1 <?xml version=
"1.0" encoding=
"utf-8"?>
2 <rss version='
2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/
1.0/'
>
4 <title>Petter Reinholdtsen - Entries tagged standard
</title>
5 <description>Entries tagged standard
</description>
6 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/
</link>
10 <title>Time for an official MIME type for patches?
</title>
11 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Time_for_an_official_MIME_type_for_patches_.html
</link>
12 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Time_for_an_official_MIME_type_for_patches_.html
</guid>
13 <pubDate>Thu,
1 Nov
2018 08:
15:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
14 <description><p
>As part of my involvement in
15 <a href=
"https://gitlab.com/OsloMet-ABI/nikita-noark5-core
">the Nikita
16 archive API project
</a
>, I
've been importing a fairly large lump of
17 emails into a test instance of the archive to see how well this would
18 go. I picked a subset of
<a href=
"https://notmuchmail.org/
">my
19 notmuch email database
</a
>, all public emails sent to me via
20 @lists.debian.org, giving me a set of around
216 000 emails to import.
21 In the process, I had a look at the various attachments included in
22 these emails, to figure out what to do with attachments, and noticed
23 that one of the most common attachment formats do not have
24 <a href=
"https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml
">an
25 official MIME type
</a
> registered with IANA/IETF. The output from
26 diff, ie the input for patch, is on the top
10 list of formats
27 included in these emails. At the moment people seem to use either
28 text/x-patch or text/x-diff, but neither is officially registered. It
29 would be better if one official MIME type were registered and used
32 <p
>To try to get one official MIME type for these files, I
've brought
34 <a href=
"https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types
">the
35 media-types mailing list
</a
>. If you are interested in discussion
36 which MIME type to use as the official for patch files, or involved in
37 making software using a MIME type for patches, perhaps you would like
38 to join the discussion?
</p
>
40 <p
>As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
41 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
42 <b
><a href=
"bitcoin:
15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b
">15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b
</a
></b
>.
</p
>
47 <title>Release
0.2 of free software archive system Nikita announced
</title>
48 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Release_0_2_of_free_software_archive_system_Nikita_announced.html
</link>
49 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Release_0_2_of_free_software_archive_system_Nikita_announced.html
</guid>
50 <pubDate>Thu,
18 Oct
2018 14:
40:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
51 <description><p
>This morning, the new release of the
52 <a href=
"https://gitlab.com/OsloMet-ABI/nikita-noark5-core/
">Nikita
53 Noark
5 core project
</a
> was
54 <a href=
"https://lists.nuug.no/pipermail/nikita-noark/
2018-October/
000406.html
">announced
55 on the project mailing list
</a
>. The free software solution is an
56 implementation of the Norwegian archive standard Noark
5 used by
57 government offices in Norway. These were the changes in version
0.2
58 since version
0.1.1 (from NEWS.md):
61 <li
>Fix typos in REL names
</li
>
62 <li
>Tidy up error message reporting
</li
>
63 <li
>Fix issue where we used Integer.valueOf(), not Integer.getInteger()
</li
>
64 <li
>Change some String handling to StringBuffer
</li
>
65 <li
>Fix error reporting
</li
>
66 <li
>Code tidy-up
</li
>
67 <li
>Fix issue using static non-synchronized SimpleDateFormat to avoid
68 race conditions
</li
>
69 <li
>Fix problem where deserialisers were treating integers as strings
</li
>
70 <li
>Update methods to make them null-safe
</li
>
71 <li
>Fix many issues reported by coverity
</li
>
72 <li
>Improve equals(), compareTo() and hash() in domain model
</li
>
73 <li
>Improvements to the domain model for metadata classes
</li
>
74 <li
>Fix CORS issues when downloading document
</li
>
75 <li
>Implementation of case-handling with registryEntry and document upload
</li
>
76 <li
>Better support in Javascript for OPTIONS
</li
>
77 <li
>Adding concept description of mail integration
</li
>
78 <li
>Improve setting of default values for GET on ny-journalpost
</li
>
79 <li
>Better handling of required values during deserialisation
</li
>
80 <li
>Changed tilknyttetDato (M620) from date to dateTime
</li
>
81 <li
>Corrected some opprettetDato (M600) (de)serialisation errors.
</li
>
82 <li
>Improve parse error reporting.
</li
>
83 <li
>Started on OData search and filtering.
</li
>
84 <li
>Added Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct to project.
</li
>
85 <li
>Moved repository and project from Github to Gitlab.
</li
>
86 <li
>Restructured repository, moved code into src/ and web/.
</li
>
87 <li
>Updated code to use Spring Boot version
2.
</li
>
88 <li
>Added support for OAuth2 authentication.
</li
>
89 <li
>Fixed several bugs discovered by Coverity.
</li
>
90 <li
>Corrected handling of date/datetime fields.
</li
>
91 <li
>Improved error reporting when rejecting during deserializatoin.
</li
>
92 <li
>Adjusted default values provided for ny-arkivdel, ny-mappe,
93 ny-saksmappe, ny-journalpost and ny-dokumentbeskrivelse.
</li
>
94 <li
>Several fixes for korrespondansepart*.
</li
>
95 <li
>Updated web GUI:
97 <li
>Now handle both file upload and download.
</li
>
98 <li
>Uses new OAuth2 authentication for login.
</li
>
99 <li
>Forms now fetches default values from API using GET.
</li
>
100 <li
>Added RFC
822 (email), TIFF and JPEG to list of possible file formats.
</li
>
101 </ul
></li
>
104 <p
>The changes and improvements are extensive. Running diffstat on
105 the changes between git tab
0.1.1 and
0.2 show
1098 files changed,
106 108666 insertions(+),
54066 deletions(-).
