Last January I visited a pre-Fosdem meeting on Open Source policy in the European Union (EU). I was invited because I had signed several petitions to adjust Art. 13 of the The EU Copyright Directive so that it would exclude Open Source Software. I figured I would attend the conference because I highly value Open Source Software (OSS) and I wanted to explore what it felt like being a fish out of water in a room of policy makers. Furthermore, it’s in my nature to scrutinize authority. So I thought I would visit the conference and see what kind of policy the EU has in store for OSS.
As for the structure of this article. First, I will discuss each talk in order of appearance. Second, to determine what’s on the mind of policy-makers, I will list a series of terms that were emphasized across multiple talks. Take their emphasis as you will. Third, I will make some remarks of my own about what I thought might have been interesting to discuss during this meeting. I did not put forward my remarks during the conference due to the time-crunch most speakers and attendees were under. Instead I delve into them here. Finally, I list my key takeaways of the meeting.
Talks
European Commission Opening Statement
Speaker: Pearse O’Donohue, Director for Future Networks, European Commission.
Pearse’s opening statement mainly revolved around the importance to put OSS on the forefront of EU Policy where possible. He stated that the OSS community should challenge the European Commission (EC) and a focus should be put on how OSS plays a role in the EU. Specifically he mentioned that OSS plays a role economically, as evidenced by the market study discussed later during the meeting.
He stated that the position of the EC on OSS implies that it should be citizen-first, embrace AI, recognize digital transformation’s impact on climate change as OSS intersects with both subjects, digital skills should be prioritized by policy-makers and finally that OSS removes dependency on the supply chain. A worthy mention made by Pearse was one regarding Open Source Hardware (OSH). Which Pearse stated was: ”Certainly on his mind.”. It would have been interesting to see his thoughts on that subject. However, as the subject of the meeting was OSS not OSH it seemed natural to leave it at a mention.
I have no particular additions to make to his opening statement save for the fact that I see no reason for OSS and climate change to be mentioned in the same sentence. Unless you specifically wish to target climate change with OSS I see no reason to tie the policies to each-other.
Speaker: Mirko Boehm, TU Berlin; Paula Grzegorzewska, Open Forum Europe (OFE).
This talk was split into two parts. During the first part Mirko Boehm spoke about his own views on OSS and OSS’s impact on society viewed from 3 perspectives; public, scientific and business. During the second part of the talk Paula Grzegorzewska spoke about a study yet to be conducted that would measure OSS’s actual impact.
During Mirko’s part in which he shared his views, one statement he made stuck with me. In the statement he paraphrased someone he knew as saying:
Open Source projects are incubators for technology and people.
He built upon that paraphrase by mentioning that many people he knew that were involved with OSS projects at some point, now held positions of high importance. Although clearly anecdotal, the statement stuck with me as I get the same feeling about OSS.
The remainder of his talk centred around OSS’s impact. In it he described 3 perspectives on OSS. 1) The public’s perspective, concerning the idea that protecting OSS should be a public interest since, in essence, OSS is a public good. Furthermore, it positively contributes to society implying common interest between OSS and society. Which should warrant protection of OSS as part of EU Policy.
2) The scientific perspective on OSS. Where OSS could aid towards Open Science, which is part of EU Policy. His view is that the scientific world struggles with openness and OSS could aid in achieving it. A statement with which I could not agree more.
3) The business perspective on OSS, where there is a conflict according to Mirko. As he stated that the central ideas of OSS; Openness and Fairness, do not mesh well with most business goals. As it requires sharing of one’s own technological advancements, potentially giving away a competitive advantage.
During Paula’s part of the talk she discussed that these perspectives required verification. As such, the EC had requested a study be done to measure the impact of OSS. Paula discussed the need for community contributions to adequately measure impact and a potential structure of the study as the study would most likely be used to inform EU Policy towards OSS.
I expected this talk to contain results of a study that had already taken please. Primarily because I had read a different title for this talk in a programme for this meeting that was published online. As such I’ve neglected to jot down much of the study’s structure. For those interested I suggest contacting OFE for Paula’s details and inquiring about the study.
Digital Sovereignty as Openness: Gaia-X and Open Source
Speaker: Peter Ganten, CEO, Open Source Business Alliance (OSB-A).
Peter spoke about a project called GAIA-X. An attempt of the German Federal Government, business and science communities, to bring digital sovereignty back into the cloud.
