Open Source in Government

Open-source software abbreviated as OSS is computer software that is available with source code and is provided under a software license that permits users to study, change, and improve the software. For the commercial software the source code and certain other rights are normally reserved for copyright holders,i.e. the company who developes the software. A group of people in a collaborative manner often developes the Open source software, not under the roof of a large organization. This strategy makes open source software cheap, reliable and modifiable if needed. In this context we shall discuss mainly the features of Open Source Software, differences of open source and free software and open source software movement in Indian perspective.

The Move to the Middle: Convergence of the Open-Source and Proprietary Software Industries

Against the “Networked Information Economy”: Rethinking Decentralization, Community, and Free Software Development Ben Roberts (bio) The free, libre, and open source software (FLOSS) movement is often cited as an example of fundamental changes in production associated with the rise of information networks. Don Tapscott and Anthony D. Williams see it as an example of wikinomics, a powerful new form of economic production based on sharing and self-organization.1 Yochai Benkler argues that the form of social or peer production evident in FLOSS can compete with or even displace traditional forms of capitalist organization and sees it as a symptom of the “networked information economy,” replacing the “industrial information economy,” which has been in force since the late-nineteenth century.2 The main feature of this networked information economy is the much greater role within it for decentralized individual action.3 This essay contests this broadly liberal take on the significance of the free software movement. It argues that Benkler is typical of an approach that tends to view the Internet as the primary enabler of decentralization (for example, in the form of decentralized software development). Of course, it would be foolish to discount the role that networks have played in the success of FLOSS. But, as I will argue, an examination of its history suggests that its origins can’t be entirely accounted for in purely technological and economic grounds. The proponents of such an approach often resist the claim that their focus on networks is technologically determinist,4 arguing that the network itself is shaped by social and cultural factors. However, this makes the explanatory power of networks rather circular: the existence of networks explains social and cultural behavior at the same time as being explained by it. The explanation of free software in terms of the economic properties of networks is simply too static and asocial; it serves to explain how a particular mode of production can functionally compete with the market without really being able to account for how this change has come about. In particular, as I will show, the marginalization [End Page 385] of the question of labor in theories of peer production disconnects the analysis from wider changes in the nature of economic production. Moreover, the emphasis on the empowerment of individuals ignores the possibility that decentralization consists in radical new forms of sociality and collectivity, something that can perhaps be seen in the communities built around particular free software projects. As I will argue, Gilbert Simondon’s concept of individuation may help inform a better understanding of the emergence of such free software communities. From the perspective of a nonprogrammer, it is easiest to understand the concept of FLOSS by explaining how proprietary software such as Microsoft Windows is distributed. The operating system and applications that users run on their personal computers (PCs) are most often compiled software. The creators of the application have written the code in any one of a number of different human-readable programming languages; this program is known as the source code. The source code is then converted by another program known as a compiler into object or binary code, which is a machine-readable version of the program executed when the application is run on a PC. Binary, or object, code is the form in which software is most often distributed to users, either on installation media such as compact discs (CDs), installed on a computing device before sale or, increasingly, downloaded over the Net. The end user of proprietary software created and distributed in this fashion has no access to the original source code and is therefore unable to alter, change, or fix the software running on their machine: in the words of Bob Young, the former chief executive officer (CEO) of open source software company Red Hat, purchasing proprietary software is like buying a “car with the hood welded shut.”5 In addition to the absence of source code, proprietary software is usually distributed under the terms of a highly restrictive software license. In effect, the applications run by a user remain the property of the software maker and may be used only under the terms of this contract. Typically, the license prevents sharing...

