Tag Archives: KDE

Defensive Publications: Shedding Light on Innovation

35010906_5977484c38

The patent system is broken. The point of patents is to encourage innovation and inventiveness. Instead of promoting innovation, patent offices have awarded overly broad, vague, and unoriginal patents that draw unclear lines allowing bad actors to profit and threaten costly lawsuits. Patent examiners have a strong sense of the technology that is patented, but they’re missing an understanding of what has been and is currently being developed in the open source world. As shocking as it may seem, the result is the examiner formulating an inaccurate sense of what is innovative. As the final arbiter of a very significant monopoly grant, they are often grossly uninformed in terms of what lies beyond their narrowly scoped search. This is not wholly their fault as they have limited resources and time. However, it is a strong indication of a faulty system that is so entrenched in the archaic methods under which patent offices have been operating.

We have faced and continue to cope with the effects of bad patents on multiple fronts. The most widely known are being displayed on the large stage where huge companies battle in the courts, resulting in large money settlements or high stakes jury verdicts (i.e. Apple v. Samsung). This leads to higher costs to consumers and users, uncertainty amongst innovators about what is patented, a veritable arms race to secure patents to corner the market, and limited competition. These ‘wars’ cost companies money and that cost trickles down to the consumer.

On another stage, we also see the threat of trolls exponentially increase as more patents are acquired and used against small companies, nonprofits, and independent developers. The fear of costly litigation forces licensing agreements with the result of stifling innovation by suffocating independent inventors. On all fronts, more money is being spent on co-existing with undeserving patents rather than developing new ideas. We are losing out on breakthroughs and advancement in technology because of the environment of fear and uncertainty that has been created.

The answer has to be more than abolition of the patent system, as from a pragmatic point of view, it won’t happen. It does us little service to ignore patents and abandon the system. Rather, we need to address and combat the threats to innovation so that we can begin to bring an end to the age of fear and litigation. We can continue to deal with patents as they are issued, identify those that abuse the system, then spend the money and invest time to work to invalidate these. Taking this one step further, we can also proactively prevent these obstacles to innovation from even existing by directly communicating to the examiner what is being and has been developed. The tools to do so are available through the use of defensive publications.

A defensive publication essentially describes what is known or currently being developed. For those who are developing software, these documents are regularly created in the form of blog posts, community updates or releases. However, examiner constraints prevent these sources from being found. The last step is formalizing this and ensuring that the patent examiner has access to an open source database of these documents.

With increasing amounts of low quality patents being issued worldwide and a lack of clear boundaries, patent examiners are losing a sense of what is indeed inventive. Those who patent are getting a voice. Every free software release, solved issue or innovative development process can be turned into a defensive publication. References to current or older releases can also be demonstrated to help illustrate how the community of developers resolves obstacles. By writing these disclosures, free software can demonstrate how to be proactive. In turn, a patent application is rejected and a potential lawsuit is avoided.

Through the Linux Defenders program, Open Invention Network works  with open source developer communities to create defensive publications. We will be working closely with Linux kernel and Qt  developers, because we think that these represent major driving innovative forces in the Open Source spectrum. Important innovations in Linux and Qt should be documented in defensive publications following the releases of the software. We invite interested individuals and companies to contribute to this, and will support the authors in getting their publications out. If you are interested in writing Qt related defensive publications, or will be able to help identifying topics that should be documented, consider joining the mailing list to follow the discussion: http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/defpubs

[Image by Nick Kocharhook, thanks: http://www.flickr.com/photos/k9/35010906/%5D

KDE Frameworks 5 Tech Preview released, with updated ThreadWeaver

Today, the KDE Community released a tech preview of the upcoming KDE 5 Frameworks, the new, modularised incarnation of what was previously distributed simply as the KDE libraries. The new frameworks are drop-in extensions to Qt applications, with minimal and well-documented dependencies for easier deployment. The tech preview contains two frameworks that are marked as mature, namely KArchive and ThreadWeaver. The updated ThreadWeaver was my major piece of library coding work in 2013, and was finished just in time for the release. Even though it is a tech preview, it is stable, and no major (or even significant but minor) changes in the current API are expected until the final release. Programmers are already encouraged to use it, and provide feedback and bug reports.

2897019812_c6bddd5fb1_oThreadWeaver is a concurrent execution scheduler written in C++. Available for all target platforms of the Qt framework, including desktop, mobile and embedded environments, ThreadWeaver delivers concurrent execution of tasks, load balancing with regard to user-defined criteria, multiple independent queues, processing graph modelling, aggregate jobs and other comprehensive features. As all other KDE frameworks, ThreadWeaver is Free Software. Its only dependency is Qt, which makes it a tier 1 framework in KDE’s lingo.