</p
>
108 <p
>If free and open standardized archiving API sound interesting to
109 you, please contact us on IRC
110 (
<a href=
"irc://irc.freenode.net/%
23nikita
">#nikita on
111 irc.freenode.net
</a
>) or email
112 (
<a href=
"https://lists.nuug.no/mailman/listinfo/nikita-noark
">nikita-noark
113 mailing list
</a
>).
</p
>
115 <p
>As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
116 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
117 <b
><a href=
"bitcoin:
15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b
">15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b
</a
></b
>.
</p
>
122 <title>Release
0.1.1 of free software archive system Nikita announced
</title>
123 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Release_0_1_1_of_free_software_archive_system_Nikita_announced.html
</link>
124 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Release_0_1_1_of_free_software_archive_system_Nikita_announced.html
</guid>
125 <pubDate>Sat,
10 Jun
2017 00:
40:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
126 <description><p
>I am very happy to report that the
127 <a href=
"https://github.com/hiOA-ABI/nikita-noark5-core
">Nikita Noark
5
128 core project
</a
> tagged its second release today. The free software
129 solution is an implementation of the Norwegian archive standard Noark
130 5 used by government offices in Norway. These were the changes in
131 version
0.1.1 since version
0.1.0 (from NEWS.md):
135 <li
>Continued work on the angularjs GUI, including document upload.
</li
>
136 <li
>Implemented correspondencepartPerson, correspondencepartUnit and
137 correspondencepartInternal
</li
>
138 <li
>Applied for coverity coverage and started submitting code on
139 regualr basis.
</li
>
140 <li
>Started fixing bugs reported by coverity
</li
>
141 <li
>Corrected and completed HATEOAS links to make sure entire API is
142 available via URLs in _links.
</li
>
143 <li
>Corrected all relation URLs to use trailing slash.
</li
>
144 <li
>Add initial support for storing data in ElasticSearch.
</li
>
145 <li
>Now able to receive and store uploaded files in the archive.
</li
>
146 <li
>Changed JSON output for object lists to have relations in _links.
</li
>
147 <li
>Improve JSON output for empty object lists.
</li
>
148 <li
>Now uses correct MIME type application/vnd.noark5-v4+json.
</li
>
149 <li
>Added support for docker container images.
</li
>
150 <li
>Added simple API browser implemented in JavaScript/Angular.
</li
>
151 <li
>Started on archive client implemented in JavaScript/Angular.
</li
>
152 <li
>Started on prototype to show the public mail journal.
</li
>
153 <li
>Improved performance by disabling Sprint FileWatcher.
</li
>
154 <li
>Added support for
'arkivskaper
',
'saksmappe
' and
'journalpost
'.
</li
>
155 <li
>Added support for some metadata codelists.
</li
>
156 <li
>Added support for Cross-origin resource sharing (CORS).
</li
>
157 <li
>Changed login method from Basic Auth to JSON Web Token (RFC
7519)
159 <li
>Added support for GET-ing ny-* URLs.
</li
>
160 <li
>Added support for modifying entities using PUT and eTag.
</li
>
161 <li
>Added support for returning XML output on request.
</li
>
162 <li
>Removed support for English field and class names, limiting ourself
163 to the official names.
</li
>
164 <li
>...
</li
>
168 <p
>If this sound interesting to you, please contact us on IRC (#nikita
169 on irc.freenode.net) or email
170 (
<a href=
"https://lists.nuug.no/mailman/listinfo/nikita-noark
">nikita-noark
171 mailing list).
</p
>
176 <title>Idea for storing trusted timestamps in a Noark
5 archive
</title>
177 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Idea_for_storing_trusted_timestamps_in_a_Noark_5_archive.html
</link>
178 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Idea_for_storing_trusted_timestamps_in_a_Noark_5_archive.html
</guid>
179 <pubDate>Wed,
7 Jun
2017 21:
40:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
180 <description><p
><em
>This is a copy of
181 <a href=
"https://lists.nuug.no/pipermail/nikita-noark/
2017-June/
000297.html
">an
182 email I posted to the nikita-noark mailing list
</a
>. Please follow up
183 there if you would like to discuss this topic. The background is that
184 we are making a free software archive system based on the Norwegian
185 <a href=
"https://www.arkivverket.no/forvaltning-og-utvikling/regelverk-og-standarder/noark-standarden
">Noark
186 5 standard
</a
> for government archives.
</em
></p
>
188 <p
>I
've been wondering a bit lately how trusted timestamps could be
190 <a href=
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping
">Trusted
191 timestamps
</a
> can be used to verify that some information
192 (document/file/checksum/metadata) have not been changed since a
193 specific time in the past. This is useful to verify the integrity of
194 the documents in the archive.
</p
>
196 <p
>Then it occured to me, perhaps the trusted timestamps could be
197 stored as dokument variants (ie dokumentobjekt referered to from
198 dokumentbeskrivelse) with the filename set to the hash it is
201 <p
>Given a
"dokumentbeskrivelse
" with an associated
"dokumentobjekt
",
202 a new dokumentobjekt is associated with
"dokumentbeskrivelse
" with the
203 same attributes as the stamped dokumentobjekt except these
204 attributes:
</p
>
208 <li
>format -
> "RFC3161
"
209 <li
>mimeType -
> "application/timestamp-reply
"
210 <li
>formatDetaljer -
> "&lt;source URL for timestamp service
&gt;
"
211 <li
>filenavn -
> "&lt;sjekksum
&gt;.tsr
"
215 <p
>This assume a service following
216 <a href=
"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3161
">IETF RFC
3161</a
> is
217 used, which specifiy the given MIME type for replies and the .tsr file
218 ending for the content of such trusted timestamp. As far as I can
219 tell from the Noark
5 specifications, it is OK to have several
220 variants/renderings of a dokument attached to a given
221 dokumentbeskrivelse objekt. It might be stretching it a bit to make
222 some of these variants represent crypto-signatures useful for
223 verifying the document integrity instead of representing the dokument
226 <p
>Using the source of the service in formatDetaljer allow several
227 timestamping services to be used. This is useful to spread the risk
228 of key compromise over several organisations. It would only be a
229 problem to trust the timestamps if all of the organisations are
230 compromised.
