Forget now about labels and conventions: there is not such thing as free software, like there is not such thing as free speech. There are free developers and free speakers, and they are the ones setting the limits of freedom of their products and actions. If they are not free, how free can be the result of their actions?

The license and contribution policy of a piece of open source software might tell something about how free it is. What is really useful though is to look at the levels of openness and freedom in the organization that develops, integrates and distributes that code.

How open is an organization? Consider this checklist as a barometer:

Identity

• Clear mission - Full disclosed objectives.
• Declared commitments - Affinities and aversions explained.
• Explicit connections outside - Relationships with other organizations listed.

Structure

• Horizontal organization - Teams and facilitators work on responsibilities and agreements.
• Identified contributors - Who is who, people is reachable.
• Clear responsibilities - Who is in charge or what.
• Activities described - All the ongoing work is acknowledged.

Operation

• Open participation - Anybody can access the information and get a first responsibility.
• Meritocracy - Responsibilities are acquired (or lost) based on own skills and contributors’ support.
• Voluntary (non-)engagement - Nobody is forced to be involved or to keep responsibilities.

Information

• Regular reports - Reported activities and future plans allow monitoring and participation.
• Information accessible - Even internal operational information is available by default.
• Explicit confidentiality - It is explained what areas are confidential, why and who access them.

Goods

• Economic model - Feasibility and sustainability plans are exposed.
• Resources - Inventory of items detailing who contributed what and why.
• Public accounts - It’s clear where the money comes from and where it goes.

How was your rating?

All this came to mind because it is in the organizational setting where the average corporation collides with the average open source community, and compromises need to be made from both sides. The result in many cases is the creation of a third way picking elements from both contexts, like maemo today. How open is maemo? How open could and should it be?

The debate about Sun trying to do the right thing has jumped to maemo and is evolving interestingly. Nokia is also trying to do the right thing, but this is a topic for another day. I just wanted to share an old text I wrote five years ago and never got the time to translate to English: El paradigma de la organización abierta.

Image by researchexchange (some rights reserved)

Are you going to LinuxTag this year? Berlin, end of May. Who would you like us to invite to discuss about maemo stuff [EDITED: on Thursday 29th]?

Many times when Nokia members like myself try to discuss further on open source involvement the argument on software patents comes back. For instance, in my last blog post about Connecting open source and mobile users - the Nokia plan. There are many good comments about patents in the thread. One puts it in the classical accusation:

> Why are Nokia’s representatives lobbying for software patents in the European
> Union and in various other locations?

If you care about the topic you can help by providing more precision and data in the accusation and the demands: Is Nokia really lobbying for software patents nowadays? Which countries are we talking about apart from the EU? What does “lobbying” exactly mean? What would you find reasonable about Nokia dealing with software patents?

A FFII report made four years ago seems to be the source of the complaints, but what was that action and where it stands today? Are there more original sources to look at? Searching the Internet most of the stuff seems to be echoes and opinions resonating each other and sometimes linking to the original FFII source.

All this is what I’m investigating these days. I’m no expert in the topic but I’m familiar with the No Software Patents campaign, I know some of the colleagues involved in Intellectual Property at Nokia and I have this journalist background so helpful sometimes. After a first round I’m quite optimistic seeing progress on this issue only by communicating more and better what is Nokia actually thinking and doing about software patents.

Some basic hints about the topic I found interesting to learn about:

• There are traditional patents on engineering inventions (i.e. hardware) that are out of question in the No Software Patents discussion. Then there are purely software patents - the matter discussed. But there are also patents on software-interacting-with-hardware which in the case of Nokia, a company shipping devices with software inside, are very relevant. The boundaries between these boxes are not always clear.
• Nokia is patenting software, just like the rest of its direct competitors do. Software patents do exist at least in the United States and not following that game can be so expensive (companies shipping patented features have to pay the owners of the patents) to rule you practically out of the market. The patent game might bring you to court and probably to huge indemnifications… probably not if you are a free software developer hacking for fun but surely if you are a wealthy company with successful products sold in boxes in the market. Search for patent litigation in the IT industries (many of the big companies you know have been to court because of this) and you will see the numbers.
• There are basically two attitudes for a company when playing the patent game: preventive and aggressive. Preventive means that you patent in order to make your own products getting some advantage and being well positioned when it comes to make compensation roundups with your competitors. Aggressive means that you use patents as a primary mean to damage competitors or even make a business around patent pledges. Nokia plays preventive, and specially when it comes to deal with the open source community the strategy is not to be aggressive at all. There was this formal precedent: Nokia announces patent support to the Linux Kernel. Beyond press releases, the respect about the achievements of open source development is part of our daily work (contributing Nokia to this open source success as well).

Let’s move forward in this debate. No need to campaign or flames: good arguments are enough. I’m also happy facilitating the contact between the organizations working against software patents and the right people at Nokia. I’m sure already today there are less discrepancies than most people think, and any exchange will be fruitful.

Image by takomabibelot (some rights reserved).

Check out Nokia’s point of view on What Mobile Users Need and How Open Source Can Help, in the words of Ari Jaaksi (listen - read - slides). Building upstream following community rules is in the heart of this plan. This is what Nokia has been doing, learning and contributing back a lot. Now it’s time to dive deeper.

More to come. If you have questions or proposals just shot.

Image: Dive into summer, by Ben McLeod (some rights reserved)

Next week I’m flying to San Francisco to take part in the Open Source in Mobile USA conference and spend some extra days meeting people in the Bay Area. My role in product management at Nokia is evolving and I’m taking more responsibilities over open source in general, beyond the maemo development platform.

Ari Jaaksi (director of Open Source Operations) has a talk on Wednesday morning: Understanding What Mass Market Mobile Users Need and How Mobile Open Source Solutions can Help Achieve This. Kate Alhola (maemo support in Forum Nokia + tablet hacker herself) will be attending as well, along with other California based work mates.

There is already an informal meeting being cooked around GNOME Mobile on Tuesday at lunchtime. I’m happy organizing something informal i.e. a maemo dinner to discuss and laugh in that way no email or blog can beat. Let me know if you are interested, here in the comments or at quim dot gil nokia com. This is an open proposal, not even tied to the conference. maemo love / interest is just enough!