May 25

Despite being an open-source stalwart, I’m ashamed to admit that I’ve always had something of a love-hate relationship with Apple. In the ’80s, I owned – and still do own – an original Apple IIe along with a real hard drive and two 5.25in floppy drives. It was inherited from the video shop that I worked in, and I put it and its immense customer database to all kinds of nefarious uses. But eventually I moved on to the upland pastures of colour displays, 880kB of storage on a 3.5in disk and four-channel sound. All thanks to Commodore.

In the ’90s, Apple’s expensive and closed hardware meant that an upgrade was never on the cards. This was now the world of Windows, of cheap hardware and modular upgrades. It was the time when Microsoft solidified its dominance, and the time that many of us were looking for a more open alternative. Developing applications on Windows was expensive, especially if you wanted to share the source code. That left us with only one option: Linux. And I’ve never looked back.

But I’ve continued to follow, and occasionally invest in, the progress of Apple, especially in recent years. The move to Intel and a BSD-based operating system has made OS X eminently more hackable, and Linux-
based open-source applications are far easier to build and port to OS X than they are to Windows. This has helped make the venerable MacBook Pro one of the most common laptops in use at open-source and Linux conventions, despite Apple’s obsessive control of the hardware. Apple, for many, has become an acceptable compromise for those who believe in free software but still want a machine that can resume from hibernation without the need to build a custom kernel.

But it’s the iPhone, and now the iPad, that has built a brick wall of division between what most of us are willing to ignore, and what Apple hopes will become their ultimate cash cow. Both are the result of a singular, draconian vision, the antithesis of what the open-source community represents. This isn’t a bad thing in itself, especially when the results leave a lot of free software products wanting. The interfaces of iPhone apps tend to be refined, simple and intuitive. The apps are consistent, responsive and cheap. Our parents could use an iPad without fear of viruses, malware and updates. For almost all the same reasons I’ve been telling them to switch to Linux, they can now switch to Apple for about the same cost.

But doing so is a pact with the devil, because you’re forgoing technical complexity in exchange for loss of freedom. This is the reason for Richard Stallman’s GNU manifesto. And while there’s little doubt that Apple’s enforced gateway to new applications has helped to make it a success, it’s this subtle trade of simplicity for complicity that is perhaps the biggest threat to free software in 10 years.

My fears were proven when Apple recently changed clauses 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 in its developer’s agreement, stopping programmers linking to third-party APIs. Its motivation may have been to halt apps using Adobe’s new Flash-based building tools, but it could also stop applications using open source-based frameworks such as MonoTouch and SDL. Apple refuses to clarify what will and will not be allowed through its vetting procedure. Presumably Electronic Arts games will still be allowed to use the LUA scripting engine, for example, while many independent developers aren’t going to know whether their approach is acceptable until they submit their app for review.

This type of business plan shows the very worst of what closed-source development has to offer, and exactly what open-source software blossomed to combat. But we can’t fight it with rhetoric and positive spin while our hardware and applications aren’t as good as those from closed systems. Public development and public scrutiny should lead to a better, more usable and more stable product. It worked for Linux servers and desktops, but it hasn’t worked for mobile devices yet. This is the challenge for free software developers.

It’s going to be tough, but this point in time probably marks the biggest opportunity for free software to prove its worth. It’s going to be a simple battle between closed, proprietary development on a single platform, and open innovation on open hardware. Open-source developers need to rise to the challenge or face a future that will be closed to collaboration, community and conscience.

May 23

Senior Reporter and Head of Information and Communications Technology
(ICT) desk at Champion Newspapers Limited, Lagos-Nigeria has bagged
the first-ever African Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) Reporter’s
award.
Recieving the award which was the first of its kind by the Free and Open Source
Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA) and Digital Commons,Remmy said that there was need for Journalists to report on FOSS issues for the development of the African software industry.

The award was presented to him in Accra, Tuesday night, at the weeklong 4TH Idlelo conference organized by FOSSFA, Digital Commons and Deutsche Welle, colourful dinner hosted at the Council of State House, Accra.

Speaking at the ceremony, chairperson, FOSSFA, Nnenna Nwakanma
noted that the award was open to Africans living on the continent,
authors of articles or broadcasts that were published or aired in the
last two years.

Winning entries, she pointed out was an article described as valuable
to an African audience, which showed clarity in communication and
significantly disclosing, explaining, interpreting and reporting the
impact of FOSS on the development of Africa and recognizing
newsworthiness thereof.

