Issues With FOSS: Lack of Applications, Human Resources and Guarantees

(10) Issues with FOSS
Lack of applications, human resources and

guarantees
Factors lacking in order to utilize FOSS the most
effectively
Legal risks
Who secures legal risks in using FOSS?
FOSS deployment on desktops

Desktop use is backward in comparison with server use
Diversity
What makes the issue of software complex?
Standardization trends and localization

Standardization to eliminate diversities
An Introduction to Localization to use domestically in each nations
Copyright © 2005,2006, Center of the International Cooperation for Computerization (CICC) All Rights Reserved.
Free/Open-Source Software
Copyright © 2005,2006, Mitsubishi Research Institute, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 267
Copyright © 2008, University of Puerto Rico at Mayaguez. All Rights Reserved.
Lack of Applications, Human
Resources and Guarantees
Refinement of applications
Quality is vary widely between FOSS applications
Hope more contribution for further advancement to
high-quality FOSS
Underdeveloped FOSS-related market and

support concerns
Underdeveloped in comparison to proprietary software
market
Bringing up support business is also future task
Shortage of human resources

Need to absolute increase of FOSS engineers
An Introduction to Free/Open-Source Software Copyright © 2005,2006, Center of the International Cooperation for Computerization (CICC) All Rights Reserved.
Refinement of Applications
Characteristics of bazaar development model
Quality not always guaranteed
Separation of development versions and stable versions
Level of refinement varies widely

Tried-and-tested applications are highly refined
Emacs, gcc, X Window System, apache, qmail, etc...
Latest applications may have many hidden issues
Refinement of desktop applications in particular

needs to improve
Demanding requirements of users (features and ease
of operation)
Refinement of desktop applications directly linked to
assessment by users
Underdeveloped FOSS-Related Market
and Support Concerns
Related markets still undeveloped
Business deployment of FOSS often still at explorative
stage
Training and support markets are small
Shortage of FOSS books
Information frequently obtained online
User concerns about support

Lack of heavy users nearby
Prefer to have person nearby to casually consult with when
problems occur
Support business yet to take firm shape
No established support services
Concern over whether community can actually be relied
on
Some demand for comprehensive support from vendors
Shortage of Human Resources
Shortage in absolute number of FOSS engineers
Shortage of GNU/Linux engineers frequently pointed
out
Easy to actually retrain Unix engineers
High labor rates due to lack of supply
Concern that situation will drive up overall costs
Need to secure support personnel

Number of engineers steadily increasing
Numbers increasing starting from level below
engineers
Government policies to develop advanced,
hacker-level FOSS engineers
Public funds to support development of engineers
Symposiums, seminars and “Codefests”
Legal Risks
Relationship of FOSS vs copyright and patents
Also weak points of FOSS
Possibilities to bear risks of intellectual property rights
infringement
SCO controversy
SCO sent a challenge to FOSS communities in 2003
Responsibility of warranty
Who has responsibility for defects in FOSS?
License violations
GPL violations occur every day in the world?
Relationship of FOSS versus Copyright
and Patents
Many developers participate in FOSS style
development
Risk of containing code that infringes on copyright or
patents; code can slip in intentionally or through
carelessness
Infringement on patent license
Normal business response
Cross-licensing
Financial resolution (payment of patent royalties)
Both difficult to execute with FOSS
Risk of patent royalties being claimed directly against
users, or a cease-and-desist order could be issued
Example of guard mechanisms
MPLClause to the effect that any withstanding patents
applying to source code must be expressly declared by
the contributor
SCO Controversy
US-based firm SCO Group issues warning against
GNU/Linux users in May 2003
Claim asserts that Unix code was misappropriated for
Linux and infringes on intellectual property held by
SCO
Claim against Linux kernel Version 2.4 and later; SCO
alleges that Linux kernel contains code relating to
NUMA, JFS and SMP technologies
SCO alleges that it purchased rights to Unix from Novell
SCO sues IBM for damages, claiming that IBM
misappropriated code from AIX (March 2003)
Surrounding response
73% of GNU/Linux programmers say that SCO claims
have no merit
SCO controversy barely receives attention today in
2005
Responsibility of Warranty
Is no one responsible for FOSS?
Fundamentally provided “as is” and with “no warranty”
Proprietary software: Warranty conditions and exemptions
Does not mean that users can rest easy
Japanese Consumer Contract Act
Section 5, Article 8: “Clauses which totally excludes a
business from liability to compensate the damage to a
consumer caused by such defect” are null and void under a
contract for value
Some experts consider exclusion of any warranty
unenforceable under Japanese law
Situation can also be viewed as business opportunity
Support business
Provide insurance and warranties, legal risk management,
etc.
Open Source Risk Management (US firm)
License Violations
Incidents involving license violations
Printer driver
Binaries distributed free of charge contained FOSS code, but
software was not released as FOSS
Manufacturer issued apology on Web site and issued
replacement software with revised license
DivX Converter contained misappropriated XviD code
(FOSS)
PornView incident, in which original copyright notices from
GImageView were stripped
FSF responds to GPL violations
FSF manages copyrights for Free Software
By transferring copyright to FSF, legal authority and
responsibility is centrally managed by FSF
By transferring copyright, FSF has authority to take action
against violations
FOSS Deployment on
Desktops
Trends in FOSS desktop market
What is the trends of software market regarding FOSS
desktop terminal use?
Phases for spread of FOSS desktop deployment

