Articles by Braden Cox

Braden Cox formerly wrote for the TLF.

Follow @

FLOSS: The Software Hare that Beats the Proprietary Turtle?

by Braden Cox on March 9, 2007 · 12 comments

Here’s another installment in my series of blog posts analyzing the European Commission’s free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) report. In prior posts, I’ve discussed how the report is a call to action for Europe’s policymakers, that FLOSS’s popularity is growing, and that many FLOSS developers live in the EU. In short, the report contains ambitious policy proposals to transform Europe’s ICT sector through industrial policies — I’ve called it the new Airbus project for the European economy. As I get further into the report, however, I’m becoming more skeptical of the report’s overall claim that open source software can rescue Europe’s software industry.

Here’s why – the authors go to the extreme to show FLOSS in a good light, without giving much emphasis to how FLOSS has so far achieved its growing and respected status. Why do I care? Well, I haven’t read much critique on the report, and it’s often fun to be the dissenting voice. And I’m sick of hearing that open source software will rescue the planet from the evils of commercial software and the capitalist system that spawned it. I know that TLF readers are savvy enough to stay away from such absolute statements, but many others in the blogosphere aren’t.

Moreover, at the public policy level, there’s a lot of confusion I’m anxious to clear up between open source the license and the community development model that will often characterize open source software. Finally, I’m becoming more interested in free and open source software on a personal level, which can be technically challenging and at times overwhelming.

So…here I’ll analyze the report’s claim in Section 7 that “FLOSSers Work Faster”.

Continue reading →

12 comments

There must be a pony in here somewhere…

by Braden Cox on March 8, 2007

The recent TLF podcast touched on the way that states and state AGs are actively trying to regulate social networking and e-commerce sites. My colleague Steve DelBianco recently testified on this issue before the New Jersey General Assembly, and his testimony is a good read. He writes about three rules for state legislators to keep in mind when attempting to regulate e-commerce:

As a firm believer in the benefits of the Internet, I often feel like that little boy who was asked why he was digging through a huge pile of horse manure and responded with a smile, “Well there must be a pony in here somewhere.”

Lawmakers need to understand that e-commerce, instant communication, and global information sharing are worth digging for. To help them do that I offer a simple three-part formula: consumer education, industry responsibility, and law enforcement.

Rule number one – regulate behavior, not technology.

Rule number two – don’t smother the Internet under a patchwork quilt of conflicting state laws.

Rule number three — watch out for special interest legislation.

It’s Time to Liberalize International Air Travel

by Braden Cox on March 8, 2007

Who doesn’t want Ryanair and its cheap flights (passengers often just pay taxes and fees on sale prices) to offer the same fares domestically in the U.S.? Well, based on current law, our government doesn’t. And as I’ve said before on NPR’s Kojo Nnamdi Show, in an article for CEI’s Monthly Planet, and while moderating a panel discussion, the regulation of international air travel must change.

Unfortunately, cabotage rights that prohibit European airlines like Ryanair from operating on American domestic routes are not on the bargaining table. But a bilateral U.S. – EU “open skies” deal that was provisionally agreed to on March 2 should be approved, even if it’s only, as is said in an Economist article, “baby steps.”

The airline industry has much in common with other network industries such as railroads, electrical power, and telecommunications. The airline industry remains heavily regulated despite partial deregulation with the 1978 Airline Deregulation Act, especially with international travel.

Like all network industries, the air travel sector involves both flows and a grid. The flows are the mobile system elements: the airplanes, the trains, the power, the messages, etc. The grid is the infrastructure over which these flows move: the airports and air traffic control system, the tracks and stations, the wires and cables, the electromagnetic spectrum, and so on. Network efficiency depends critically on the close coordination of grid and flow operating and investment decisions.

Consumers would benefit if governments would get out of the way and allow the market to determine international routes, just as U.S. consumers benefited when the 1978 Act allowed the market to determine the number and frequency of domestic routes.

If You Can’t Be with the ICANN You Love, then Love the ICANN You’re With

by Braden Cox on March 7, 2007

It was a symphony of togetherness at a recent ICANN symposium at the University of the Pacific School of Law. One presenter titled his paper on Internet governance after the Beatles song "We Can Work It Out." And when commenting on a paper about "enhanced cooperation," I paraphrased the Stephen Stills song – if you can’t be with the ICANN you love, then love the ICANN you’re with. And most agreed. The takeaway from the conference was that we should work within ICANN’s current institutional
framework for better management of the domain name system (DNS), but at the same time ensure that the U.S. (or any) government treat ICANN as an
independent, private-sector entity.

Continue reading →

EC FLOSS Report Installment #3: Where are the FLOSS Developers?

by Braden Cox on February 20, 2007

Based on my prior post that analyzes Section 6 of the European Commission’s FLOSS report, we know that there is a growing and in many cases strong private and public sector demand for certain FLOSS applications. This leads the authors to the question of supply? Where are the FLOSS developers?

Based on two developer surveys (MERIT/FP5 and FLOSS-US
Stanford), the report argues that more than three fifths of the worldwide
FLOSS developer community live in the EU. One fifth live in North America and another one fifth live in other countries (p.37). The report relies on this and other data to persuade the EC to adopt an industrial open source policy.

While the authors may be overstating the point for effect
(the different data sets do not always show Europe leading and many Asian
developers are not counted), it is pretty clear that Europe is a leader in global community of FLOSS developers.

