type) but instead a piano which at an angle is stuck through the roof of a 2CV. I wasn't there (my parents hadn't even met yet), but I'm told it was great fun. In the not so distant future, however, I may have another story to tell about moving pianos. Currently, I live right above my office. Due mainly to bureaucratic reasons, this will change in the near future (it's a long story). Now when I moved into the apartment, moving the piano involved several people, a ladderlift, and some extra helping hands from another apartment a few blocks down the road where they just happened to be moving, too, just to lift it 10 cm up and over the window sill. Then, we just tried to avoid dropping it to the floor, about a meter down. Now if me, my three brothers, a friend, and an extra hand were only just enough to lift it for just 10 cm, I'm a bit worried as to how we'll be moving it out again, which would involve moving it up about a meter. To be continued, I'm sure.

Perhaps I am not very imaginative. Or perhaps insufficiently adventurous. But when I woke up today, a day that would actually get a little bit above freezing, I didn t have a thought of riding without a coat in the bed of a pickup. Nor did I expect to be involved with moving a piano. I didn t have any thought of listening to piano music outdoors. And I certainly didn t anticipate the fun to be had doing all of these things simultaneously. Now, let me back up and set the scene. This was our annual Goerzen Christmas today. We already ate and exchanged gifts. Here s the thing about moving pianos, especially the old heavy ones with the cast iron frame inside: it s not something where a group of people just get together, count to 3, and that s that. No, you ve got to start the project out right. You have to break the news that people will be moving a piano gently. And then, of course, you get a room full of people usually mostly men and at this point, before any lifting happens, you ve got to plan. Tape measures must be produced, measurements taken, plans made for how to lift and who should lift where. Differing points of view have to be considered carefully. Then, of course, you have too many people for each one to actually help lift so each person not lifting has to find a job. And then when things actually start going, you realize that not one of the plans fully accounted for the unprecedented weight and maddening stubbornness of the piano, and you have to stop every few feet to plan anew. I don t think I ve ever seen a piano move happen in any other fashion. So, today, my uncle, whose house our gathering was at this year, said, Ahh good, lots of young backs. Just what I need. Mildly concerned glances pass between my brothers, my cousins, and I. One brother looks like he s pretending not to have heard. We have a few things to move. Anticipation. A small couch probably not too bad, right? An upholstered chair maybe a bit unruly but still not too bad. And an old piano is going to a neighbor. Full alert now more glances, a pause for a second, and then acceptance: Oh! Uhm great! My uncle s friend Ken teaches music at the local college, and on the side, Ken also teaches children how to play piano. One of Ken s students didn t have a piano at home, and my uncle and aunt had an old one they weren t using, which they would give to the family of the student just a couple of blocks away. All that remained was moving it. There was the inevitable measuring, planning, re-planning, until we got it out of the house and onto the back of my uncle s pickup. We have about 8 men involved, plus my aunt. Most of us rode in the back of the pickup with the piano. And of course, there came the inevitable request: Ken, play for us! So Ken sat on the edge of the pickup, at the piano, playing as we and the piano went through town in the open air. He started with Joplin s Entertainer, then broke out into some Christmas music We Wish You a Merry Christmas, followed by Nun Ist Sie Erschienen and a few others. It must be said that small towns in Kansas are probably not accustomed to their Christmas carolers having a piano with them, much less being played from the bed of a pickup. But there we were, mostly laughing too hard or enjoying the ride too much to sing. To add excitement, or perhaps embarrassment, my uncle was sounding the horn. Some thought that his intent was to have it in time with the piano music from the back, but I ll give him the benefit of the doubt and say that he meant to sound the horn in that rather random fashion. Eventually we got to the neighbor s house, and my dad and another uncle who hadn t been on the pickup came running up. We hopped down and asked them where they wanted the piano. Upstairs! That got repeated among everyone there, producing laughter each time. More tape measures were produced, as it was a narrow staircase. The conclusion was that the piano could make it with about an inch (2.54cm) to spare. So we got it out of the pickup and onto the porch, then into the house. Now, how to get it upstairs? This called for an extra helping of planning and calculating. Ken, the unofficial piano moving boss, kept reminding us in jest that I grew up on a farm . He said he could be alone at the top of the piano while we pushed. This quickly turned out to not be practical; due to the incline, the weight at the bottom was just too much to get it up over the stairs. Ken then went and picked up a wooden contraption they use to move pianos at the college. We tried that, but its supports underneath got stuck on the steps as well. Various ideas were tossed around at this point, until I pointed out that four of us on the bottom couldn t get it up over a step, so when we get it into the stairway only wide enough for 2 we won t be able to get it up anyhow. That being considered a good point, various other ideas were tossed around. They all seemed to be wanting either for practicality or, perhaps, safety. Though the idea of having a dozen Goerzens stand at the top of the staircase pulling it up by a rope did have some excellent humor value. In the end, perhaps wanting our group of free, highly ambitious, but somewhat less effective piano movers out of their house, the neighbors found a place for it on the ground floor. We all piled back into the pickup for the ride back, which was rather more quiet due to lack of horn and piano music. So there you have it. The most fun I have ever had moving a piano. (Really, the only fun I have ever had moving a piano.)

