Certified Open - a potential certification process for Europe?

Alex Hudson home at alexhudson.com
Tue Jun 27 10:48:27 UTC 2006

On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 10:58 +0100, Shane M. Coughlan wrote:
> I do apologise if I am confused and now perpetuate the confusion, but
> the Certified Open Product Framework (in the section 'Business Model')
> states: "The product should be made available to clients under an
> agreement that is compatible with the Open Source Definiton published by
> OSI."

Right, but this is weighted 3 marks out of 38. You can get 0 marks
there, which would mean you don't get a rating in that category, but
still get the 90%+ overall which qualifies you for Certified Open "Gold"

Also, you could always say that you'd make it available to clients on a
cost basis (raises pinky; "one miiiillion dollars!") which would net you
a Certified Open Bronze in that category.

Maybe I've misunderstood the marking scheme, but it doesn't look to me
like being "open source" is a requirement, just a feature which can get
you some extra points. 

> What Certified Open actually is at this juncture appears to be a vague
> idea and an aspiration, albeit one backed by a well-funded group.

Well, indeed.

I would recommend anyone thinking about it actually look at the scheme
and see what's there. 

> I do think that Certified Open needs to be engaged with so that it won't
> damage Free Software (and open source) in Europe or cause an awful mess
> and confusion.  At the very least I feel an attempt at constructive
> engagement is worthwhile.  It's possible that a lot of the nastiest bits
> of the current framework are due to oversight and lack of direct knowledge.

You have more optimism than me, then. OFE and the others have had more
than enough time to develop this, and they're supposed to be
knowledgeable about this area - lack of oversight doesn't really cut it.
They also claim community engagement, which as far as I can see is
rubbish (perhaps it's different in other countries). 

> Given that they are going ahead with this, it would be nice if they went
> ahead with a more FOSS friendly version.

It would be nice; but I don't think we need to care. I don't see it
being a successful scheme anyway - maybe when they finish it I'll look
again, but at the moment it's worthless.

Good luck with your attempts, though ;)



More information about the Discussion mailing list