</p
>
232 <p
>The following oneliner on Linux can be used to generate the tsr
233 file. $input is the path to the file to checksum, and $sha256 is the
234 SHA-
256 checksum of the file (ie the
"<sjekksum
>.tsr
" value mentioned
237 <p
><blockquote
><pre
>
238 openssl ts -query -data
"$inputfile
" -cert -sha256 -no_nonce \
239 | curl -s -H
"Content-Type: application/timestamp-query
" \
240 --data-binary
"@-
" http://zeitstempel.dfn.de
> $sha256.tsr
241 </pre
></blockquote
></p
>
243 <p
>To verify the timestamp, you first need to download the public key
244 of the trusted timestamp service, for example using this command:
</p
>
246 <p
><blockquote
><pre
>
247 wget -O ca-cert.txt \
248 https://pki.pca.dfn.de/global-services-ca/pub/cacert/chain.txt
249 </pre
></blockquote
></p
>
251 <p
>Note, the public key should be stored alongside the timestamps in
252 the archive to make sure it is also available
100 years from now. It
253 is probably a good idea to standardise how and were to store such
254 public keys, to make it easier to find for those trying to verify
255 documents
100 or
1000 years from now. :)
</p
>
257 <p
>The verification itself is a simple openssl command:
</p
>
259 <p
><blockquote
><pre
>
260 openssl ts -verify -data $inputfile -in $sha256.tsr \
261 -CAfile ca-cert.txt -text
262 </pre
></blockquote
></p
>
264 <p
>Is there any reason this approach would not work? Is it somehow against
265 the Noark
5 specification?
</p
>
270 <title>Epost inn som arkivformat i Riksarkivarens forskrift?
</title>
271 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Epost_inn_som_arkivformat_i_Riksarkivarens_forskrift_.html
</link>
272 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Epost_inn_som_arkivformat_i_Riksarkivarens_forskrift_.html
</guid>
273 <pubDate>Thu,
27 Apr
2017 11:
30:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
274 <description><p
>I disse dager, med frist
1. mai, har Riksarkivaren ute en høring på
275 sin forskrift. Som en kan se er det ikke mye tid igjen før fristen
276 som går ut på søndag. Denne forskriften er det som lister opp hvilke
277 formater det er greit å arkivere i
278 <a href=
"http://www.arkivverket.no/arkivverket/Offentleg-forvalting/Noark/Noark-
5">Noark
279 5-løsninger
</a
> i Norge.
</p
>
281 <p
>Jeg fant høringsdokumentene hos
282 <a href=
"https://www.arkivrad.no/aktuelt/riksarkivarens-forskrift-pa-horing
">Norsk
283 Arkivråd
</a
> etter å ha blitt tipset på epostlisten til
284 <a href=
"https://github.com/hiOA-ABI/nikita-noark5-core
">fri
285 programvareprosjektet Nikita Noark5-Core
</a
>, som lager et Noark
5
286 Tjenestegresesnitt. Jeg er involvert i Nikita-prosjektet og takket
287 være min interesse for tjenestegrensesnittsprosjektet har jeg lest en
288 god del Noark
5-relaterte dokumenter, og til min overraskelse oppdaget
289 at standard epost ikke er på listen over godkjente formater som kan
290 arkiveres. Høringen med frist søndag er en glimrende mulighet til å
291 forsøke å gjøre noe med det. Jeg holder på med
292 <a href=
"https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/blob/master/docs/hoering-arkivforskrift.tex
">egen
293 høringsuttalelse
</a
>, og lurer på om andre er interessert i å støtte
294 forslaget om å tillate arkivering av epost som epost i arkivet.
</p
>
296 <p
>Er du igang med å skrive egen høringsuttalelse allerede? I så fall
297 kan du jo vurdere å ta med en formulering om epost-lagring. Jeg tror
298 ikke det trengs så mye. Her et kort forslag til tekst:
</p
>
300 <p
><blockquote
>
302 <p
>Viser til høring sendt ut
2017-
02-
17 (Riksarkivarens referanse
303 2016/
9840 HELHJO), og tillater oss å sende inn noen innspill om
304 revisjon av Forskrift om utfyllende tekniske og arkivfaglige
305 bestemmelser om behandling av offentlige arkiver (Riksarkivarens
306 forskrift).
</p
>
308 <p
>Svært mye av vår kommuikasjon foregår i dag på e-post. Vi
309 foreslår derfor at Internett-e-post, slik det er beskrevet i IETF
311 <a href=
"https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
">https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322
</a
>. bør
312 inn som godkjent dokumentformat. Vi foreslår at forskriftens
313 oversikt over godkjente dokumentformater ved innlevering i §
5-
16
314 endres til å ta med Internett-e-post.
</p
>
316 </blockquote
></p
>
318 <p
>Som del av arbeidet med tjenestegrensesnitt har vi testet hvordan
319 epost kan lagres i en Noark
5-struktur, og holder på å skrive et
320 forslag om hvordan dette kan gjøres som vil bli sendt over til
321 arkivverket så snart det er ferdig. De som er interesserte kan
322 <a href=
"https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/blob/master/docs/epostlagring.md
">følge
323 fremdriften på web
</a
>.