Therefore, she said that Nweke’s piece on ‘Open Source as a business
solution’ meant the aforementioned criterion based on the juries
declaration and therefore, was pronounced the best.

She also promised that FOSSFA would continue to support African media
practitioners, even as she solicited for more reportage in African
media.

Nweke is not new to professional recognitions as he had in the
past won the Siemens African Profile Award for 2004 and 2005; thus
becoming the first Nigerian to win such award on excellence in science
and technology reporting twice in addition to a merit awarded him in
2008.

He is also a Highway Africa News Agency (HANA) journalist recently rebranded based at Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa, where he won the second prize in Local Content Application category at the African Information Society Initiative (AISI) awards in 2005 organized by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa
(ECA) based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

In 2006, Nweke was honoured with the Hewlett Packard (HP) Nigeria’s
top prize for Nigerian ICT journalists in technology reporting,
whereas he was the first runner up in the Nigerian IT & Telecom Awards
print category.

Currently, a Master of Arts student of University of Malta in
Contemporary Diplomacy, Nweke was at the Global Knowledge Partnership
(GKP-07) in Malaysia, where he took the second prize in ICT Research
and Innovations category of AISI.

While at the 10th Highway Africa conference-06, he was adjudged the
SABC-HANA Journalist of the Year in recognition and promotion of
creative, innovative and appropriate use of new media technology on
the continent, even as he emerged the Publicity Secretary, Nigeria
Internet Group (NIG) a not-profit organisation.

A founding member of the Joint Action Committee on ICT Awareness
(JACITAD) and focal point for the African ICTMedia for Nigeria,
Nweke, last year was nominated into the International WHO’S WHO of
Professionals in 2009 Edition.

Nweke is also a member of the New Media team a Live Blogging African team English content creator.

May 06

The run up to this election has seen politicians promoting themselves more via Twitter feeds or Facebook groups than by kissing babies in the street. Clearly this shows us technophiles that today’s politicians are embracing the internet age – or does it? How much of this is just posturing? Did the empty seats in the House of Commons during the debate over the Digital Economy Act indicate that most MPs didn’t understand the Act’s impact, or that they just didn’t care? We decided to find out just what technology policies the different parties are offering, and interviewed the people who will be writing the tech manifesto for their parties if they win the election. There are some impressive claims being bandied about.

Parliament could have a very different look depending on your vote. (Parliamentary images reproduced with permission of Parliament)

Labour has been very vocal about its technology policies, not least its Digital Economy Act. This gives the government the right to block sites infringing copyright and ban downloaders from accessing the internet. They are also championing rolling out high-speed internet (well, 2Mbps) for everyone by 2012 and “superfast” 100Mbps broadband for 90 per cent of the population by 2017.

The Conservatives also want super-fast broadband for most of the country (which would be achieved by opening up BT’s infrastructure to other companies) and would reduce the corporation tax rate to encourage new technology businesses to set up in the UK.

The Liberal Democrats were vociferous in their opposition to the Digital Economy Act, and have plans to uphold net neutrality and overhaul copyright law. They too want high-speed broadband for all.

So just what are the most important tech policies for each party? Read on to see.

Conservative party

Jeremy Hunt, Shadow Secretary for Culture, Media and Sport told us: “Our key policy to promote the technology industry is to ensure that Britain has a modern, fast broadband infrastructure. We will deregulate the market and force BT to give access to its underground ducts and overhead telegraph poles to rival ISPs. This will allow ISPs to lay their own fibre at a lower cost, and a super-fast broadband-supporting fibre network will be established over much larger parts of the UK. Funding, where needed, would come from the Digital Switchover segment of the licence fee.”

What about the technological economy? “It’s vital that we encourage technology companies to set up in the UK. We’ll cut the headline rate of corporation tax to 25p or lower and the small companies’ rate to 20p, funded by reducing complex allowances.”

What in the Tories’ opinion have Labour got wrong? “An over reliance on massive-scale IT projects that have gone over budget and not been delivered on time. We will create a level playing field for open-source IT in government procurement and open up government IT contracts to [smaller companies] by breaking up large IT projects into smaller components.”

  • Super-fast broadband for all: Will deregulate the market and open up BT’s infrastructure to competitors. Paid for using the Digital Switchover section of the BBC licence fee.
  • Right to data: Statistics like street-by-street crime levels and power consumption of Government buildings to be put online.
  • Government to use open-source IT: Cost of large-scale IT projects would be reduced.
  • Cap government IT projects at £100m: Would let smaller IT companies help out.
  • Corporation tax reduction: Corporation tax rate reduced to 25p to attract tech companies.