A few weeks ago I was lamenting the lack of of a reverse proxy that understood Apache's mod_rewrite syntax. On my server I have a bunch of thttpd processes, each running under their own UID, each listening on local ports. For example I have this running:

thttpd -C /etc/thttpd/sites.enabled/blog.steve.org.uk

This is running under the Unix-user "s-blog", with UID 1015, and thus is listening on 127.0.0.1:1015:

steve@steve:~$ id s-blog
uid=1015(s-blog) gid=1016(s-blog) groups=1016(s-blog)
steve@steve:~$ lsof -i :1015
COMMAND   PID   USER   FD   TYPE  DEVICE SIZE NODE NAME
thttpd  26293 s-blog    0u  IPv4 1072632       TCP localhost:1015 (LISTEN)

Anyway in front of these thttpd processes I have Apache. It does only two things:

• Expands mod_rewrite rules.
• Serves as a proxy to the back-end thttpd processes.

Yes other webservers could be run in front of these processes, and yes other webservers have their own rewrite-rule-syntax. I'm going to say "Lala lala can't hear you". Why? Because mod_rewrite is the defacto standard. It is assumed, documented, and included with a gazillion projects from wikipedia to wordpress to ... So this weekend I decided I'd see what I needed to do to put together a simple proxy that only worked for reverse HTTP, and understood Apache's mod_rewrite rules. I figure there are three main parts to such a beast:

Be a network server

Parse configuration file, accept connections, use fork(), libevevent(), or similar such that you ultimately receive HTTP requests..

Process HTTP Requests, rewriting as required

Once you have a parsed HTTP-request you need to test against each rule for the appropriate destination domain. Rewriting the request as appopriate.

Proxy

Send your (potentially modified) request to the back-end, and then send the response back to the client.

Thus far I've written code which takes this:

GET /etc/passwd?root=1 HTTP/1.0
Host: foo.example.com:80
Accept-Language: en-us,en-gb?q=0.5
Refer: http://foo.bar.com/
Keep-Alive: 300
Connection: keep-alive

Then turns it into this:

struct http_request
 
  /*
   * Path being requested. "/index.html", etc.
   */
  char *path;
  /*
   * Query string
   */
  char *qs;
  /**
   * Method being requested "GET/POST/PUT/DELETE/HEAD/etc".
   */
  char *method;
  /**
   * A linked list of headers such as "Referer: foo",
   * "Connection: close"
   */
  struct http_headers *headers;
 ;

There are methods for turning that back to a string, (so that you can send it on to the back-end), finding headers such as "Referer:", and so on. The parser is pretty minimal C and takes only a "char *buffer" to operate on. It has survived a lot of malicious input, as proved by a whole bunch of test cases. My next job is to code up the mod_rewrite rule-processor to apply a bunch of rules to one of these objects - updating the struct as we go. Assuming that I can get that part written cleanly over the next week or two then I'll be happy and can proceed to write the networking parts of the code - both the initial accepting, and the proxying to the back-end. In terms of configuration I'm going to assume something like:

/etc/proxy/global.conf                    : Global directives.
/etc/proxy/steve.org.uk/
/etc/proxy/steve.org.uk/back-end          : Will contain 127.0.0.1:1019
/etc/proxy/steve.org.uk/rewrite.conf      : Will contain the domain-wide rules
/etc/proxy/blog.steve.org.uk/
/etc/proxy/blog.steve.org.uk/back-end     : Will contain 127.0.0.1:1015
/etc/proxy/blog.steve.org.uk/rewrite.conf : Will contain the domain-wide rules
..