</p
>
325 <p
>Oppdatering
2017-
04-
28: I dag ble høringuttalelsen jeg skrev
326 <a href=
"https://www.nuug.no/news/NUUGs_h_ringuttalelse_til_Riksarkivarens_forskrift.shtml
">sendt
327 inn av foreningen NUUG
</a
>.
</p
>
332 <title>Free software archive system Nikita now able to store documents
</title>
333 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Free_software_archive_system_Nikita_now_able_to_store_documents.html
</link>
334 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Free_software_archive_system_Nikita_now_able_to_store_documents.html
</guid>
335 <pubDate>Sun,
19 Mar
2017 08:
00:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
336 <description><p
>The
<a href=
"https://github.com/hiOA-ABI/nikita-noark5-core
">Nikita
337 Noark
5 core project
</a
> is implementing the Norwegian standard for
338 keeping an electronic archive of government documents.
339 <a href=
"http://www.arkivverket.no/arkivverket/Offentlig-forvaltning/Noark/Noark-
5/English-version
">The
340 Noark
5 standard
</a
> document the requirement for data systems used by
341 the archives in the Norwegian government, and the Noark
5 web interface
342 specification document a REST web service for storing, searching and
343 retrieving documents and metadata in such archive. I
've been involved
344 in the project since a few weeks before Christmas, when the Norwegian
346 <a href=
"https://www.nuug.no/news/NOARK5_kjerne_som_fri_programvare_f_r_epostliste_hos_NUUG.shtml
">announced
347 it supported the project
</a
>. I believe this is an important project,
348 and hope it can make it possible for the government archives in the
349 future to use free software to keep the archives we citizens depend
350 on. But as I do not hold such archive myself, personally my first use
351 case is to store and analyse public mail journal metadata published
352 from the government. I find it useful to have a clear use case in
353 mind when developing, to make sure the system scratches one of my
356 <p
>If you would like to help make sure there is a free software
357 alternatives for the archives, please join our IRC channel
358 (
<a href=
"irc://irc.freenode.net/%
23nikita
">#nikita on
359 irc.freenode.net
</a
>) and
360 <a href=
"https://lists.nuug.no/mailman/listinfo/nikita-noark
">the
361 project mailing list
</a
>.
</p
>
363 <p
>When I got involved, the web service could store metadata about
364 documents. But a few weeks ago, a new milestone was reached when it
365 became possible to store full text documents too. Yesterday, I
366 completed an implementation of a command line tool
367 <tt
>archive-pdf
</tt
> to upload a PDF file to the archive using this
368 API. The tool is very simple at the moment, and find existing
369 <a href=
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonds
">fonds
</a
>, series and
370 files while asking the user to select which one to use if more than
371 one exist. Once a file is identified, the PDF is associated with the
372 file and uploaded, using the title extracted from the PDF itself. The
373 process is fairly similar to visiting the archive, opening a cabinet,
374 locating a file and storing a piece of paper in the archive. Here is
375 a test run directly after populating the database with test data using
376 our API tester:
</p
>
378 <p
><blockquote
><pre
>
379 ~/src//noark5-tester$ ./archive-pdf mangelmelding/mangler.pdf
380 using arkiv: Title of the test fonds created
2017-
03-
18T23:
49:
32.103446
381 using arkivdel: Title of the test series created
2017-
03-
18T23:
49:
32.103446
383 0 - Title of the test case file created
2017-
03-
18T23:
49:
32.103446
384 1 - Title of the test file created
2017-
03-
18T23:
49:
32.103446
385 Select which mappe you want (or search term):
0
386 Uploading mangelmelding/mangler.pdf
387 PDF title: Mangler i spesifikasjonsdokumentet for NOARK
5 Tjenestegrensesnitt
388 File
2017/
1: Title of the test case file created
2017-
03-
18T23:
49:
32.103446
389 ~/src//noark5-tester$
390 </pre
></blockquote
></p
>
392 <p
>You can see here how the fonds (arkiv) and serie (arkivdel) only had
393 one option, while the user need to choose which file (mappe) to use
394 among the two created by the API tester. The
<tt
>archive-pdf
</tt
>
395 tool can be found in the git repository for the API tester.
</p
>
397 <p
>In the project, I have been mostly working on
398 <a href=
"https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester
">the API
399 tester
</a
> so far, while getting to know the code base. The API
401 <a href=
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HATEOAS
">the HATEOAS links
</a
>
402 to traverse the entire exposed service API and verify that the exposed
403 operations and objects match the specification, as well as trying to
404 create objects holding metadata and uploading a simple XML file to
405 store. The tester has proved very useful for finding flaws in our
406 implementation, as well as flaws in the reference site and the
407 specification.
</p
>
409 <p
>The test document I uploaded is a summary of all the specification
410 defects we have collected so far while implementing the web service.
411 There are several unclear and conflicting parts of the specification,
413 <a href=
"https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/tree/master/mangelmelding
">started
414 writing down
</a
> the questions we get from implementing it. We use a
415 format inspired by how
<a href=
"http://www.opengroup.org/austin/
">The
416 Austin Group
</a
> collect defect reports for the POSIX standard with
417 <a href=
"http://www.opengroup.org/austin/mantis.html
">their
418 instructions for the MANTIS defect tracker system
</a
>, in lack of an official way to structure defect reports for Noark
5 (our first submitted defect report was a
<a href=
"https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/blob/master/mangelmelding/sendt/
2017-
03-
15-mangel-prosess.md
">request for a procedure for submitting defect reports
</a
> :).
420 <p
>The Nikita project is implemented using Java and Spring, and is
421 fairly easy to get up and running using Docker containers for those
422 that want to test the current code base. The API tester is
423 implemented in Python.
</p
>
428 <title>Detect OOXML files with undefined behaviour?