Labour Party

Ben Bradshaw, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport told us: “Labour wants Britain to be the world leader in the digital economy. We will create over 250,000 skilled jobs by 2020 and [become] the world leader in public service delivery. “We will ensure universal access to today’s broadband services at 2Mbps by 2012 – this will be delivered through upgrades to the existing networks and be supported with public funding including the underspend from the Digital Switchover Help scheme.”

“The Digital Economy Act is a key part of our active industrial strategy, helping us maintain and build on the digital economy. It ensures a competitive digital communications infrastructure [and] protects intellectual property. The Conservatives offered no practical solutions on [either] of these.”

Labour also has plans for a new technology institute: “The Institute of Web Science will be based in Britain and will work with government and business to realise the social and economic benefits of technological advances. It will assemble the best of the world’s scientists and researchers and be headed by Sir Tim Berners-Lee and the leading web science expert Professor Nigel Shadbolt.”

  • High-speed broadband: 2Mbps for all by 2012, paid for by a fixed telephone line levy of 50p a month. 100Mbps for 90 per cent of the country by 2017.
  • Government to use cloud computing: Would save £3.2billion annually
  • Digital Economy Act: Passed to provide a competitive digital communications infrastructure and protect intellectual property.
  • Home Access scheme: Reduce the number of non-internet users by 60 per cent by 2014.
  • Will increase scope of data.gov.uk: More previously private government data online.

Liberal Democrats

We asked Don Foster, Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, which Lib Dem policies would interest a PC Plus reader. “Our policies on broadband roll-out and extending IT skills, and the work we’ve done on the Digital Economy Bill,” he answered. “The more people who have the skills and access to make use of technology, the more useful it becomes.

“We do not believe that the country’s broadband infrastructure can be left solely to market forces, which is why we advocate an outside-in use of public funds to begin delivering broadband from day one to rural areas. The market will deliver the infrastructure in urban areas.”

How would the Liberal Democrats attract tech companies to the UK? “We support the proposed tax break for the video games industry and we will also tackle the growing burden of red tape, which continues to cost businesses increasing amounts of time.”

What was the current Government’s biggest technology mistake? “Not prioritising the Digital Economy Bill in debate. The Bill was an opportunity to ensure that everyone is able to take advantage of the opportunities presented by the internet. The government’s unwillingness to give the Bill the time necessary for proper parliamentary scrutiny shows how low in their priorities it sat.”

  • Superfast broadband for all: Would use public funds to get broadband for everybody available straight away.
  • Support for tech business: Tax breaks for video-games companies and high-tech industries to encourage growth.
  • Overhaul copyright law: Update laws to reflect the technology of modern-day society.
  • Support for net neutrality: Would strongly oppose blocking of internet sites.

Small parties with big tech policies

What do the smaller parties contending for parliamentary seats offer to people passionate about the web, computers and technology? We spoke to five and found out. We also asked which of the policies that the big three parties were proposing could, in their opinion, damage the internet and technological development.
During our fact-finding mission we found much of interest. The Communist Party want to make tech-literacy part of the educational process as they feel computers are no longer a luxury, but a necessity. The Green party think broadband should be a fixed-rate service available to all. The Pirate Party UK are all about free speech – and not just on the internet. They want to ensure that personal privacy is a priority of government and industry. Plaid Cymru want an ultra-fast national broadband network and the SNP aren’t sure the Digital Economy Act goes far enough. The last word goes to the Monster Raving Loony Party, who, when contacted said: “What on earth are you talking about? Don’t be so serious.”

Ben Stevenson, National Secretary, Communist Party

www.communist-party.org.uk

“There are IT-related issues important to us. We oppose the Digital Economy Act, a sop to international big business. We recognise the need for a far-reaching and proactive approach to ensure all citizens can access all aspects of technology. It’s obvious that the speed of the technological revolution has made basic access and experience in using computers and the internet a necessity. Britain’s Broadband speed currently ranks 17th in the world, 23 times slower than Japan. We need an integrated communications strategy to bridge the gap. Education is essential to ensuring that tech-literacy is considered a vital part of modern life in Britain. IT needs to be given greater prominence in the National Curriculum and to be fully integrated into all its aspects.”