Community-based development through collaboration amongst software developers and researchers distributed globally has led to a wealth of feature-rich applications of Free and Open Source Software for Geoinformatics (FOSS4G). In the FOSS4G, development model online source code repository, mailing lists, and a Wiki provide the software developers and users with a virtual and ubiquitous platform for the implementation of new methods, algorithms, and tools as well as for refinement and enhancements of the existing code. For end users, this development model provides highly interoperable, sophisticated software at no cost. This approach is both flexible and immune to vendor lock-ins. Further, the reproducibility of results and quality assessment of methods is greatly facilitated since full access to the underlying algorithms is guaranteed. The source code is typically published under free and open source software licenses with end-user rights to run the program for any purpose, to study how the program works, to adapt it, and to redistribute copies including modifications. The FOSS4G offers software libraries for map projection and data format conversion, desktop Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Web mapping/Web–GIS, spatial databases, geostatistics, and metadata catalogues. Most FOSS4G software packages run natively on common operating systems and may be installed and used without restriction in any commercial or non-commercial environment at no cost for the end users. Open Source Geospatial Foundation (OSGeo, http:// www.osgeo.org) serves as an umbrella organization whose mission is to support the collaborative development of FOSS4G and promote their widespread use. OSGeo provides a common forum and shared infrastructure for improving cross-project collaboration. Acceptance of a project to OSGeo depends on a successful incubation process which includes a detailed source code audit to identify any license incompatibilities in the code. This incubation process also confirms that the project is supported by a healthy community, including validation of the rules and processes governing the project's management. Since its inception in 2006, OSGeo has been providing organizational support for building a vibrant international community to advance geospatial technologies and solutions using open source software, open data and open standards. This special issue is brought forth with the aim of presenting the rich capabilities of FOSS4G to foster original research and enable deployment of innovative solutions. The issue covers a broad range of topics, highlighting the diversity of methods, tools, and applications of FOSS4G. The first two papers introduce new tools and applications for vegetation analysis, first as a M. A. Brovelli (*) Environmental, Hydraulic, Infrastructures and Surveying Engineering Department, Politecnico di Milano-Campus Como, Via Natta 12/14, 22100 Como, Italy e-mail: maria.brovelli@polimi.it

There are many ways to license open source software. Given the attention paid recently to the General Public License (GPL) and its latest version (GPLv3), you may be interested to know that there are other licenses that satisfy the principles of free and open source software without the confusion and polemics that surround the GPL. Other open source licenses have been approved by Open Source Initiative and adopted by commercial companies and by open source projects. Most of those other licenses are professionally written by lawyers to express clearly the licensing objectives of software copyright and patent owners and to ensure that they are valid and enforceable in all important jurisdictions. I wrote one of those licenses, the Open Software License. The third version of this license, OSL 3.0, was approved by Open Source Initiative in 2005. This article explains why it is a better license for software than the GPL. Software licensors choose their licenses based upon their particular philosophy and business models, and they intend their licenses to define the expected behavior of their licensees around the world. Because philosophies and businesses differ, so do licenses. In the open source world, there are two general categories of licenses: (1) Those licenses that allow derivative works of the software to be used and distributed as part of proprietary programs, and (2) those that require derivative works to be distributed under the same open source license as the original. The BSD license is the archetype of the first kind, what I call academic licenses. The GPL (version 2) is the most popular of the second kind, the so-called reciprocal or copyleft licenses. The license philosophies of these two categories of licenses are inherently irreconcilable, the first being compatible with proprietary derivative works and the other not, but they each make a valid point about the freedom to copy, change, and use software. I pass no judgment between them, since it is a licensor's right to choose a license for his own copyrightable works, not his lawyer's choice. The complete text (which is shorter than this article) of OSL 3.0 and its companion licenses is posted at www. rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-comparison.pdf.