</title>
429 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Detect_OOXML_files_with_undefined_behaviour_.html
</link>
430 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Detect_OOXML_files_with_undefined_behaviour_.html
</guid>
431 <pubDate>Tue,
21 Feb
2017 00:
20:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
432 <description><p
>I just noticed
433 <a href=
"http://www.arkivrad.no/aktuelt/riksarkivarens-forskrift-pa-horing
">the
434 new Norwegian proposal for archiving rules in the goverment
</a
> list
435 <a href=
"http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-
376.htm
">ECMA-
376</a
>
436 / ISO/IEC
29500 (aka OOXML) as valid formats to put in long term
437 storage. Luckily such files will only be accepted based on
438 pre-approval from the National Archive. Allowing OOXML files to be
439 used for long term storage might seem like a good idea as long as we
440 forget that there are plenty of ways for a
"valid
" OOXML document to
441 have content with no defined interpretation in the standard, which
442 lead to a question and an idea.
</p
>
444 <p
>Is there any tool to detect if a OOXML document depend on such
445 undefined behaviour? It would be useful for the National Archive (and
446 anyone else interested in verifying that a document is well defined)
447 to have such tool available when considering to approve the use of
448 OOXML. I
'm aware of the
449 <a href=
"https://github.com/arlm/officeotron/
">officeotron OOXML
450 validator
</a
>, but do not know how complete it is nor if it will
451 report use of undefined behaviour. Are there other similar tools
452 available? Please send me an email if you know of any such tool.
</p
>
457 <title>Introducing ical-archiver to split out old iCalendar entries
</title>
458 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Introducing_ical_archiver_to_split_out_old_iCalendar_entries.html
</link>
459 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Introducing_ical_archiver_to_split_out_old_iCalendar_entries.html
</guid>
460 <pubDate>Wed,
4 Jan
2017 12:
20:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
461 <description><p
>Do you have a large
<a href=
"https://icalendar.org/
">iCalendar
</a
>
462 file with lots of old entries, and would like to archive them to save
463 space and resources? At least those of us using KOrganizer know that
464 turning on and off an event set become slower and slower the more
465 entries are in the set. While working on migrating our calendars to a
466 <a href=
"http://radicale.org/
">Radicale CalDAV server
</a
> on our
467 <a href=
"https://freedomboxfoundation.org/
">Freedombox server
</a/
>, my
468 loved one wondered if I could find a way to split up the calendar file
469 she had in KOrganizer, and I set out to write a tool. I spent a few
470 days writing and polishing the system, and it is now ready for general
472 <a href=
"https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/ical-archiver
">code for
473 ical-archiver
</a
> is publicly available from a git repository on
474 github. The system is written in Python and depend on
475 <a href=
"http://eventable.github.io/vobject/
">the vobject Python
476 module
</a
>.
</p
>
478 <p
>To use it, locate the iCalendar file you want to operate on and
479 give it as an argument to the ical-archiver script. This will
480 generate a set of new files, one file per component type per year for
481 all components expiring more than two years in the past. The vevent,
482 vtodo and vjournal entries are handled by the script. The remaining
483 entries are stored in a
'remaining
' file.
</p
>
485 <p
>This is what a test run can look like:
488 % ical-archiver t/
2004-
2016.ics
492 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2004.ics
493 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2005.ics
494 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2006.ics
495 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2007.ics
496 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2008.ics
497 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2009.ics
498 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2010.ics
499 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2011.ics
500 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2012.ics
501 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2013.ics
502 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vevent-
2014.ics
503 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vjournal-
2007.ics
504 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vjournal-
2011.ics
505 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-subset-vtodo-
2012.ics
506 Writing t/
2004-
2016.ics-remaining.ics
508 </pre
></p
>
510 <p
>As you can see, the original file is untouched and new files are
511 written with names derived from the original file. If you are happy
512 with their content, the *-remaining.ics file can replace the original
513 the the others can be archived or imported as historical calendar
514 collections.
</p
>
516 <p
>The script should probably be improved a bit. The error handling
517 when discovering broken entries is not good, and I am not sure yet if
518 it make sense to split different entry types into separate files or
519 not. The program is thus likely to change. If you find it
520 interesting, please get in touch. :)
</p
>
522 <p
>As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
523 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
524 <b
><a href=
"bitcoin:
15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b
">15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b
</a
></b
>.
</p
>
529 <title>UsingQR -
"Electronic
" paper invoices using JSON and QR codes
</title>
530 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/UsingQR____Electronic__paper_invoices_using_JSON_and_QR_codes.html
</link>
531 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/UsingQR____Electronic__paper_invoices_using_JSON_and_QR_codes.html
</guid>
532 <pubDate>Sat,
19 Mar
2016 09:
40:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
533 <description><p
>Back in
2013 I proposed
534 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_Electronic__paper_invoices___using_vCard_in_a_QR_code.html
">a
535 way to make paper and PDF invoices easier to process electronically by
536 adding a QR code with the key information about the invoice
</a
>. I
537 suggested using vCard field definition, to get some standard format
538 for name and address, but any format would work. I did not do
539 anything about the proposal, but hoped someone one day would make
540 something like it. It would make it possible to efficiently send
541 machine readable invoices directly between seller and buyer.
</p
>
543 <p
>This was the background when I came across a proposal and
544 specification from the web based accounting and invoicing supplier
545 <a href=
"http://www.visma.com/
">Visma
</a
> in Sweden called
546 <a href=
"http://usingqr.com/
">UsingQR
</a
>. Their PDF invoices contain
547 a QR code with the key information of the invoice in JSON format.