According to Peter one of the prime motivators behind this project is the influence the US has on EU policy, mentioning US sanctions on Russia in an attempt to force Europe to acquire American gas [ full story ] as an example. Undue influence of this kind can be seen in the cloud market, where US-based cloud-providers have a market-share of over 50%. US cloud-providers however, are subject to American regulation such as the Cloud Act, impinging on European data-protection laws such as the GDPR. The German Federal Government intends to mitigate this US influence with the creation of GAIA-X. Aiming to create a European-based cloud-infrastructure which would be subject to European regulations.
Furthermore, Peter went on to state that: “Proprietary software endangers digital sovereignty.”. Which is true to a certain degree. However, in the case of cloud-providers proprietary software is not the issue, the issue is the lack of influence over the providers through regulation. Peter proposed that GAIA-X could resolve this lack of influence by creating a federated and decentralized data-infrastructure in Europe. As for the use of OSS by GAIA-X, he mentioned that the use of CloudStack as one of the sub-systems in GAIA-X had been considered. By Q2 of 2021 we’ll see if this will be the case, as implementation of GAIA-X prototypes is scheduled for Q4 of 2020.
Considering the topic of the meeting I found that the talk was lacking in the specifics of the usage of OSS within the infrastructure. I can imagine this was due to the project only being recently announced (Q4 2019), however this should not have prohibited some brain-storming or further thoughts on possible use of OSS within the infrastructure.
Speaker: Stéfane Fermigier, President, French National Council for Free and Open Source Software (CNLL).
Stéfane’s talk was split into 3 sections, addressing 1) The size of the European Open Source market, 2) the results of a survey among 117 organizations concerning; how OSS is used, which OSS partners are contracted, how digital transformation impacted their OSS use and, 3) some specific information about the policies regarding OSS of 7 European nations.
As Stéfane made only a few remarks about OSS policy, and to avoid being long-winded, I’m not going to address all the growth numbers here. I’ve added the slides of the talk [ source ] and I’ll only discuss 6 major take-aways. 1) The use of open-source in the IT Service market is growing by an average of about 8% annually, with a projected market-value of 30 billion €,
2) both CEO’s and IT departments promote the use of OSS in their company, 3) the main motivations for using OSS are; provides solutions aligned with company needs, no dependency on external suppliers, cost-reduction, 4) the key factors for success of open source projects within surveyed companies are; security by design, compliance with regulations, availability of internal skills, 5) the lack of OSS skills hinders adption, 6) over 40% of the surveyed companies stated that for both digital transformation and innovation OSS plays a very important role.
Most of the results presented in this talk were not very surprising to me. However, what did surprise me was the market-value and the apparent gap in skills. For a market that has such value I would expect there to be more investment in closing the skill-gap.
Delivering an Open Digital Approach to Healthcare: How Open Source is Changing Digital Health
Speakers: Dr. Axel K. Braun, Coordinator Europe, GNU Health;
Stuart Mackintosh, CEO OpusVL, presenting the Dito Project.
Dr. Braum toke point on this talk stating it was was geared towards providing an overview of the state of OSS in healthcare. He led with some insights in the nature of “Free” vs. “Free of charge” applications. Stating that in choosing for these apps you need to be able to trust them.
He then gave 3 examples of apps and companies related to proprietary software usage in health-care related context. First, stating that health-care apps such as Vivy suffer from severe security and privacy issues. In the case of Vivy there were 2 glaring issues, 1) the app shared private date with 3rd parties and 2) the way public/private key sharing worked was misunderstood leading to severe gaps in security. Whereas the Ada Health App “merely” shared data of their users.
Second, on Dr. Braum’s list was Google. Where he stated that Google shares data with insurance companies, which may or may not, lead to a denial of insurance. Concluding with the fact that Google was in the process of acquiring FitBit and could potentially possess data related to their users health. Clearly putting their data up for grabs for insurance-companies.
Lastly, he mentioned the fact that Windows 10, was reported by DPO’s as in no-way legally operable under the constraints of GDPR.
Having outlined some of the faults of proprietary software Dr. Braum continued with the potential benefits of Free Open Source Software (FOSS) compared to proprietary software. Stating that for digital transformation to succeed you need control over the entire stack, both hardware and software. To illustrate this he mentioned GNU Health as a “prime example”. Written mostly in Python, open and free to use whilst using GNUPg for signing data. Covering most of the issues that proprietary software brings with it (no control, bad security).
So, “If the benefits of FOSS over proprietary software are so clear-cut, then why are are we not using it en masse?” was the follow-up question Dr. Braum posed. Taking a software developers perspective he listed 3 possible reasons, 1) the software quality is bad, 2) you won’t get fired for using proprietary software, 3) FOSS requires looking for the right software, whereas proprietary software is often presented to you by those who created it (FOSS is pull not push). Even-though there are downsides to using FOSS there are also chances according to Dr. Braum. For instances Open Standards can promote competition and possibly promote local economies by no longer having to use proprietary software.