That seems both sane & logical to me. ObQuote: "I shall control the fate of the world... " - Day Watch. ObRandom: Coding in C is pleasant again.

I bear in my mind idea for automatically configuring Gammu for some time. It should not be that hard using udev, Bluez and other tools which we already have available on average Linux system. Today afternoon I've finally found some time to play with that and it's almost done. Well it's not fully automatic right now, it will just generate configuration file with possible choices, but at least some help. For now only udev and Bluez is supported, but I will add support for libusb soon as well. The new tool is called gammu-detect and looks at devices available in the system and outputs something, what can be used as configuration file (you can find example in the documentation). Once it will make reasonable guesses what user actually wants, it might get integrated into libGammu so that other applications like Wammu can benefit from it as well.

Filed under: Gammu 0 comments Flattr this!

One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of "Free and Open Standard" is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of the term has been decided by Digistan. The term "Open Standard" has become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking about standards. One end up discussing which definition is the best one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of de-facto standards and proprietary solutions. But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open standards, here are a few that I know about. This list is not complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a complete survey. More definitions are available on the wikipedia page. First off is my favourite, the definition from the European Interoperability Framework version 1.0. Really sad to notice that BSA and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with their own people. Anyway, the definition is still available and it include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a specification on equal terms.

The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:

• The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
• The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
• The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty- free basis.
• There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

Another one originates from my friends over at DKUUG, who coined and gathered support for this definition in 2004. It even made it into the Danish parlament as their definition of a open standard. Another from a different part of the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.

En ben standard opfylder f lgende krav:

1. Veldokumenteret med den fuldst ndige specifikation offentligt tilg ngelig.
2. Frit implementerbar uden konomiske, politiske eller juridiske begr nsninger p implementation og anvendelse.
3. Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et bent forum (en s kaldt "standardiseringsorganisation") via en ben proces.

Then there is the definition from Free Software Foundation Europe.

An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is

1. subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
2. without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
3. free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model;
4. managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;
5. available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.

A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created its Open Standards Checklist with a fairly detailed description.

Creation and Management of an Open Standard

• Its development and management process must be collaborative and democratic:
  • Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria imposed by the organization under which it is developed and managed.
  • The processes must be documented and, through a known method, can be changed through input from all participants.
  • The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.
  • Development and management should strive for consensus, and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.
  • The standard specification must be open to extensive public review at least once in its life-cycle, with comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.

Use and Licensing of an Open Standard

• The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation, and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing implementations to the interface described in the standard without undue or restrictive constraints. Interfaces include APIs, protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.
• The standard must not contain any proprietary "hooks" that create a technical or economic barriers
• Faithful implementations of the standard must interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer program to communicate and exchange information with other computer programs and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are intended to function.
• It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.
• It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or fees; also known as "royalty free"), worldwide, non-exclusive and perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and sell products based on the standard. The only exceptions are terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
  • May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of licensees' patent claims essential to practice that standard (also known as a reciprocity clause)
  • May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims essential to practice that standard (also known as a "defensive suspension" clause)
  • The same licensing terms are available to every potential licensor
• The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms or restricted licensing terms

It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that there are so many of them. As you can see, the same holds true for open standard definitions. Most of the definitions have a lot in common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real competition to downplay the significance of open standards. I hope we can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open Standards.

If anyone mentions Dropbox to me one more time, I will scream. I'm sure it's a wonderful solution, but I have deep misgivings about handing my data over to someone I don't trust. Besides, my synchronisation needs are not that complicated. Here are my high-level requirements:

1. Two way synchronisation between multiple clients and a central server.
2. Automatic syncs - no requirement for manual triggering.
3. Graceful handling of network outages, suspends, etc.
4. If using ssh, running from within my X session (so that it can access my ssh-agent)
5. Some assurance that my data will not be passed to other people (e.g. by running everything on servers I control, or encrypting all the data with keys only I hold)
6. Regular backups of the central data.