Andy Robinson, Party Leader, Pirate Party

www.pirateparty.org.uk

“We don’t just know what technology is, we know how it works and how it has affected our society. In the modern age, existing copyright and patent laws do not make sense. Our policy is to shorten the duration of copyright to five years, and to allow the sharing of copyrighted material provided that no profit comes of it.

The Digital Economy Act is a terrible piece of legislation. It legitimises corporate spying on individuals, forces ISPs to throttle or even ‘suspend’ connections based only on allegations of infringement and allows copyright holders to demand ISPs censor websites on the flimsiest of evidence. PPUK is unquestionably against these policies.”

Caroline Lucas, Party Leader, Green Party

www.greenparty.org.uk

“The Green Party believes that the development of computer communications has reached the point where BT should have an obligation to provide broadband-capable infrastructure to every household. Funding for marginal ‘uneconomic’ lines may come from a small levy on every access line. The principle of universal access at the same base price to the household should prevail.

Many of us believe that [the Digital Economy Bill] threatens to infringe fundamental human rights through the disconnection of internet accounts and the new ‘website blocking’ laws could result in new ways to suppress free speech and legitimate activity.”

Lowri Jackson, Research and Policy, Plaid Cymru

www.plaidcymru.org

“Connecting Wales to the world digitally will encourage innovation and job creation. We believe that new technology must be harnessed to provide Wales with a strong voice on the global stage and to ensure that there are no communication ‘not spots’. We call for research into the construction of a super-fast national broadband network. We also support compulsory network sharing between mobile phone and broadband operators. Westminster can learn a lot from the National Assembly with its transparent and democratic processes. We’re also concerned about the threat to our civil liberties implied by increased internet monitoring, and will campaign for freedom of the internet.”

Pete Wishart, Culture and Broadcasting, Scottish National Party

www.snp.org

“While the ambition to secure universal broadband access is to be welcomed, more must be done to protect those who are working in our creative economy. Our creative industries contribute significantly to the economy and are a key route to economic recovery, yet protection for artists and creators remains an afterthought. Writing letters to persistent downloaders and threatening slower internet speeds seems a feeble response to the loss of millions of pounds of income to artists and creators. What is needed is a mixture of effective technical measures and creative solutions, but above all the political will to tackle this problem.”


Question time with the Pirate Party

For some political parties technology is the reason they exist, and it seems to be paying off. The Swedish Pirate Party caused a stir last year when it gained two seats in the European Parliament. The UK’s Pirate Party has the same three core platforms: reform copyright and patent law, end ‘excessive’ surveillance of innocent people and ensure ‘real’ freedom of speech. But all these issues have possible downsides. We asked Pirate Party UK’s leader Andy Robinson if its policies would actually work in the real world.

PCP: Surely reforming copyright and patent law will damage British businesses?

Andy Robinson: There are always winners and losers when any law changes. Reforming copyright law will reduce the power of record industry ‘rights-holders’ to dictate what music we get to hear and what we don’t. It will also benefit lesser-known musicians who don’t want to sign away future royalties to get their music heard. Reforming patent laws to fix problems like the ring-fencing of huge areas by overly broad patents will increase competition and reduce red-tape. A better regime would encourage manufacturing and design investment, boosting the economy at no cost to taxpayers.

Did you know it’s illegal to sing Happy birthday in public without paying a fee? The Pirate Party would like to put an end to this.

PCP: Isn’t surveillance central to UK security?

AR: A certain degree of surveillance is necessary, but we urgently need to set sensible limits on it. Vehicles are being tracked: the police’s automatic number plate recognition camera network takes 14 million photos a day. We need rules that say how much is too much, before we sleepwalk into a surveillance state.

PCP: One man’s freedom of speech is another man’s persecution. How do you intend to protect the weaker and less vocal in society from the strongest and loudest?

AR: New media outlets empower many of the people who were previously disempowered to have their say. The best counter to persecution is not censorship, but education. Teaching people to get together and stand up for themselves is far better than short-term measures taken just so politicians can be seen to be doing something. That said, we support current equality legislation banning unfair discrimination and would not change this policy.

PCP: Where do you stand on more prosaic issues like internet speed?

AR: Consumers have been complaining about this for years. We plan a system where payment will be based on the speed the user actually gets, not the advertised headline speed. Of course, we’ll be unable to achieve any of our aims, prosaic or otherwise, without votes or the support of donations through our site (www.ppuk.it/donate).