A number of the new features of ThreadWeaver were announced at Akademy 2013. Jobs, the unit of concurrent execution in ThreadWeaver, are now managed by the queue using shared pointers, meaning that auto-delete behaviour is implicit and controlled by the user. Helper templates are available to queue stack or member variables, so allocation of jobs can be static or dynamic. Functors or lambda functions can be used to construct jobs. Job aggregates like collections and sequences now execute their own run() method before queueing their elements, so that aggregates can generate their own elements. Success and queueing state of jobs are now integrated into a single status. Jobs can signal the result of execution by setting a status, but also using exceptions, simplifying error reporting in more complex job classes. Jobs can be decorated, and no more inherit QObject by default. Decorators can be used to add signals, change priorities or modify just about any behaviour of jobs independently of the actual job class used. The construction of the global queue can now be customised using a queue factory. The QueueStream API greatly simplifies queueing jobs with a familiar iostream-like C++ syntax.

ThreadWeaver follows the Unix idiom of doing one thing, and doing it right. Similar to how small Unix programs can be combined to create an practically infinite space of computing solutions, ThreadWeaver offers itself to programmers as an add-on module with minimal dependencies. Including it extends an application with concurrent scheduling capability. But the same Unix idiom is also applied in a second sense. Within ThreadWeaver, a few basic concepts – jobs and their aggregates, queues and policies – are implemented that again provide simple building blocks that can be combined creatively, offering a vast space of potential solutions within the scope of the application.

The history of ThreadWeaver goes back to KDE 3. The idea of implementing a thread pool based execution scheduler that manages dependencies between jobs was implemented as a proof of concept using Qt 3. However it turned out to be difficult to implement and use because of the lack of thread-safe reference counting of the implicitly shared classes at the time. These fundamental problems have been solved with the release of Qt 4. Additionally, the introduction of cross-thread signal-slot connections further simplified the communication between jobs and the application’s user interface. The first production ready version of ThreadWeaver was released as part of KDELibs with KDE 4.0. For KDE Frameworks 5, it was almost completely re-written to simplify memory management of jobs, make use of new Qt 5 features like atomic variables, and in part to reflect new language constructs in C++11 like lambda functions. ThreadWeaver comes with an extensive set of unit tests that all pass in the tech preview (hear, hear).

In the following weeks and months, the framework will be polished and debugged based on user feedback. Also, a series of posts here on this blog will introduce individual ThreadWeaver concepts and features in depth, mostly based on example programs, including contrasting it to thread handling in Qt using QThread or Qt Concurrent. ThreadWeaver is very close to production quality, having been tested continuously in the last couple of months. There may still be smaller, source compatible changes to the framework. We ask interested programmers out there to provide feedback and bug reports to make ThreadWeaver what it should be — a worry-free, easy to use and powerful add-on to Qt that programmers enjoy using. Have fun!

[Image by Shannan Sinclair, thanks: http://www.flickr.com/photos/originalbliss/2897019812%5D


Google+

FLOSS in the Cloud: EOLE, Brussels, Dec 6

Happy Saint Nicholas day everybody! What better purpose could the day be used for to than to travel to Brussels through a storm, and attend the 2013 incarnation of EOLE, the “European Open Source & Free Software Law Event”, held today in Brussels. Philippe Laurent opened the conference with the still blurry question of what cloud is, quoting the FSF: “[cloud] … is a marketing buzzword with no clear meaning…” that is best to avoid. The whole world did not listen and now uses the term widely. The post reflects both what was discussed, and what I learned from the event.

It seems that while the cloud is still opaque, a common understanding is emerging on what cloud computing means. It represents a convergence of all the individual bits of running a service – software, platform, infrastructure, storage, hosting, billing, scaling and more – into a single, standardised, comparable offer. Essentially, it is the message to the engineers that nobody cares about the details, the individual twiddly bits, and clients want one unified package of hosting something that is actually used by a user. Economically, it is another critical step towards massive standardisation of IT operations, making procurement easier because all relevant bits are integrated, and improving competition by making the offers of various providers comparable. We should expect average service prices per user to fall, pretty dramatically, and especially fixed cost overhead in companies that formerly self-hosted to go down as well. In a couple of years, owning your own metal might sound like getting milk delivered to your door in cans.