Who can use FOSS desktop?
Barriers to spread of FOSS desktops

What prevents from spreading FOSS desktop use?
Examples of issues with Japanese language

environments
Font inadequacies and confusion over Japanese
character encoding prevent from spreading FOSS
desktops in Japan
Trends in FOSS Desktop
Market
Was 2004 “year one” for spread of FOSS
desktops in Japan?
FOSS desktops begin drawing interest in wake of FOSS
deployment for servers, backbone systems and
embedded applications
OSDL launches new working group (January 2004)
Desktop Linux Working Group
Several trials for FOSS desktops conducted
AIST’s FOSS desktop strategy
FOSS trials for schools (IPA and CEC)
Desktop GNU/Linux distributions

Java Desktop System
Turbolinux 10 Desktop
Novell Ximian Desktop 2 (SUSE LINUX)
Phases for Spread of FOSS Desktop
Deployment
IT engineers, high-end users
Routine task workers
Call centers
Counter tasks
Other routine work, etc.
Management, sales, general office workers, etc.

Issues
Improve interoperability of various electronic data
(eliminate diversity)
Eliminate diversity in how applications are operated
Reference: Decrem, Bart. Desktop Linux Technology & Market Overview. Open
Source Applications Foundation, July 2003
Barriers to Spread of FOSS Desktops
Issues for spread of FOSS desktops

Expanded environment for FOSS office suites
Actual applications need to be more refined
Templates, clip art libraries, etc.
Refinement of user interfaces
Migrate systems to Web applications
Deep-rooted barriers to spread of FOSS desktops

in Japan
Inadequate Japanese language environment
Demanding requirements for document style,
customary ruled lines, etc.
Problems with applications due to Japanese language
support
Application hang-ups from kana-kanji conversion, etc.
Examples of Issues with Japanese
Language Environments
Font inadequacies
Controversy over copyright infringement by free fonts
(2003)
No free fonts of adequate quality
High cost of developing Japanese fonts
Due to large number of characters
Too many character encodings

For historical reasons
JIS (ISO2022-JP)
Shift JIS
EUC-JP (Extended Unix Code)
Unicode
Other Asian nations also face same problem
Diversity
Driving factors behind diversity
What is diversity?
Diversity of data
Issues on data format handled by applications
Diversity of platforms
Issues on environments where applications work
Diversity of user interfaces

Issues on differences between operationality of
applications
Driving Factors behind Diversity
What is diversity?
Freedom to combine
components leads to explosion
in number of combinations
Diversity reflects a high degree
of freedom, resulting in a trade-
off relationship with integrated
feel
Also happens in proprietary
environments
PC-compatible machines
Diversity of devices
Addressed by device
manufacturers
Difficult for minority makers
Diversity of Data
Problems arise during external exchange of
electronic documents
Data formats specific to applications
ex. *.doc, *.xls, *.ppt,...
Need to exchange actual content, not format