548 This is the typical content of a QR code following the UsingQR
549 specification (based on a real world example, some numbers replaced to
550 get a more bogus entry). I
've reformatted the JSON to make it easier
551 to read. Normally this is all on one long line:
</p
>
553 <p
><img src=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/
2016-
03-
19-qr-invoice.png
" align=
"right
"><pre
>
555 "vh
":
500.00,
560 "nme
":
"Din Leverandør
",
561 "cc
":
"NO
",
562 "cid
":
"997912345 MVA
",
563 "iref
":
"12300001",
564 "idt
":
"20151022",
565 "ddt
":
"20151105",
566 "due
":
2500.0000,
567 "cur
":
"NOK
",
568 "pt
":
"BBAN
",
569 "acc
":
"17202612345",
570 "bc
":
"BIENNOK1
",
571 "adr
":
"0313 OSLO
"
573 </pre
></p
>
575 </p
>The interpretation of the fields can be found in the
576 <a href=
"http://usingqr.com/wp-content/uploads/
2014/
06/UsingQR_specification1.pdf
">format
577 specification
</a
> (revision
2 from june
2014). The format seem to
578 have most of the information needed to handle accounting and payment
579 of invoices, at least the fields I have needed so far here in
582 <p
>Unfortunately, the site and document do not mention anything about
583 the patent, trademark and copyright status of the format and the
584 specification. Because of this, I asked the people behind it back in
585 November to clarify. Ann-Christine Savlid (ann-christine.savlid (at)
586 visma.com) replied that Visma had not applied for patent or trademark
587 protection for this format, and that there were no copyright based
588 usage limitations for the format. I urged her to make sure this was
589 explicitly written on the web pages and in the specification, but
590 unfortunately this has not happened yet. So I guess if there is
591 submarine patents, hidden trademarks or a will to sue for copyright
592 infringements, those starting to use the UsingQR format might be at
593 risk, but if this happen there is some legal defense in the fact that
594 the people behind the format claimed it was safe to do so. At least
595 with patents, there is always
596 <a href=
"http://www.paperspecs.com/paper-news/beware-the-qr-code-patent-trap/
">a
597 chance of getting sued...
</a
></p
>
599 <p
>I also asked if they planned to maintain the format in an
600 independent standard organization to give others more confidence that
601 they would participate in the standardization process on equal terms
602 with Visma, but they had no immediate plans for this. Their plan was
603 to work with banks to try to get more users of the format, and
604 evaluate the way forward if the format proved to be popular. I hope
605 they conclude that using an open standard organisation like
606 <a href=
"http://www.ietf.org/
">IETF
</a
> is the correct place to
607 maintain such specification.
</p
>
609 <p
><strong
>Update
2016-
03-
20</strong
>: Via Twitter I became aware of
610 <a href=
"https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=
11319492">some comments
611 about this blog post
</a
> that had several useful links and references to
612 similar systems. In the Czech republic, the Czech Banking Association
613 standard #
26, with short name SPAYD, uses QR codes with payment
614 information. More information is available from the Wikipedia page on
615 <a href=
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Payment_Descriptor
">Short
616 Payment Descriptor
</a
>. And in Germany, there is a system named
617 <a href=
"http://www.bezahlcode.de/
">BezahlCode
</a
>,
618 (
<a href=
"http://www.bezahlcode.de/wp-content/uploads/BezahlCode_TechDok.pdf
">specification
619 v1.8
2013-
12-
05 available as PDF
</a
>), which uses QR codes with
620 URL-like formatting using
"bank:
" as the URI schema/protocol to
621 provide the payment information. There is also the
622 <a href=
"http://www.ferd-net.de/front_content.php?idcat=
231">ZUGFeRD
</a
>
623 file format that perhaps could be transfered using QR codes, but I am
624 not sure if it is done already. Last, in Bolivia there are reports
625 that tax information since november
2014 need to be printed in QR
626 format on invoices. I have not been able to track down a
627 specification for this format, because of my limited language skill
633 <title>MPEG LA on
"Internet Broadcast AVC Video
" licensing and non-private use
</title>
634 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html
</link>
635 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html
</guid>
636 <pubDate>Tue,
7 Jul
2015 09:
50:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
637 <description><p
>After asking the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK)
638 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html
">why
639 they can broadcast and stream H
.264 video without an agreement with
640 the MPEG LA
</a
>, I was wiser, but still confused. So I asked MPEG LA
641 if their understanding matched that of NRK. As far as I can tell, it
644 <p
>I started by asking for more information about the various
645 licensing classes and what exactly is covered by the
"Internet
646 Broadcast AVC Video
" class that NRK pointed me at to explain why NRK
647 did not need a license for streaming H
.264 video:
649 <p
><blockquote
>
651 <p
>According to
652 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%
20LA%
20News%
20List/Attachments/
226/n-
10-
02-
02.pdf
">a
653 MPEG LA press release dated
2010-
02-
02</a
>, there is no charge when
654 using MPEG AVC/H
.264 according to the terms of
"Internet Broadcast AVC
655 Video
". I am trying to understand exactly what the terms of
"Internet
656 Broadcast AVC Video
" is, and wondered if you could help me. What
657 exactly is covered by these terms, and what is not?
</p
>
659 <p
>The only source of more information I have been able to find is a
661 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf
">AVC
662 Patent Portfolio License Briefing
</a
>, which states this about the
666 <li
>Where End User pays for AVC Video
668 <li
>Subscription (not limited by title) –
100,
000 or fewer
669 subscribers/yr = no royalty;
&gt;
100,
000 to
250,
000 subscribers/yr =
670 $
25,
000;
&gt;
250,
000 to
500,
000 subscribers/yr = $
50,
000;
&gt;
500,
000 to
671 1M subscribers/yr = $
75,
000;
&gt;
1M subscribers/yr = $
100,
000</li
>
673 <li
>Title-by-Title -
12 minutes or less = no royalty;
&gt;
12 minutes in
674 length = lower of (a)
2% or (b) $
0.02 per title
</li
>
675 </ul
></li
>
677 <li
>Where remuneration is from other sources
679 <li
>Free Television - (a) one-time $
2,
500 per transmission encoder or
680 (b) annual fee starting at $
2,
500 for
&gt;
100,
000 HH rising to
681 maximum $
10,
000 for
&gt;
1,
000,
000 HH
</li
>
683 <li
>Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription)
684 – no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License
</li
>
685 </ul
></li
>
688 <p
>Am I correct in assuming that the four categories listed is the
689 categories used when selecting licensing terms, and that
"Internet
690 Broadcast AVC Video
" is the category for things that do not fall into
691 one of the other three categories? Can you point me to a good source
692 explaining what is ment by
"title-by-title
" and
"Free Television
" in
693 the license terms for AVC/H
.264?
</p
>
695 <p
>Will a web service providing H
.264 encoded video content in a
696 "video on demand
" fashing similar to Youtube and Vimeo, where no
697 subscription is required and no payment is required from end users to
698 get access to the videos, fall under the terms of the
"Internet
699 Broadcast AVC Video
", ie no royalty for life of the AVC Patent
700 Portfolio license? Does it matter if some users are subscribed to get
701 access to personalized services?
</p
>
703 <p
>Note, this request and all answers will be published on the
705 </blockquote
></p
>
707 <p
>The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate
708 with the MPEG LA:
</p
>
710 <p
><blockquote
>
711 <p
>Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We
712 appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.
</p
>
714 <p
>As you are aware, MPEG LA offers our AVC Patent Portfolio License
715 which provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of
716 the AVC/H
.264 Standard (MPEG-
4 Part
10). Specifically, coverage is
717 provided for end products and video content that make use of AVC/H
.264
718 technology. Accordingly, the party offering such end products and
719 video to End Users concludes the AVC License and is responsible for
720 paying the applicable royalties.
</p
>
722 <p
>Regarding Internet Broadcast AVC Video, the AVC License generally
723 defines such content to be video that is distributed to End Users over
724 the Internet free-of-charge. Therefore, if a party offers a service
725 which allows users to upload AVC/H
.264 video to its website, and such
726 AVC Video is delivered to End Users for free, then such video would
727 receive coverage under the sublicense for Internet Broadcast AVC
728 Video, which is not subject to any royalties for the life of the AVC
729 License. This would also apply in the scenario where a user creates a
730 free online account in order to receive a customized offering of free
731 AVC Video content. In other words, as long as the End User is given
732 access to or views AVC Video content at no cost to the End User, then
733 no royalties would be payable under our AVC License.
</p
>
735 <p
>On the other hand, if End Users pay for access to AVC Video for a
736 specific period of time (e.g., one month, one year, etc.), then such
737 video would constitute Subscription AVC Video. In cases where AVC
738 Video is delivered to End Users on a pay-per-view basis, then such
739 content would constitute Title-by-Title AVC Video. If a party offers
740 Subscription or Title-by-Title AVC Video to End Users, then they would
741 be responsible for paying the applicable royalties you noted below.
</p
>
743 <p
>Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free
744 through an
"over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission
", then
745 such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be
746 subject to the applicable royalties.
</p
>
748 <p
>For your reference, I have attached
749 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/
2015-
07-
07-mpegla.pdf
">a
750 .pdf copy of the AVC License
</a
>. You will find the relevant
751 sublicense information regarding AVC Video in Sections
2.2 through
752 2.5, and the corresponding royalties in Section
3.1.2 through
3.1.4.
753 You will also find the definitions of Title-by-Title AVC Video,
754 Subscription AVC Video, Free Television AVC Video, and Internet
755 Broadcast AVC Video in Section
1 of the License. Please note that the
756 electronic copy is provided for informational purposes only and cannot
757 be used for execution.
</p
>
759 <p
>I hope the above information is helpful. If you have additional
760 questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
761 free to contact me directly.
</p
>
762 </blockquote
></p
>
764 <p
>Having a fresh copy of the license text was useful, and knowing
765 that the definition of Title-by-Title required payment per title made
766 me aware that my earlier understanding of that phrase had been wrong.
767 But I still had a few questions:
</p
>
769 <p
><blockquote
>
770 <p
>I have a small followup question. Would it be possible for me to get
771 a license with MPEG LA even if there are no royalties to be paid? The
772 reason I ask, is that some video related products have a copyright
773 clause limiting their use without a license with MPEG LA. The clauses
774 typically look similar to this:
776 <p
><blockquote
>
777 This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for
778 the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (a) encode
779 video in compliance with the AVC standard (
"AVC video
") and/or (b)
780 decode AVC video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a
781 personal and non-commercial activity and/or AVC video that was
782 obtained from a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No
783 license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. additional
784 information may be obtained from MPEG LA L.L.C.
785 </blockquote
></p
>
787 <p
>It is unclear to me if this clause mean that I need to enter into
788 an agreement with MPEG LA to use the product in question, even if
789 there are no royalties to be paid to MPEG LA. I suspect it will
790 differ depending on the jurisdiction, and mine is Norway. What is
791 MPEG LAs view on this?
</p
>
792 </blockquote
></p
>
794 <p
>According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for
795 non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:
</p
>
797 <p
><blockquote
>
799 <p
>With regard to the Notice to Customers, I would like to begin by
800 clarifying that the Notice from Section
7.1 of the AVC License
803 <p
>THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR
804 THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT
805 RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC
806 STANDARD (
"AVC VIDEO
") AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED
807 BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM
808 A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED
809 OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE
810 OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM
</p
>
812 <p
>The Notice to Customers is intended to inform End Users of the
813 personal usage rights (for example, to watch video content) included
814 with the product they purchased, and to encourage any party using the
815 product for commercial purposes to contact MPEG LA in order to become
816 licensed for such use (for example, when they use an AVC Product to
817 deliver Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television or Internet