I've been playing about with several ideas - I know some people try to do this sort of thing with git, but I don't have a need for version control right at the moment, and merging conflicts could be far too complicated. I did hack together a script involving lsyncd and NetworkManager's dbus signals, but then realised that synchronising in the other direction would need something quite different, and it was getting a bit out of hand by that point. So my current favourite is actually GNOME's Conduit project. It ticks almost all of the boxes (apart from the backups, which should be simple to put together). There are some rough edges - the author has tried to delegate the minor detail that it's accessing an SFTP share entirely to GIO. But GVFS shares are not mounted automatically by Conduit - so I would have to browse to the remote folder in Nautilus before any synching would happen in each session. Bad. But looking at how Conduit is used, I don't agree with hiding the nature of the remote folder from the user. By all means use GIO to perform the mechanics of SSH and so on, but the user surely thinks of the remote server as something different to a local folder? So from a UI perspective, this should be made explicit. After all, the user has to deal with it at some level by switching to Nautilus to set up the connection. And since I cannot find an SFTP plugin for Conduit anywhere, this still leaves me in the unfortunate position of having to write code if I want a nice solution. Bah, humbug.

The Digistan definition of a free and open standard reads like this:

The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard as follows:

1. A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.
2. The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties.
3. The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute, and use it freely.
4. The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
5. There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of products based on the standard.

For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list in July 2009, for those that want to see some background information. According to Ivo Emanuel Gon alves and Monty Montgomery on that list the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition. Free from vendor capture? As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the Xiph foundation is such vendor, but given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I've been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the specification. But it seem unlikely. Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation? Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any documentation indicating this. According to a report prepared by Audun Vaaler og B rre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory. Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the report is correct. Specification freely available? The specification for the Ogg container format and both the Vorbis and Theora codeces are available on the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:

Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora] specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify specification compliance.

The Ogg container format is specified in IETF RFC 3533, and this is the term:

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English. The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an this term seem to be fulfilled. There might be a problem with the missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and thus reuse it in other specifications. Not quite sure if that is a requirement for the Digistan definition. Royalty-free? There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg Theora format. MPEG-LA and Steve Jobs in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe them. Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers without paying any royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec than any real problem with Ogg Theora. No constraints on re-use? I am not aware of any constraints on re-use. Conclusion 3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify this. It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to see if they are free and open standards.

My only contribution will be: merry FSMas to all!

A few days ago an article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version 2.0 of European Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. Nothing very surprising there, given earlier reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of an open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I believe should be used also in the future, alongside the definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open standard definition from its content. Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software in the public sector in Peru. As the text was not available from a few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from my source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some background information about that story is available in an article from Linux Journal in 2002.

Lima, 8th of April, 2002
To: Se or JUAN ALBERTO GONZ LEZ
General Manager of Microsoft Per Dear Sir: First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter. While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions. With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service. It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:

• Free access to public information by the citizen.
• Permanence of public data.
• Security of the State and citizens.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software. To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code. To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*. In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms. In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles. From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:

the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software

the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software

the law does not specify which concrete software to use

the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought

the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.

What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning. We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill. As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail: Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution." This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter. The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No. 012-2001-PCM). The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions. It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill. By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved. To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies..." This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive ... practices." Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles. Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement. On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations. It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: "update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgment alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary). You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector." I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs. On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software. In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money. In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers. It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive. With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model. Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties." Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points. On security: National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency. What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors. It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product. In respect of the guarantee: As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software. On Intellectual Property: Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity). You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position." This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL). Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats. If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State. You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time." This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero. In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability. You further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries." I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you. On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total. You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market." Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely. The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code. You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place." This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software. On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place. You continue by observing that: "10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment." It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point. What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments. You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry." This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad. You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools." In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software. You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?" We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector. The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public. In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes. I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable. Cordially,
DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NU EZ
Congressman of the Republic of Per .

Viewsonic provided a patch to Nvidia's reference Tegra code to support their gtablet today. Which is progress! They still don't have anything for their (entirely unrelated) Viewpad Android devices, and there's no source for the userspace components, but there does seem to be a reasonable desire to do the right thing and I'm sure everything else will be sorted out soon. This still puts them ahead of Augen, who have now been violating since July and seem to be entirely at the mercy of their OEM vendor who'll sell them devices but won't give them source. Top tip: Don't buy Linux devices from companies who won't give you source code and then resell them, it tends to leave you open to all kinds of legal misery and then your children get poorly carved lumps of wood for Christmas. Don't make your children think that you're an inept parent. Pay attention to licensing obligations.