Over the past decade, numerous computer-assisted retrosynthesis reaction prediction methods have been reported in the chemical literature, several of which are also shared as open-source code. Reports of integrating these modern open-source retrosynthetic prediction techniques into the chemical education classroom, however, is largely absent. This article describes our efforts to teach a computer-assisted retrosynthesis workshop series using open-source reaction prediction software and methods. In addition to three workshops on selected open-source reaction prediction methods, the series included workshops on Python programming and introductory cheminformatics using the RDKit cheminformatics toolkit. A pre and post survey was distributed to better understand participant familiarity and workshop outcomes. Participants indicated that they had minimal experience with cheminformatics, and open-source retrosynthesis software, however after the workshop series they indicated increased familiarity, interest, and desire to pursue additional training related to open-source retrosynthesis software and methods. We conclude this article with our experiences and ideas for future improvements. The workshop materials and code are available with an open source license, and educators are encouraged to adapt and improve the lessons (https://github.com/UA-Libraries-Research-Data-Services/retrosynthesis).

This chapter discusses the nature of free and open source software from the perspective of business models that can be used to operate within this emerging industry. The focus in the chapter is on free and open source software in general rather than on the specific geospatial domain, however this area of activity is used in several places for reference and by example. The chapter also examines the closed and proprietary complements of the free and open source world and contrasts the rationale and behaviours of software developers and users within both market places. While it is not the intention to set one or the other markets up as a straw man, it is clear from the discussion that the free and open source alternatives have a number of advantages in terms of developing high quality outputs that are responsive to end user needs while embodying the principles of innovation and advancing knowledge.

The government, since June 30, 2004, has declared IGOS! Indonesia Go Open Source Software through its five ministries. Minister of Communication and Information, Minister of Research and Technology, Minister of Empowerment of State Apparatus, Minister of National Education, and Minister of Law and Human Rights to use legal and open computer software within government agencies. This does accelerate good governance, efficiency, and accountability to the public. The declaration agrees that all government agencies must implement and utilize legal software applications. Legal software can be in software applications based on Open Source Software (open source code) or proprietary (closed source code). This effort is in line with law enforcement and legal software, both Open Source Software and proprietary in all circles. For this reason, the government, through the Minister of Communication and Information, has issued Circular Letter Number: 05/SE/M.KOMINFO/10/2005 concerning the Use and Utilization of Legal Software in Government Agencies.

In this paper, we study oligopolistic competition between closed and open source softwares. By intersecting existing economic contributions on open source, we propose a two stage game with perfect information and product di¤eretiation in which producers firstly set softwares quality, then they determine prices (constrained at zero for open source programs). In doing this, we explicitly model lock-in e¤ects, network externality components of software quality as well as knowledge accumulation in software use and implementation. With respect to a monopolistic benchmark case, we argue that in duopoly a pro- prietary sofware producer facing an open source software will reduce its selling price whether: (i) its network of users is larger than open sources one and its consumers are largely experienced on its program, (ii) it has a small network of un-skilled consumers. In opposition, after open source softwares emergence, proprietary software price does augment if proprietary software users form a large, but poorly skilled network. Fur- thermore, we show that, in all above cases, proprietary software quality increases because of the existence of a open source alternative to a previouisly monopolistic program. Finally, by modeling knowledge accumulation processes through di¤erence equations, we show that the ratio between closed and open source programs opportunity costs of software learning and deployment plays a crucial role in shaping market outcomes. Until an open source software remains too complex and technical for unskilled or time-scarse users, a shared market solution in which both softwares are adopted is predicted. In contrast, if opportunity costs in learning and understanding open source programs are remarkably low, or at least equal to opportunity costs of a closed source software, then a open source dominance outcome (i.e. all software are open ones) phases out.

