Intellectual Property Industry Must Move Information Into Public Domain

From ACM TechNews:
Intellectual Property Industry Must Move Information Into Public Domain
The Hindu (India)
(01/24/13) Anuj Srivas

Google vice president and ACM president Vint Cerf, referring to the recent suicide of computer activist Aaron Swartz, says greater sharing of information and open access are needed. “One of the things that was common amongst the community that created the Internet, was that we were fairly homogenous, and that in order to obtain information--we would share it. Not buy it," Cerf says. He believes Swartz's death was preventable and notes that recent events highlight the problems that intellectual property faces when it goes onto the Web. "While we have to be conscious of the harm that occurs on the network, we have to make sure we don’t solve bad behavior by just trampling all over people’s human rights," he says. "The need of the hour, therefore, is to see the intellectual property industry actively moving information into the public domain." Cerf cites Creative Commons as a good example of how to get things into the public domain. "This is all in the framework of working with creators, technologists, and legislators," he says.

View Full Article
http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/intellectual-property-industry-must-move-information-into-public-domain/article4337177.ece

In the Mobile Market, Embracing Open Source Could Transform Microsoft

by Sam Dean - Jan. 25, 2013Comments (0

In recent years, Microsoft has largely reversed the stance it once took toward open source software applications and platforms. The company's current CEO, Steve Ballmer, is still famous for once calling open source "a cancer," but Microsoft has steadily contributed to the Linux kernel, released projects to the open source community and taken a friendlier overall stance toward Linux, especially when it comes to virtualization and data centers.

The truth is, though, that the best fix for Microsoft's woes on the mobile technology front could come from embracing open source. In fact, by doing do, Microsoft could begin to win again.

In this post, I considered what benefits Microsoft might get from embracing both Android and Mozilla's Firefox OS on mobile devices. For example, by using technology from BlueStacks Player, or similar emulation technology, Microsoft could give users of its new Surface tablets access to the already robust ecosystem of apps for Android.  This would instantly solve a problem that Microsoft has: It doesn't have the teeming app stores that both Apple and Android have after years of succeeding in the smartphone and tablet markets.

In smartphones, Microsoft is far behind Apple and players on the Android phone scene.  Matt Asay has made an excellent case for how Microsoft could benefit from adopting Mozilla's Firefox OS:

"...as Samsung has shown with Android, one needn't own an OS to profit from it.  Samsung's operating profit in its fourth quarter rose 89% to hit $8.3 billion.  That's real money that even Apple can't sniff at."

"Why not throw [Microsoft's] weight behind Mozilla?  Mozilla has taken on a huge task, one that Microsoft's engineering and financial resources can help to accelerate.  And while Mozilla is unlikely to give any special favors to Microsoft in terms of distribution, the very fact of embracing and distributing Firefox OS would give Microsoft influence in the Firefox OS community.  That's how open source works: being the source of code matters as much or more than owning source code." 

 Just this morning, I reported on the barnstorming success that Samsung has had in the smartphone market, thanks to Android. Samsung is ruling the smartphone market with an open operating system that it did not create.

Microsoft continues to try to leverage proprietary platforms and hasn't embraced the idea of the open app store, which could completely change its fortunes in the mobile market. Just check out Simon Phipps' thoughts on the value of the open app store, here. 

Could Microsoft come around to this way of thinking? Stranger things have happened.

Fifty shades of open source

By Jack Wallen (techrepublic)January 21, 2013, 9:43 AM PST
Takeaway: To many, open source is black and white — software is either open or not. Jack Wallen sees the new world order in shades of gray and begs the open source community to be more open in their attitude.

I wanted so badly to not use that title — but honestly, it fits. I’ve been thinking a lot lately on exactly what it means to be open source. I only moments ago read an interview of one of the founders of the Free Software Foundation and was reminded of the phrase:

Everything in moderation.

Up until recently, there have been three levels of open source users:

• Those that will not use anything until it is 100% open
• Those that will use anything, so long as it gets the job done
• Those that will not use open source, regardless

Like so many things, it is that middle sector that seems to be winning out. But even within that group, there are shades and variations. And, to make matters more interesting, there are developers and businesses who are starting not only to see and reap the benefits of that gray area, they are starting to drive it forward. This means the open source community might well have to become a bit more open to a few new shades in their world.

Let me explain.

• Steam is close to being released unto the world.
• The auto industry is proclaiming the release of the first “open source” car.
• Social networking APIs are flying rampant across the internet.
• Governments across the globe are trying to figure out how to save money.
• Businesses are adopting open source at blinding speeds.
• The Android platform is arriving as a front-runner in the M2M space.

What do all of these things have in common? On varying levels — open source. What is, however, becoming abundantly clear is that the majority of the prime movers aren’t purists — they need to mix and match metaphors and technologies to create the best solution for the problem at hand. This means some will be using open source in one area and closed source in another. It also means there will be situations where open and closed source technologies must function together to create a seamless whole.

And that, my friends, is the real and true rub. That rub, however, rubs some of the open source community in the wrong way. To those that have issue with amalgams, I have this to say:

It’s 2013 — time to realize “World Domination” will never happen for any one technology company (that is, until the Singularity hits).

Even beyond that, all of us open source advocates need to finally come to grips with the idea that a few new shades of openness are evolving. Companies are taking advantage of open source technology; using it to drive forward their (mostly) proprietary software. So long as those companies do not obfuscate the open source technologies, all is well. Instead of the open source community getting up in arms about this, they should be celebrating the fact that their technology is being use to further another project.

At the same time, these businesses must also be thankful in the form of giving back. Should that company improve the open source code, it is their duty to hand those improvements back to the community that created the piece that helped them.

There are also companies out there hoping to make a profit from open source software. Those businesses cannot (nor should not) be frowned upon. A lot of the open source community I know feels profit should not be made from the GPL. To them I say, if a company can leverage open source to turn a profit, they should not only be allowed, they should be encouraged.

Think about it this way: Let’s say Company X uses open source and creates a product that everyone wants. Company X makes sure to keep the source available, but also creates proprietary features or add-ons that help them make a profit from the original project. Instead of the open source community bemoaning the fact that Company X created software with code that will never be released to the public, the open source community should be raising their hands in celebration to say, “Without us Company X would never have made it!”

It’s like Facebook. Facebook was built, from the ground up, using open source technology. It’s rare I hear the open source community celebrating this. Instead, more voices are raised in protest to what Facebook is monitoring on their feeds. It’s the same thing happening to Ubuntu now — the open source community crying out that Ubuntu Unity is allowing the great and powerful monster that is Amazon to monitor our searching. It’s not, “Look at this cool feature that is helping to bridge open source to business.” It’s “I don’t want Amazon knowing what I search in the privacy of my own home.”

To that, I say — let ‘em monitor my searching. Why? First and foremost, I’ve nothing to hide. Second, I shop Amazon a lot and find the Unity Dash actually makes that easier now and my search results are generally far more accurate now. But that’s just me. And even though I am just as paranoid as the next, I’m also open to the idea that businesses will continue to work together to help one another — like Ubuntu and Amazon.

The world is changing faster than we can possibly manage to keep up. That change is driven by technology — and, on nearly every level, open source. The whole of the open source world is not nearly as black and white as it once was. Shouting out, “I want everything 100% open!” is like saying, “I want to use a computer that was 100% made in America!”

Yes, you can use a 100% open source computer. But, if you are truly a purist, you:

• Aren’t accepting documents from anyone who created or modified that document in anything that isn’t open source.
• Aren’t going to any website, of any kind, if it isn’t 100% open.
• Aren’t watching videos or listening to music.
• Probably aren’t actually using a computer, seeing as how that hardware wasn’t created in an open environment.

Do you see where this is going? It’s a new world. With that new world comes a different shade of open source. I like to call that shade “open, open source”. What exactly does that mean? It means the definition of open source, and its driving community, is a bit more fluid and accepting than it once was. If you’re still living in a reality where open source has but two shades, I can honestly say that digital life is going to get more and more challenging for you. It’s time to open your eyes and accept the fifty shades of open source.

Intel Preps Thin Fiber Optics to Shuffle Data Between Computers

IDG News Service (01/16/13) Agam Shah

Intel is developing thin fiber optics that will use lasers and light as a faster way to move data inside computers.  The technology will be implemented at the motherboard and rack levels and use light to move data between storage, networking, and computing resources.  The silicon photonics technology will be part of a new generation of servers that will need faster networking, storage, and processing subsystems, says Intel's Justin Rattner.  He notes that silicon photonics could enable communication at speeds of 100 Gbps, and transfer data at high speeds while using less power compared to copper cables.  The technology also could consolidate power supplies and fans in a data center, lowering component costs.  After the infrastructure with silicon photonics is in place, server designs could change even further, Rattner says.  Intel is working with Facebook to define new server technologies that will lead to the decoupling of computing, networking, and storage resources.  Critical to this step is "the introduction of silicon photonics in not just the inter-rack fabric, but also the intra-rack fabric," Rattner says.  "Over time you will see the server communication infrastructure, which includes switches, to include photonics," says analyst Dean McCarron.
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9235911/Intel_preps_thin_fiber_optics_to_shuffle_data_between_computers