Next monday, I will by flying to Mumbai, India, to spend one semester studying computer science at the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. Slowly, I m getting excited. I will write about this trip here, as I did for my Ghana travel, and upload pictures to my online photo album. If you are in Mumbai and interested in Debian, Haskell, Isabelle, GPG Keysigning or similar stuff, drop me a mail. And if you are at IITB, just come by, I ll be staying in hostel no. 13 (room number not known yet). Namaste!

For some reason¹ bug #607242 did not make it to the debian-x@d.o mailing list, I got aware of it only by the message shirish sent to my blog.
If he didn t write to me, this bug will have waited for what about 3 years until I got all the 800+ bugs triaged ? So please you can help triaging X bugs, first subscribe to the debian-x mailing list so you can get the feeling of what to respond to some bugs, and join the TXBW effort

• #607242 reassign & give+ask moreinfo.
• #403350 ping & try nouveau xserver-xorg-video-nv: xset dpms force off does not turn off the backlight.
• #469104 config suggestions & close xserver-xorg-video-tdfx: screen resolution too low.
• #476198 closed xserver-xorg-video-radeonhd: Cannot turn on a secondary screen without restarting X (xrandr-related problem).
• #492783 ping, unreproducible vt switch key combination leaks to clients.
• #496150 ping xserver-xorg-core: shutting off monitor messes up display.
• #504104 ping & closed xserver-xorg-input-mouse: Emulate3Buttons stops working from time to time.

The X Strike Force (still) needs you ! You can have a look at the X Strike Force Bug Closing Procedure and check XSF unstable bugs sorted by date. Note 1: The Xorg.0.log file was so huge that the mailing list did not accept the mail.

Mehdi is a Debian developer for a bit more than a year, and he s already part of the Debian Release Team. His story is quite typical in that he started there by trying to help while observing the team do its work. That s a recurrent pattern for people who get co-opted in free software teams. Read on for more info about the release team, and Mehdi s opinion on many topics. My questions are in bold, the rest is by Mehdi (except for the additional information that I inserted in italics). Who are you? I m 27 years old. I grew up in Ariana in northern Tunisia, but have been living in Paris, France, since 2002. I m a PhD Student at the PPS laboratory where I study synchronous concurrent process calculi. I became interested in Debian when I saw one of my colleagues, Samuel Mimram (first sponsor and advocate) trying to resolve #440469, which is a bug reported against a program I wrote. We have never been able to resolve it but my intent to contribute was born there. Since then, I started to maintain some packages and help where I can. What s your biggest achievement within Debian? I don t think I had time to accomplish a lot yet I ve been mostly active in the OCaml team where we designed a tool to compute automatically the dependencies between OCaml packages, called dh-ocaml. This was a joint work with St phane Glondu, Sylvain Le Gall and Stefano Zacchiroli. I really appreciated the time spent with them while developing dh-ocaml. Some of the bits included in dh-ocaml have been included upstream in their latest release. I ve also tried to give a second life to the Buildd Status Pages because they were (kind of) abandoned. I intend to keep them alive and add new features to them. If you had a wand and could change one thing in Debian, what would that be? Make OCaml part of a default Debian installation But, since I m not a magician yet, I d stick to more realistic plans:

1. A lot of desktop users fear Debian. I think that the Desktop installation offered by Debian today is very user-friendly and we should be able to attract more and more desktop users. Still, there is some work to be done in various places to make it even more attractive. The idea is trying to enhance the usability and integration of various tools together. Each fix could be easy or trivial but the final result would be an improved Desktop experience for our users. Our packaged software run well. So, each person can participate since the most difficult part is to find the broken scenarios. Fixes could be found together with maintainers, upstream or other interested people.
   
   I ll try to come up with a plan, a list of things that need polishing or fixes and gather a group of people to work on it. I d definitely be interested in participating in such a project and I hope that I ll find other people to help. If the plan is clear enough and has well described objectives and criteria, it could be proposed to the Release Team to consider it as a Release Goal for Wheezy.
   