In summary, Dr. Braum states that OSS can delivery on high security standards whereas proprietary software may not be trustworthy due to a lack of transparency.
Next, Stuart Mackintosh presented the DITO project, an effort to develop and share the best practices of health-care software. With the final goal of producing an application that proved that these best practices where indeed best practices. To demonstrate the methodology for gathering the best practices Stuart presented the case of a NHS application where health-care personnel stated that as part of the requirements of an application it should be as easy to use as a piece of paper. He then proceeded to explain how the Dutch Indicator of Worry archetype (DENWIS) provided a ready to use best practice that adhered to the health-care personnel’s requirements. As for the rest of the talk, Stuart was cut short due to some of the panel members at the end of the meeting having a strict deadline. However, he made it clear that the intent was the Open Source all of the code produced in the attempt to create an application that used the gathered best practices.
Now, in all fairness, both Dr. Braum and Stuart Mackintosh presented reasonable arguments for the use of OSS. However, neither of the presentations really grabbed my attention. Clearly Dr. Braum gave more of an opinionated talk whilst show-casing only high-profile cases. Which may or may not represent issues faced by most proprietary software. Whereas, Stuart’s talk illustrated how OSS can be a result of policy, by open sourcing all code produced for a government funded project. The reason they failed to grab my attention was due to OSS being either a conceptual alternative to proprietary software or a by-product of policy. OSS did not really take centre-stage, nor did they provide any comments about how they would make it so. Regardless, I enjoyed their talks for show-casing potential uses, benefits, and limitations of applying OSS in a health-care setting.
Keynote: MEP Marcel Kolaja, Vice-President of the European Parliament.
Panelists: Helio Chissini Castro, Senior Software Engineer, BMW;
Lars Geyer- Blaumeiser, Senior Expert Open Source Software, Bosh;
Mike Linksvayer, Director of Policy, GitHub;
Deb Bryant, Senior Director, Red Hat;
Mike Milinkovic, Executive Director, Eclipse Foundation.
Marcel Kolaja started the panel with an introductory statement about how OSS changes the competitive landscape. For many OSS projects the companies working on a particular project are also competitors. Marcel likened this to the manner in which politics function in a democratic system. Delving deeper into the subject of the panel, he went on to explore how OSS relates the manufacturing industry.
For one, Marcel believes that OSS should be integrated in the Open Data policies and strategies of the EU. To illustrate his point he demonstrated the importance of OSS using Linux as an example. Stating that Linux is a pillar of the web due to its wide-spread adoption in web-servers. Showing that Linux is indeed a huge success. Having shown some the benefits of OSS he pointed out the shortcomings of proprietary software in the manufacturing industry. To do so he made the case that the Volkswagen emission scandal could have been prevented had the software in the cars been OSS instead of proprietary. Which may well have been the case, after all the scandal revolved around software alterations to reduce emissions when being tested. Unfortunately Marcel had to leave early due to other engagements. Unfortunate as I would have loved to know about any concrete plans he had to introduce OSS in such a preventative capacity.
The remainder of the panel-session entailed the usage of OSS by some major players in the OSS and automotive industry. For instance, Mrs. Bryant remarked that for Red Hat it was natural to give back to the OSS communities because it had benefited immensely from it. Furthermore, to her: “It [OSS] would be a form of R&D.”, when she mentioned her company’s funding of OSS projects. She went on to say that: “OSS in the automotive industry is going to be exciting!” since “Safety concerns are a top priority with many challenges.”.
Panel-member Lars Geyer- Blaumeiser spoke about the difficulties employees of Bosch had when they tried to convince upper-management to adopt OSS. However, after 2 long years of being faced with: “A management-wall”, Bosch had adopted OSS, started frequently pushing research to GitHub and, became a member of the Linux Foundation.
Next-up was Mike Milinkovic who gave a brief introduction for the Eclipse in Motion project, made up of roughly 5 working groups. 1) OpenMDM, a working-group developing a set of components used for composing measured data-management systems. With members such as Audi, BMW and, Daimler. 2) OpenPass, a working group dedicated to sharing methods for the evaluation of driver assistance systems and partially automated driving functions. With members such as the TÜV and Volkswagen. 3) OpenADX, a working-group aiming to deliver software tools and open source software for the development of autonomous driving. With members such as IBM, Red Hat, Microsoft, Bosch and Siemens. 4) OpenMobility, a working-group that has the purpose of advancing simulation environments for transport applications. With members such as; Bosch and the German Aerospace Center. 5) OpenGenesis, a working-group with a mission to provide knowledge, methods and tools for the assessment of artificial intelligence (AI). With members such as; TÜV SÜD, Mathworks, Intel and Bosch.