Many previous studies have shown that open-source technologies help democratize information and foster collaborations to enable addressing global physical and societal challenges. The outbreak of the novel coronavirus has imposed unprecedented challenges to human society. It affects every aspect of livelihood, including health, environment, transportation, and economy. Open-source technologies provide a new ray of hope to collaboratively tackle the pandemic. The role of open source is not limited to sharing a source code. Rather open-source projects can be adopted as a software development approach to encourage collaboration among researchers. Open collaboration creates a positive impact in society and helps combat the pandemic effectively. Open-source technology integrated with geospatial information allows decision-makers to make strategic and informed decisions. It also assists them in determining the type of intervention needed based on geospatial information. The novelty of this paper is to standardize the open-source workflow for spatiotemporal research. The highlights of the open-source workflow include sharing data, analytical tools, spatiotemporal applications, and results and formalizing open-source software development. The workflow includes (i) developing open-source spatiotemporal applications, (ii) opening and sharing the spatiotemporal resources, and (iii) replicating the research in a plug and play fashion. Open data, open analytical tools and source code, and publicly accessible results form the foundation for this workflow. This paper also presents a case study with the open-source spatiotemporal application development for air quality analysis in California, USA. In addition to the application development, we shared the spatiotemporal data, source code, and research findings through the GitHub repository.

The article examines existing models of free and open-source software licensing worldwide. In particular, software is classified according to the type of distribution licence, while the difference between the concepts of ‘free software’ and ‘open-source software’, their ideological foundations and key features are highlighted. Within the framework of the paper, all free and open-source licences are classified into two key groups – permissive and copyleft. The main features of these groups are defined, and the most widely used licences of each type are analysed. The basis for determining the prevalence of specific free and open-source licences was current statistical data. The state of free and open-source software licensing in the EU is outlined. Special attention is also paid to public domain agreements under the public domain doctrines of the USA and Ukraine, and their relation to free and open-source software. The current legislation of Ukraine regulating free and open-source software licences is analysed. In particular, the legal nature of free and open licenses and their varieties is examined in the context of the existing legal structures of ‘public licence’, ‘licence’, and ‘licence agreement’. Furthermore, attention is given to the Recommendations of the Ministry of Economy, Leisure, and Agriculture regarding the application of free public licences for the use of copyright and related rights, which, for the first time in Ukraine, provide a definition of free public licences. To study the practical application and recognition of free and open-source software licences, relevant judicial practice is analysed. The conclusions emphasise the need for further legislative consolidation and regulation of free and open-source software licences, particularly copyleft licences, which, although operating within the framework of classical copyright, due to their specific nature, do not fully fall under the traditional provisions on public licences.

While free and open source software becomes increasingly important in geospatial research and industry, open science perspectives are generally less reflected in universities’ educational programs. We present an example of how free and open source software can be incorporated into geospatial education to promote open and reproducible science. Since 2008 graduate students at North Carolina State University have the opportunity to take a course on geospatial modeling and analysis that is taught with both proprietary and free and open source software. In this course, students perform geospatial tasks simultaneously in the proprietary package ArcGIS and the free and open source package GRASS GIS. By ensuring that students learn to distinguish between geospatial concepts and software specifics, students become more flexible and stronger spatial thinkers when choosing solutions for their independent work in the future. We also discuss ways to continually update and improve our publicly available teaching materials for reuse by teachers, self-learners and other members of the GIS community. Only when free and open source software is fully integrated into geospatial education, we will be able to encourage a culture of openness and, thus, enable greater reproducibility in research and development applications.

1 - Open Source Software: Definitions and History

Open has defined my professional career in every way imaginable: for almost ten years now it has been the motivating force in my career, the mode in which I work, and the subject that I research. As a result, today I live and breathe open—but it has not always been this way. What follows is the story of how open proved itself to me. It is a story that demonstrates how participating in open projects and processes can lead to unexpected opportunities. In my case, these opportunities have taken me on a journey from an itinerant software developer, to a workshop instructor in over a dozen countries, to a PhD at Stanford University, and finally to an academic career. These opportunities have lead to my contributing thousands of lines of code, over a dozen research articles, two edited books, countless workshops for journal editors, and the teaching of undergraduate and graduate students. More importantly, they have allowed me to contribute back to the region of the world from which I emigrated as a child by helping to amplify the voices of Latin American scholars worldwide. This unexpected journey started in January 2006 when I took a job at the open access Journal of Medical Internet Research (JMIR), where I was responsible, among other things, for upgrading the journal to the latest version of the Public Knowledge Project's (PKP) open source software Open Journal Systems (OJS). JMIR has been a pioneer in open access, and it was doing so using open source software as its foundation. Unbeknownst to me at the time, this convergence of open source with open access would become the defining trait of my career. As a software developer by training, I knew the benefits of open source software from a practical level. The existence of OJS made my job at JMIR easier (plus, it came at a convenient price!). But it was not until I was ready to leave that job (I wanted to move back to my native Argentina) that I realized how contributing to an open source project could also lead to new and unexpected opportunities. I had been contributing code back to PKP—this is what you do when you develop open source—and so when I emailed PKP's director (John Willinsky) asking for short contract to finalize a few contributions, he already knew who I was and readily agreed. What was surprising to me, was that he also asked me to lead a series of workshops on open access and OJS in Latin America. It is a testament to John Willinsky that he hired me to represent PKP without ever asking for a CV—my code contributions had spoken for themselves. This work set off a chain of events that is still unfolding to this date. My open source code contributions lead to regular work with PKP: writing software, running workshops, conducting surveys, and studying the results. The work kept me off the streets of Argentina, but more importantly, it allowed me to engage with Latin Americans and reconnect with a region I had emigrated from fifteen years prior. As I engaged, I learned about the plight of Latin American scholars, and of the incredible interest from the region in open access. I quickly realized that my technical expertise in OJS could serve the interests of these scholars, and supporting them has become a driving motivation in all my professional activities. I have always felt proud of my contributions OJS, and in how this open source software supports open access, but over time I felt the need to better understand the role of open access itself. This curiosity led me to a PhD program at Stanford University, where I was able to devote my attention to studying the Public Impact of Latin America's Approach to Open Access and other aspects of scholarly publishing. Along the way, I have ensured that all my research outputs are openly available. Contrary to researcher's concerns, this has not prevented me from getting a faculty position in a market where these are increasingly rare. My hope is to use this position to continue to further our understanding of open access and of Latin America's scholarly communication, with the belief that this will lead to positive outcomes for the region. Whatever contributions I make—through research, software, or in my life in general—were enabled by contributing to open source and open access. I owe this debt to openness, and I intend to pay it back for the rest of my career by being open about my work, and by contributing to projects and organizations that support openness. This is, after all, what you do in an open ecosystem. It is the secret sauce of openness, and I invite you to benefit from it as much as I have.

A lot misinformation and mystery surrounds the topic of Open Source software. The conceptual misunderstanding of software is fostered, in some respects, by a lack of understanding within the professional ranks of the computer field. There are many different views of Open Source software today, based upon ones perspective. After about 20 years of evolution, the position of Open Source in our economy still has not coalesced. Few seems to understand whether Open Source is free software for running a computer (i.e., Linux) or just a way to obtain some software products without giving Microsoft ones money. “There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world and that is an idea whose time has come” - Victor Hugo any view Open Source (OS) software as just a free alternative to proprietary software. The term does not mean that there is no cost associated with its procurement, although some vendors do provide free versions. The word “free” usually means the freedom to copy, modify, or distribute the software. One must be very careful when applying this broad, general meaning to Open Source software. There are many different Open Source licenses in use and it is imperative that users acquaint themselves with the legal ramifications of dealing with intellectual property rights. ` Open Source software should be viewed as a viable alternative in many software selection processes. Recently, the news has portrayed the report of India's Kerala state moving to Linux and OpenOffice for its 2,724 high schools. Likewise, OpenOffice is replacing Microsoft Office in many schools districts around the US. With tight school budgets, school superintendents are realizing significant cost savings by using the OpenOffice products for their campuses. Products such as OpenOffice may not be 100% compatible with their current proprietary counterpart, but for many applications, compatibility is not the issue. The price and the software license management of proprietary packages may be overwhelming.