   
2. NMUs are a great way to make things move forward. But, sometimes, an NMU could break things or have some undesirable effects. For now, NMUers have to manually track the package s status for some time to be sure that everything is alright. It could be a good idea to be auto-subscribed to the bugs notifications of NMUed packages for some period of time (let s say for a month) to be aware of any new issues and try to fix them. NMUing a package is not just applying a patch and hitting enter after dput. It s also about making sure that the changes are correct and that no regressions have been introduced, etc
   
   
3. Orphaned packages: It could be considered as too strict and not desired, but what about not keeping orphaned and buggy packages in Testing? What about removing them from the archive if they are buggy and still unmaintained for some period? Our ftp archive is growing. It could make sense to do some (more strict) housekeeping. I believe that this question can be raised during the next QA meeting. We should think about what we want to do with those packages before they rot in the archive.

[Raphael Hertzog: I would like to point out that pts-subscribe provided by devscripts makes it easy to temporarily subscribe to bug notifications after an Non-Maintainer Upload (NMU).] You re a Debian developer since August 2009 and you re already an assistant within the Release Management team. How did that happen and what is this about? In the OCaml team, we have to start a transition each time we upload a new version of the OCaml compiler (actually, for each package). So, some coordination with the Release Team is needed to make the transition happen. When we are ready to upload a new version of the compiler, we ask the Release Team for permission and wait for their ack. Sometimes, their reply is fast (e.g. if their is no conflicting transition running), but it s not always the case. While waiting for an ack, I used to check what was happening on debian-release@l.d.o. It made me more and more interested in the activities of the Release Team. Then (before getting my Debian account), I had the chance to participate in DebConf9 where I met Luk and Phil. It was a good occasion to see more about the tools used by the Release Team. During April 2010, I had some spare time and was able to implement a little tool called Jamie to inspect the relations between transitions. It helps us to quickly see which transitions can run in parallel, or what should wait. And one day (in May 2010, IIRC), I got offered by Adam to join the team. As members of the Release Team, we have multiple areas to work on:

1. Taking care of transitions during the development cycle, which means making sure that some set of packages are correctly (re-)built or fixed against a specific (to each transition) set of packages, and finding a way to tell Britney that those packages can migrate and it would be great if she also shared the same opinion. [Raphael Hertzog: britney is the name of the software that controls the content of the Testing distribution.]
2. Paying attention to what is happening in the archive (uploads, reported RC bugs, etc ). The idea is to try to detect unexpected transitions, blocked packages, make sure that RC bug fixes reach Testing in a reasonable period of time, etc
3. During a freeze, making sure that unblock requests and freeze exceptions are not forgotten and try to make the RC bug count decrease.