At this point the conversation among panel-members and the audience started revolving around why working-groups like these are necessary. As mentioned earlier by Deb Bryant, safety concerns within the automotive industry are a priority. AI in particular provides a challenge for the automotive industry. As currently most systems are deterministic, making them audit-able and demonstrable that they comply with regulations. AI systems however, are: “Non-deterministic and untraceable.” according to Helio Chissini Castro continuing with:“How would you verify regulations?”. Working-groups like those mentioned by Mike help to facilitate solutions for complex problems like these.
As the panel was nearing its peak-discussion an interruption was made indicating time was essentially up. Prompting a return to how the EU could take the lead concerning these type of developments. Panel-member stated that “It should engage more with OSS” and “Use OSS as a business driver”. Leading to a final remark by Helio illustrating the usefulness of OSS. He stated that BMW had open-sourced the complete code-base for the BMW i3, which in turn lead to the location of bugs and subsequent fixes. Which finished the morning the way I like it, with some bug-fixes.
Emphasized terms
For your consideration, I provide a list of terms I noticed being emphasized during the talks. Note that these terms were emphasized during multiple talks. I left out terms that were emphasized during one talk only.
- Policy (Obviously), OSS and the need for it to be at the forefront of EU Policies.
- Privacy, the impact of OSS on Privacy as OSS can be verified independently.
- Economy, economical impact of OSS, not just concerning cost-reductions in development.
- AI, in relation to OSS AI, policy towards it, its importance in the automotive industry and EU Policy to embrace it.
- Blockchain, in relation to decentralized OSS systems and as a solution for privacy, data-sovereignty and E-Idenities.
- Education, OSS, it’s usage in Education or lack thereof and the lack of skills concerning OSS.
- EU lead, OSS and how the EU could take the lead concerning policy towards it, as it did with the GDPR.
- Data-sovereignty, related to Privacy and OSS’s capacity to resolve issues where proprietary software shared data with 3rd parties unknown to its users.
- Open Hardware, put forward multiple times, not specifically addressed during any talks.
Ownership
During the panel the impact and possibilities of OSS in the automotive industry were discussed. The subjects touched upon by the panel-members and the subjects of some questions towards them were geared towards safety concerns if the public had access to the software in their cars. To emphasize I’ve put “their cars” in italic, why? Because to me, this discussion was lacking a key element. Sovereignty and ownership. Whilst privacy and data-sovereignty seem to be at the fore-front of the minds of policy-makers, actual ownership and control over an object you have bought seems not to be.
For example, currently most cars on the market have some sort of on-board computer. This computer is loaded with software which, in some cases, controls hardware-components of your car. Say you’ve found an issue with that software due to some noticeable hardware malfunction. You, as the owner of that vehicle, cannot repair it. For one, it is copyrighted. Meaning that if you adjust it and publish how you did so, you will have infringed on said copyright and you are now a criminal. The best-case scenario would be that you might have voided any sort of warranty. Let that sink in. If you attempt to fix a problem with a car you own, paid tens of thousands of euros for you may either criminalized or your right to have it repaired may be retracted.
To me that’s unacceptable. How is it that I can fix hardware issues but not software issues? There is a flourishing market surrounding car-repair why shouldn’t it grow in size by allowing software alterations? After all, the car is mine, I didn’t rent it.
Takeaways
Note that these takeaways are the ones I find most important. I’m most certain that there are many others to be found in the wall-of-text above.
- OSS is most definitely on the mind of policy-makers in the EU.
- OSS is a major driving force of innovation.
- OSS is, in many cases, preferable over proprietary software, especially when regulations are involved.
- OSS has a growing market-share within the EU software industry.
- OSS may suffer from a gap in skills and education.
- OSS may suffer from a lack of adoption due to perceived flaws, such as stability and reliability issues.
All in all, as a software-developer, it was an interesting experience to sit in a room filled with policy-makers. The high-level problems discussed at events like these are rarely, if ever, similar to those that emerge in day-to-day software development and I must say it definitely piqued my interest. So, if you ever get invited to a policy meeting like this one, I can recommend attending it whole-heartedly!
![[GUIDE] Running MicroK8s & Nginx-ingress on CentOS 7](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.hashnode.com%2Fres%2Fhashnode%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fv1650647049653%2FW-ozq9MDf.png&w=3840&q=75)