Content in written documents
Written sentences, style, etc.
Content in spreadsheets, presentations
Values, graphs, diagrams, fonts, etc.
Data dependent on individual application

Different data formats within one category of
applications
Ex. Word processors
MS-Word, OpenOffice.org Writer, KOffice, AbiWord, etc...
Diversity of Platforms
Excessive freedom in configuring FOSS platforms
Range of variables
Kernel parameters, kernel modules
Libraries, tools
Other software to which applications are dependent on
Reasons for platform diversity (diversity of
operating environments)
Differences between distributions
Red Hat, SUSE, Debian, Knoppix, etc...
Differences in versions
Individual applications continually evolve on their own
Same issues also effect proprietary operating
systems
Service pack editions installed or not installed, OS
editions, etc.
Diversity of User Interfaces
Diversity of operation directly breeds mistrust of users
Particularly true for desktop deployment
Familiar user interface and operating characteristics

Essential features might be same but other differences exist
Different icons
Different menu placement or menu titles
Different keyboard shortcuts
Different error messages
etc...
Users are conservative

Relearning new way of operation considered a waste of
previous time and effort
After going to all that trouble to learn how to operate an
application
Standardization Trends and
Localization
Standardization of GNU/Linux
The road to ISO standard
Standardization of documents
Trial to make electronic document interchange smooth
i18n, m17n, l10n

Difference among internationalization, multi-
lingualization and localization
Examples of internationalized applications
Standardization of GNU/Linux
Seek to absorb platform variations
UnitedLinux consortium’s trial
FSG (Free Standards Group)
Non-profit organization dedicated to FOSS-related
standardization
Develops standards
Develops compliance testing tools and tests software for
compliance
Linux Standard Base (LSB) Project
Dedicated to application compatibility between
authorized distributions
Other related standards
Portable Operating System Interface for Unix (POSIX)
Single Unix Specification (SUS) Version 2
Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS)
Standardization of Documents
OASIS (Organization for the Advancement of
Structured Information Standards)
Study by standardization committee
OpenDocument
Based on XML
Open standards specification
No platform dependency
No application dependency
Candidate for EU’s public document format
Used in OpenOffice.org 2.0 and KOffice 1.4
Distinct from XML-based document format

proposed by Microsoft
I18n, M17n and L10n
“I18n” takes first letter “i” and last letter “n,”
omitting 18 letters
i18n (Internationalization)
Provision of framework that simplifies implementation
of m17n and l10n in applications
Preparation of fonts, input method, basic libraries, etc.
Gettext and message catalogs
m17n (multilingualization)
Modification to support multilingual handling
Not just characters and words, but also line breaks,
dates, currency units, etc.
Concurrent handling of multiple languages separates
m17n from l10n
l10n (localization)
Enables display in each language
Examples of Internationalized
Applications
Necessity of internationalized
applications
Owner’s manuals
Translation
Need to display and edit at least
two languages
Handling of characters
Unicode
Issues with support for existing
character encodings
Number of Unicode-compatible
applications is increasing
Implementation still incomplete

Issues With FOSS: Lack of Applications, Human Resources and Guarantees

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Deskripsi Asli:

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Issues With FOSS: Lack of Applications, Human Resources and Guarantees

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

(10) Issues with FOSS

Lack of applications, human resources and

FOSS deployment on desktops

Standardization trends and localization

Underdeveloped FOSS-related market and

Shortage of human resources

Level of refinement varies widely

Refinement of desktop applications in particular

User concerns about support

Need to secure support personnel

Phases for spread of FOSS desktop deployment

Barriers to spread of FOSS desktops

Examples of issues with Japanese language

Desktop GNU/Linux distributions

Management, sales, general office workers, etc.

Issues for spread of FOSS desktops

Deep-rooted barriers to spread of FOSS desktops

Too many character encodings

Diversity of user interfaces

Need to exchange actual content, not format

Data dependent on individual application

Familiar user interface and operating characteristics

Users are conservative

i18n, m17n, l10n

Examples of internationalized applications

Distinct from XML-based document format

Anda mungkin juga menyukai