It helped that Christian Verstraete from HP opened with a detailed overview of OpenStack. It showed the audience that there is a strong convergence of the market towards one free software solution, with backing from 95% of the relevant industry players. A standard test similar to the JavaScript Acid test can be expected to emerge for compatibility between offerings by different cloud providers. With that, migrating from one provider to another should pose no technical issues, only contractual ones. Based on the ForgeRock experience, Lasse Andresen underlined that by stressing that solutions have to be completely free software, not open-core. And the fact that if there is a well-adopted Open Source solution, it cannot easily be killed. In this, the freedoms provided by the licenses do prove useful – companies may fail, but the technology remains.

So far, that was all good, but not very law-related. Things became interesting from a legal point of view when Patrice-Emmanuel Schmitz opened the panel, with his background as one of the authors of the European Union Public Licence. However, he summarised the issues of current licenses and the debate of what distribution or conveying software means for web services, and it seems like that is still mostly murky. The concentration of services into cloud offerings has led to the rise of new licenses (a trend nobody was hoping for, considering the mess of tons of mostly identical not-invented-here licenses that were used a couple of years back). The underlying problem, though, is fundamental: Open Source licensing is based on copyright, which governs reproduction, distribution, adaption and performance of a copyrighted creation. None of these happen under auspices of the user of the site, and therefore there is no copyright relationship regarding the software between the site provider and the consumer. There is a remainder of code being distributed to the user, like JavaScript libraries. It is hard to construe a derivative work relationship between that code and the rest of the application that runs server-side, especially because these JavaScript libraries are often treated more like data than code and not even linked server-side at all. It is more similar to an client-side running interpreter than to a program part. If the web application is not a derivative work of the distributed libraries, the chain is broken, and a provider can claim not to be at fault with Open Sources licenses and not offer the source code for their modifications of the server application. The Affero GPL solves this problem partially by requiring the provider to offer the source code to the user when it is run on the server. This again ties the licensing to an element of the copyright rights bundle, performing. But it leaves a trace of a bad taste, because now there is a problem of proof – the user usually does not know what software was involved in rendering a response. Also, not all server software is licensed under the AGPL or similar licenses.

Contributing to Open Source is not something people do just because the license says so, but because they are somehow driven to collaborate. Web applications can still benefit from the Open Source way. What is different is that for libraries and applications, what the licenses are modelled for, users and developers are effectively treated the same and the distinction only exists in what they do. For web applications, users do not necessarily acquire a right to use, study, modify and improve the source code even if the developers published their product under a copyleft license. This is the norm that made it fun and enjoyable to contribute to Open Source projects. New norms and governance setups should be designed to maintain that situation and thus keep the motivation of contributors (individuals as well as institutions) intact. Compliance should be the norm by now, and I hope that the distrust sometimes underlying the relation – “Are they really showing all the software that is running?” will be a thing of the past.

Many thanks to the organisers!


Google+

KDE rejects Fairsearch initiative claims: Free Software is competitive

The Fairsearch initiative is a Microsoft-led consortium that aims at activating European policy makers to indirectly achieve a competitive advantage against Google’s dominance as a search engine. Its recent complaint to the European Commission raised serious concerns in the Free Software ecosystem by calling the distribution of Android at below-cost anti-competitive behaviour and predatory pricing. While the methods with which companies compete for the market share of their search offerings are not relevant to software freedom, every Free Software platform is distributed below cost. Creating Free Software is not free, and a price of zero will never cover cost. The issue was quickly picked up by FSFE and other parties, and now the KDE community approached the European Commission about the issue. The response is available here, and also in PDF format. The KDE response was announced on the Dot.

Some reviewers have taken issue with the aspect that by opposing the Fairsearch claim of anti-competitive behaviour, we are endorsing Google’s strategies to promote the use of their services, including search and others. It is important to understand that there are two separate components to Fairsearch’s claims – one where Fairsearch complains about Google’s behaviour, and one where it lobbies against the distribution of a Free Software platform. As a community, only the latter is of relevance to us. We are neither endorsing nor condemning other actions of the parties involved in the debate. We do care about Software Freedom, and that is where Fairsearch crossed the line.

KDE Community Working Group is looking for a new member

The KDE Community Working Group is crucial to KDE’s open and inviting culture. It’s mission is to maintain an environment in which contributors feel welcome and get their work done comfortably. The Community Working Group is looking for a new person to join it after one of it’s long term team members recently resigned. Continue reading