However, as I say below the fold, the authors gloss over some important developer community distinctions that may harm their later conclusions:

Continue reading →

Will the EU Adopt FLOSS to Better Compete Against the U.S.?

by Braden Cox on February 16, 2007 · 2 comments

Here’s another installment of my analysis of the voluminous Free/Libre/Open Source Software (FLOSS) report issued by the European Commission. In my last blog post, I discussed how the EC’s
report is a call to action for Europe’s policymakers. The ambitious proposals in the report aim to do for Europe’s ICT industry what the Airbus project did for Europe’s aeronautics industry.

This realization makes the report less about open source software, and more about industrial policy (not necessarily in a bad way).

If you’re going to have industrial policy, however, you need the industry. In Section 6–FLOSS Role in the Economy: Market Share and Geography–the authors argue that Europe has both parts of a successful FLOSS industry equation: developers and users. This section is not a “build it and they will come” proposition; rather, the
authors proclaim to policymakers “build FLOSS apps because FLOSS developers are
already here.”

In the first of two posts about Section 6, I analyze the report’s discussion of the kinds of FLOSS use in Europe and the rest of the world.

How Popular is FLOSS?

It is an undeniable fact that the use of free and open source software is growing rapidly throughout the world and in Europe. In some cases, FLOSS software applications are even outpacing all of their proprietary competitors. Section 6 provides statistics and data from dozens of sources to back this up.

Read my full analysis over at the ACT blog.

2 comments

Georgia Hearing on Social Networking Bill

by Braden Cox on February 9, 2007 · 2 comments

Yesterday I testified before a joint House/Senate Science & Technology committee of the Georgia General Assembly. SB 59 would make it illegal for a social networking site like MySpace to give minor children access without permission from a parent. It would also give parents surreptitious access to their children’s pages.

My testimony mirrors that of Adam’s recent post detailing how industry is responding to online safety concerns. Parents and children both need to use existing resources and tools and educate themselves about online safety.

We don’t need to government to enact “regulation 2.0” to keep up with web 2.0. There are serious authentication and privacy issues implicated by the Georgia bill. We can stay safe online without new legislation.

2 comments

EC FLOSS Study Introduction: Adopt FLOSS, Innovate, and Beat the U.S.

by Braden Cox on February 1, 2007 · 3 comments

Last week, my organization, ACT, announced its intention to scour the European
Commission’s FLOSS
report and read and analyze this lengthy (and heavy) 287 page study. The goal: go beyond the executive summary and provide an in-depth analysis of the report, and in the process initiate a real conversation about the paper and its conclusions. As the recent
disputes over the report suggest, informed analysis is still sorely needed.

In a nutshell, the authors of the UNU-Merit report argue that an aggressive commitment to FLOSS – Free/Libre/Open Source Software – will provide an innovative spark for the EU. Using what the authors suggest is Europe’s competitive advantage in open source developers, the European ICT industry will be able to better compete with America’s tech leaders.

It is a provocative and ambitious strategy. But is it sound? If the EU desires to adopt FLOSS as its competitive advantage in ICT, would the data and proposals presented in the UNU-MERIT study help? How do they authors support their strategy in the 274 pages that follow the executive summary?

Those are some of the key questions I hope to answer in the coming weeks. Starting with Section 6 next week, we’ll analyze the report section by section, identifying the value but also the pitfalls of the report.

I’m also looking forward to constructive feedback from TLF readers. The report implicates software licensing models, market analysis, innovation, immigration, antitrust/competition policy, interoperability, and even society/culture. It’s impossible to be an expert on everything! But the long and the short of it is that the paper and its policy implications deserve to be topics of conversation, not just bits of rhetoric.

Full commentary on sections 2 through 5 of the study (essentially the paper’s introduction and reason for being) is here.

3 comments

No UN Aspirations for Supreme Internet Governor (For Now)

by Braden Cox on January 15, 2007

The International Telecommunication Union has elected its new Secretary-General to a four-year term. Hamadoun Toure recently said that the United Nations will not try to take the lead in determining the
future of the Internet.

The Mercury News reports that Toure said:

It is not my intention to take over the governance of the Internet. There is no one single issue that can be dealt with by one organization
alone.

This is good news for those (like me) that feared aggressive UN posturing to create a "superstructure" regulatory presence over all things Internet. The reality is that what we conceptually view as "the Internet" is actually a multitude of technical layers that would be difficult-if not impossible-to regulate under one governmental body.

Continue reading →

MLK–Let [Technology Help] Freedom Ring

by Braden Cox on January 15, 2007

I spent this morning reading and listening to King’s speeches, and it got me a thinkin’…what if King had the power of the Internet to help spread his message? King was a gifted orator, and his impassioned yet precisely measured delivery hits at the most visceral of levels. Just think of the YouTube possibilities….

One doesn’t have to have been alive in 1963 to understand King’s “I Have a Dream” speech. It’s about fundamental human dignity. King was dreaming back to 1776, when Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence of certain unalienable rights – Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. King was also dreaming back to 1863, when Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address proclaimed that our country would have a second chance at freedom, “that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom–and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.”

It’s enough to make a technology liberator think that compared to King’s fight for basic human dignity, squabbling over “technology freedoms” – copyright and patent reform, restrictive FCC rules, and even King’s estate’s copyright suit against CBS, etc. – pales by comparison. And it would be ridiculous to say otherwise. But technology can help disseminate information more quickly – information about race-related police beatings, government abuse of civil liberties, and other violations of peoples’ rights.

And as is often the case for those of us here at the Tech Liberation Front fighting for technology freedom, King was mainly dreaming of the future:

I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.

Freedom would have been ringing from Stone Mountain of Georgia and Lookout Mountain of Tennessee more quickly, I think, if the Web of today existed in the 1950s and 60s. But today’s Internet is helping to bring the fight for freedom globally, and technology has the possibility to spread King’s message in new ways to people in China and other authoritarian regimes.

Here’s King’s “I Have a Dream” speech: