Open Source Software Policy & Strategy

This Policy and Strategy was adopted by the Information Services Committee on 26-Feb-03. It applies to all Open Source software, but has special relevance to office-productivity software (eg word processor, spreadsheet, email, Web browser). The basic juxtaposition is between Open Source software and Proprietary software (though Microsoft (MS) software is often used as a proxy for the latter).

1. Definition

For the purposes of this Policy, the term “Open Source” relates to the licence conditions under which Open Source Software is made available, and employs the definition developed by the Open Source Initiative, available at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php (reproduced at Annex A).

2. Preamble:

(i) Perceived Benefits of Using Open Source Software

a. reduced licence costs;
b. reduced administration;
c. reduced licence compliance requirements;
d. ability to lend/give software without fear of licence infringement (piracy);
e. ability to promote use by students -even to insist on them using it, without imposing a cost on them, or infringing the HE Act (can’t impose a fee for a compulsory course requirement);
f. may benefit from improved product quality, simplicity, performance & resource-miserliness;
g. more chance of bugs being fixed, and quickly (though this is not yet established);
h. possibility of local/own fixes & enhancements;
i. helps defeat a monopoly, which usually is not in the long-term best interests of consumers - helps promote choice;
j. opportunity to contribute to “the common good”;
k. consistent with the (university/scholarly) principle of openly sharing the results of intellectual endeavour (but that’s already heavily eroded, eg IP commercialisation, assigning IPR to commercial scholarly journals);
l. reduced susceptibility to viruses & other attacks (though this advantage might be temporary...).

(ii) Perceived Constraints/Drawbacks of Using Open Source Software:

a. most of the rest of the world uses MS software;
b. convenient to comply with the “default” standards;
c. exchange of documents/files with those in the MS world is more likely to create problems (but recognising that there may be some compatibility issues just between different versions of MS software);
d. licence costs are pretty small compared with the cost of people’s time, if even a few incompatibility issues arise;
e. there exist lots of training/support resources for MS users - eg training courses, books, experienced/knowledgeable colleagues;
f. improved integration with other software applications (though this may be hard to achieve in practice as office environment, and related server-side context, is rarely “pure” MS).

3. Policy Position and Strategic Plan:

In the light of the above, the following policy position and strategy have been adopted:

a. The University endeavours to avoid becoming “locked into” any proprietary software platforms if possible – freedom of choice should be maintained, wherever possible;
b. The University recognises that there may be some situations where proprietary software is well-justified, and does not wish decisions in such cases to be made on spurious “ideological” grounds;
c. The University actively encourages the exploration of Open Source software solutions in all areas of application;
d. The University provides, for software intended for distribution under an Open Source licence, a general waiver of the current requirement of its IP Policy that the IPR in software reside with the University and must not be distributed without explicit permission;
e. The University encourages all staff members involved in software development to make that software available under Open Source licence terms (eg the GNU General Public Licence), and to contribute, as appropriate, to existing Open Source software projects;
f. The University will set up a Website that provides up-to-date information on Open Source software principles, offerings, opportunities, developments, resources, etc; [this can be found at http://www.opensource.uwa.edu.au/]
g. The University will take steps to encourage student use of Open Source software, as a means to reduce their costs, to expose them to this alternative form of software licensing, and to encourage in them an attitude of sharing the fruits of intellectual endeavour;
h. The University will ensure that it imposes no requirement or expectation on students in any discipline that would require them necessarily to make use of proprietary software when a cost is involved, where there are comparable Open Source packages available;
i. The University has launched a study to investigate the impediments to wider deployment of Open Source software, and how to overcome any difficulties associated with living in a “mixed” environment (within and outside the University).

Annex A: The Open Source Definition

Version 1.9
Source: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

[This material is reproduced here as permitted by the footnote on the OSI Home Page, which states "The contents of this website are licensed under the Open Software License version 1.1." which states "Licensor hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, non-sublicenseable license to do the following: a) to reproduce the Original Work in copies; ..."]

The indented, italicized sections below appear as annotations to the Open Source Definition (OSD) and are not a part of the OSD. A plain version of the OSD without annotations can be found at http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php.

A printable version of this annotated page is available at http://opensource.org/docs/def_print.php.

Introduction

Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn’t do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.

2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost – preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Rationale: We require access to un-obfuscated source code because you can’t evolve programs without modifying them. Since our purpose is to make evolution easy, we require that modification be made easy.

3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn’t enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.

4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of “patch files” with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they’re being asked to support and protect their reputations.

Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, “unofficial” changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

7. Distribution of License

The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

Rationale: This clause is intended to forbid closing up software by indirect means such as requiring a non-disclosure agreement.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product

The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program’s being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program’s license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

Rationale: This clause forecloses yet another class of license traps.

9. The License Must Not Restrict Other Software

The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

Rationale: Distributors of open-source software have the right to make their own choices about their own software.

Yes, the GPL is conformant with this requirement. Software linked with GPLed libraries only inherits the GPL if it forms a single work, not any software with which they are merely distributed.

10. License must be technology-neutral

No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

Rationale: This provision is aimed specifically aimed at licenses which require an explicit gesture of assent in order to establish a contract between licensor and licensee. Provisions mandating so-called “click-wrap” may conflict with important methods of software distribution such as FTP download, CD-ROM anthologies, and web mirroring; such provisions may also hinder code re-use. Conformant licenses must allow for the possibility that (a) redistribution of the software will take place over non-Web channels that do not support click-wrapping of the download, and that (b) the covered code (or re-used portions of covered code) may run in a non-GUI environment that cannot support popup dialogues.