1. Building free software with
Based on Debian GNU/Linux
For students at UiO Nov 15'th
project manager Knut Yrvin Nov Foils are GPL'ed

2. Skolelinux-project as an example
A complete ICT-solution for the schools
network architecture out of the box
operational concept
digital user profile
OpenOffice and 75 user programs
Made on our mother tongue with the schools curriculum in mind
Made for the school budget 2

3. The basic idea
Pupils interested in technical, under-the-hood things – could learn by example – from source code written by expert programmers
Using our own mother thong when travelling on the information highway
Get more ICT-equipment and programs, and less time with maintenance. More for less 3

4. ICT at school is really about:
Using the system to send drawings to school classes in other countries. Learning to express, sharing and learn.
The system is used to make music, to read, gather information or decode words (in lower grades).
It's not about office-administration with office-products! 4

5. Some characteristics Started as an voluntary effort 2. July 2001
Contribution is over man-hours from ~ 200 developers, translators and writers from July 2001 until May 2004
More than 14 developer gatherings with 20 until 190 participants
11 in Norway with local Skolelinux-development
3 Internationally in Norway, Germany and Brazil
The version system “is our project” 5

6. Who is behind Skolelinux (aka Debian-edu)
SLX Debian Labs (a foundation)
A part of the Debian project
3-4 man years
A member organisation
It's own border
120 active developers
30 over active developers
> 20 translators 6

7. > 250 Skolelinux-schools
Hardware vendors: its many more 7

8. Maintenance cost 5 municipalities 2008
Service support and service delivery, cost/PC

9. practical and technical issues involved in the sharing of applications
technology, licensing issues, and the role of the development community

10. Free software development
Developers identified
Users identified
EXTERNAL AND FREE SOFTWARE
DEVELOPMENT
Users identified
Developers identified
COMPETITIVELY BID
CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT
Users identified
Developers identified
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Developers identified
Users identified
IN-HOUSE AND
CUSTOM DEVELOPMENT
Time
Project Start
System Delivered
Enables it's true power when code is reused with others
Jonathan Grudin: The development of interactive systems

11. Traditional SW-development makes gaps
User
Software development
User
Mediator
User
Mediator
Mediator
User
Mediator
Mediator
Mediator
Mediator
Developer
Mediator
Mediator
Mediator
Mediator
Developer
Developer
Developer
The early days
Today
Where does user participation goes?

12. Narrow the distance between developer and user with free sw
Software development
Mediator
Mediator
User
Mediator
Developer
Mediator
Mediator
Mediator
Mediator
Developer
Today
The future
Reuse of code can reintroduce user participation

13. Bridging the gap between developer and user
It's a social organizational issue, and a licensing issue where traditional software-development and proprietary contracts don't support what's in the users interest.
You get a world of mediators
The users and developers interests are marginalized

14. The ownership to the code

15. The licence regulates the development process
LGPL/GPL ensures reuse
Work and code can be sold
code with a user friendly license +
development and tailoring from user requirement (what you are programming) ...
LGPL allowes linking to proprietary code -
FreeBSD can lead to loss of the right to reuse, and prohibits some possibilities to merge code
Made for reuse

16. Shared Source MS CE Licence 1.0
Microsoft has sole right to sell your work
They can demand that you give them your work if they want it
You have to work for MS with no pay
You aren't allowed to sell your work or your code -
development and tailoring from user requirement (what you are programming) ...
Prohibits linking to source-code from other parties with other licences
Use and throw

17. What's in it for me? Increase the opportunities for making
Proprietary value chain
The free value chain
Development
with use and throw solutions
Purchasing proprietary software
Purchasing proprietary software
Development with reused software
Reuse
Reuse
Increase the opportunities for making
systems that the users ask for

18. Faster, Better, and Cheaper
Free/Open Source Software Development (F/OSSD) often entails shorter development times that can produce higher quality systems, and incur lower costs than may be realized through developing systems according Software Engineering (SE) techniques. [...]
Internet time and F/OSSD projects also tend to produce incremental software releases at a much faster rate, even to the point of releasing unstable but operational daily system builds. This denotes not only a reduction in product release cycle times compared to SE practice, but also a significantly restructured life cycle process and process cycle time reduction.
Walt Scacchi from Institute for Software Research University of California, Irvine 18

19. When the negotiators focuses on shrink wrap licence discounts
They ignored the rest of the software life-cycle, that cost at least 95% of the ICT-budget
They do not shown any interest in the user requirements – that pretty obvious when excluding competitive bids, and costume development
They really discriminate on business-models, and favourites shrink wrap products purchasing from proprietary companies as e.g Microsoft
The ICT-staff really says:
yes, we pay more and get less
we don't involve in the users demands 19

20. two disturbing observations
The ICT-staffs that is not saddling up with competence to handle Open Source has to cut their staff with the cost of proprietary licences (about 10-15% cuts in staff in Akershus county council). Why didn't they do anything two years ago?
The politician will take control and dismiss the Microsoft friendly advice from the ICT-staff. This will be done almost solely as a budget question. Often the the politicians is agreeing on this unanimously from the left to the right of the political scale - and then ICT-staff ask us what to do ...
We told EU this in Jun Jun 2005 the
politician took control with the plan eNorge 2009 20

21. Real F/OSS effort is about
Using the F/OSS development methods and tools
It costed us dearly when the County Councils did not release the OpenOffice-translations
Using Purchasing Requirements that don't discriminate: Universal Design Requirements
You can't just say: We want open source, and then by it as you did from your proprietary vendor
Using Reference Implementations with running and maintained code (FEIDE is on sourceforge)
Please don't reinvent Open Source development methods. You are not that good ... 21

22. Have to obey
All code, translations and documentation has to be committed to the Concurrent Versions System on Internet
Bugs has to be committed to the bug-tracking system
Commit everything upstream. That means release often running code
Follow the licence-terms
The person who does something decides
Help people to help them selves
Do-ocracy 22

23. This makes financing difficult
Our experiences
More easy to organize open source projects because of the openness, but:
The negotiators for 530 public sector offices and municipalities: «Your effort is the best documented, way ahead of the competitors, almost scientific – and you have the best price»
But we could not use your service-model for software. You have to use Microsoft's business-model – selling shrink wrap-packages
This makes financing difficult 23

24. Q & A 24

25. The most expensive part when introducing F/OSS
«The larges cost was to use time on convincing the persons govern the money – and other administrative persons that gave them advice»
Frode Stiansen, ICT-responsible teacher at Birkenlund primary school in the city of Arendal 25