There are other tasks that I ll let you discover by joining the game. Deciding what goes (or not) in the next stable release is a big responsibility and can be incredibly difficult at times. You have to make judgement calls all the time. What are your own criteria? That s a very hard to answer question (at least, for me). It really depends on the case . I try to follow the criteria that we publish in each release update. Sometimes, an unblock request doesn t match those criteria and we have to decide what to accept from the set of proposed changes. Generally, new features and non-fixes (read new upstream versions) changes are not the kind of changes that we would accept during the freeze. Some of them could be accepted if they are not intrusive, easy and well defended. When, I m not sure I try to ask other members of the Release Team to see if they share my opinion or if I missed something important during the review. The key point is to have a clear idea on what s the benefit of the proposed update, and compare it to the current situation. For example, accepting a new upstream release (even if it fixes some critical bugs) is taking a risk to break other features and that s why we (usually) ask for a backported fix. It s also worth noticing that (most of the time) we don t decide what goes in, but (more specifically) what version of a given package goes in and try to give to the contributors an idea on what kind of changes are acceptable during the freeze. There are some exceptions though. Most of them are to fix a critical package or feature. Do you have plans to improve the release process for Debian Wheezy? We do have plans to improve every bit in Debian. Wheezy will be the best release ever. We just don t know the details yet During our last meeting in Paris last October, the Release Team agreed to organize a meeting after Squeeze s release to discuss (among other questions) Wheezy s cycle. But the details of the meeting are not fixed yet (we still have plenty of time to organize it and other more important tasks to care about). We would like to be able to announce a clear roadmap for Wheezy and enhance our communication with the rest of the project. We certainly want to avoid what happened for Squeeze. Making things a bit more predictable for developers is one of our goals. Do you think the Constantly Usable Testing project will help? The original idea by Joey Hess is great because it allows d-i developers to work with a stable version of the archive. It allows them to focus on the new features they want to implement or the parts they want to fix (AIUI). It also allows to have constantly available and working installation images. Then, there is the idea of having a constantly usable Testing for users. The idea seems nice. People tend to like the idea behind CUT because they miss some software disappearing from Testing and because of the long delays for security fixes to reach Testing. If the Release Team has decided to remove a package from Testing, I think that there must be a reason for that. It either means that the software is broken, has unfixed security holes or was asked for the removal by its maintainer. I think that we should better try to spend some time to fix those packages, instead of throwing a broken version in a new suite. It could be argued that one could add experimental s version in CUT (or sid s) but every user is free to cherry-pick packages from the relevant suite when needed while still following Testing as a default branch. Besides, it s quite easy to see what was removed recently by checking the archive of debian-testing-changes or by querying UDD. IMO, It would be more useful to provide a better interface of that archive for our users. We could even imagine a program that alerts the user about installed software that got recently removed from Testing, to keep the user constantly aware any issue that could affect his machine. About the security or important updates, one has to recall the existence of Testing-security and testing-proposed-updates that are used specifically to let fixes reach Testing as soon as possible when it s not possible to go through Unstable. I m sure that the security team would appreciate some help to deal with security updates for Testing. We also have ways to speed migrate packages from Unstable to Testing. I have to admit that I m not convinced yet by the benefits brought by CUT for our users.

---

Thank you to Mehdi for the time spent answering my questions. I hope you enjoyed reading his answers as I did. Subscribe to my newsletter to get my monthly summary of the Debian/Ubuntu news and to not miss further interviews. You can also follow along on Identi.ca, Twitter and Facebook.

2 comments Liked this article? Click here. My blog is Flattr-enabled.

In such cases, most people use to say "never saw this" and such common sentences. However, really, this time this is true: it's now 30 years since I live in the Paris area, a place where climate is not known to be a snowy one: Paris and its region are not that far from the Channel and the influence of Atlantic Ocean is supposedly important. And, really, I never saw this. For such reasons, here, winters are not really "continental" and we often have few snow during an entire winter, if any. Indeed, during the 200* years, we had several winters without any snow at all. Last year was already different: we had 3 snow episodes. A quite big one on Dec 17th (about 15cm in the western area of the region), another in mid-January where snow lasted for about one week because of very low temperatures (below -10 C) and a final one in February. Still, the 2010-2011 winter is something I never saw before. In less than one month, we had 6 different snow episodes: Nov 28th (roughly), Dec 8th, Dec 17th, Dec 18th, Dec 20th and now Dec 22th. My area (the western part of the region) was hardly hit with 20cm on Dec 8th and about 15cm on Dec 20th and 22th....up to a cumulated 80cm height. Really something unusual. And what that happens in a region where about 12M people live, sometimes at rush hours, you can expect a giant mess (and a giant mess it was on Dec 8th). During these weeks, I personnally experimented my new way of commuting: run/train/run, which means running the 3km desert country road from my house to the train station, catching a train, then running the final 4km in suburbs close to Paris. Both runs do actually replace a standard bus ride. This prove to be convenient as buses are often stopped during snow episodes (hey, there are hills in the Paris area!). That made things that I'll really remember for the future: this morning's run in the country with 15cm of fresh snow, without any single step mark (except the rabbit or wild pig ones), with the light of my head lamp, no noise and an entirely white landscape....is special and nearly unique when you live only 30km away from the town. Nevertheless, that might prefigure what we will experience in the upcoming years or dozen of years: a generally much colder winter over western Europe, much closer to what Central Europe always had. Personnally, I like that, but we probably need to prepare our facilities to such events: last week-end in UK, Belgium, France, Germany, etc. was really a giant mess (Heathrow airport closed, Roissy nearly closed, Brussels flooded with derouted planes, Frankfurt stuck, Eurostars stopped, gee). Is that climate change (as a consequence of Gulf Stream vanishing) or just a collection of random events? We'll see.