818 Broadcast AVC Video to End Users, or to re-Sell a third party
's AVC
819 Product as their own branded AVC Product).
</p
>
821 <p
>Therefore, if a party is to be licensed for its use of an AVC
822 Product to Sell AVC Video on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
823 Television or Internet Broadcast basis, that party would need to
824 conclude the AVC License, even in the case where no royalties were
825 payable under the License. On the other hand, if that party (either a
826 Consumer or business customer) simply uses an AVC Product for their
827 own internal purposes and not for the commercial purposes referenced
828 above, then such use would be included in the royalty paid for the AVC
829 Products by the licensed supplier.
</p
>
831 <p
>Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in
832 countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including
835 <p
>I hope this clarification is helpful. If I may be of any further
836 assistance, just let me know.
</p
>
837 </blockquote
></p
>
839 <p
>The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I
840 asked for more information:
</p
>
842 <p
><blockquote
>
844 <p
>But one minor question at the end. If I understand you correctly,
845 you state in the quote above that there are patents in the AVC Patent
846 Portfolio that are valid in Norway. This make me believe I read the
847 list available from
&lt;URL:
848 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx
">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx
</a
>
849 &gt; incorrectly, as I believed the
"NO
" prefix in front of patents
850 were Norwegian patents, and the only one I could find under Mitsubishi
851 Electric Corporation expired in
2012. Which patents are you referring
852 to that are relevant for Norway?
</p
>
854 </blockquote
></p
>
856 <p
>Again, the quick answer explained how to read the list of patents
857 in that list:
</p
>
859 <p
><blockquote
>
861 <p
>Your understanding is correct that the last AVC Patent Portfolio
862 Patent in Norway expired on
21 October
2012. Therefore, where AVC
863 Video is both made and Sold in Norway after that date, then no
864 royalties would be payable for such AVC Video under the AVC License.
865 With that said, our AVC License provides historic coverage for AVC
866 Products and AVC Video that may have been manufactured or Sold before
867 the last Norwegian AVC patent expired. I would also like to clarify
868 that coverage is provided for the country of manufacture and the
869 country of Sale that has active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents.
</p
>
871 <p
>Therefore, if a party offers AVC Products or AVC Video for Sale in
872 a country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents (for example,
873 Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.), then that party would still need
874 coverage under the AVC License even if such products or video are
875 initially made in a country without active AVC Patent Portfolio
876 Patents (for example, Norway). Similarly, a party would need to
877 conclude the AVC License if they make AVC Products or AVC Video in a
878 country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, but eventually Sell
879 such AVC Products or AVC Video in a country without active AVC Patent
880 Portfolio Patents.
</p
>
881 </blockquote
></p
>
883 <p
>As far as I understand it, MPEG LA believe anyone using Adobe
884 Premiere and other video related software with a H
.264 distribution
885 license need a license agreement with MPEG LA to use such tools for
886 anything non-private or commercial, while it is OK to set up a
887 Youtube-like service as long as no-one pays to get access to the
888 content. I still have no clear idea how this applies to Norway, where
889 none of the patents MPEG LA is licensing are valid. Will the
890 copyright terms take precedence or can those terms be ignored because
891 the patents are not valid in Norway?
</p
>
896 <title>Hva gjør at NRK kan distribuere H
.264-video uten patentavtale med MPEG LA?
</title>
897 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html
</link>
898 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html
</guid>
899 <pubDate>Wed,
10 Jun
2015 15:
20:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
900 <description><p
>Helt siden jeg i
2012 fikk beskjed fra MPEG LA om at
901 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html
">NRK
902 trengte patentavtale med dem
</a
> hvis de distribuerte H
.264-video til
903 sluttbrukere, har jeg lurt på hva som gjør at NRK ikke har slik
904 avtale. For noen dager siden fikk jeg endelig gjort noe med min
905 undring, og sendte
2015-
05-
28 følgende epost til info (at) nrk.no med
906 tittel
"Hva gjør at NRK kan distribuere H
.264-video uten patentavtale
907 med MPEG LA?
":
</p
>
909 <p
><blockquote
>
910 <p
>Jeg lurer på en ting rundt NRKs bruk av H
.264-video på sine
911 websider samt distribusjon via RiksTV og kabel-TV. Har NRK vurdert om
912 det er behov for en patentavtale med
913 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/
">MPEG LA
</a
> slik det står i
914 programvarelisensene til blant annet Apple Final Cut Studio, Adobe
915 Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X?
</p
>
917 <p
>Hvis dere har vurdert dette, hva var utfallet av en slik vurdering?
</p
>
919 <p
>Hvis dere ikke har vurdert dette, har NRK planer om å vurdere behovet
920 for patentavtale?
</p
>
922 <p
>I følge en artikkel på
923 <a href=
"https://nrkbeta.no/
2012/
02/
01/siste-kutt-for-final-cut/
">NRK
924 Beta i
2012</a
> har NRK brukt eller testet både Apple Final Cut
925 Studio, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X til bruk
926 for å redigere video før sending. Alle disse har bruksvilkår
927 understøttet av opphavsretten som sier at de kun kan brukes til å lage
928 filmer til personlig og ikke-kommersiell bruk - med mindre en har en
929 lisensavtale med MPEG LA om bruk av patenter utstedt i USA for H
.264.
930 Se f.eks.
<a href=
"http://www.avid.com/static/resources/common/documents/corporate/LICENSE.pdf
">bruksvilkårene for Avid
</a
>,
<a href=
"http://news.cnet.com/
8301-
30685_3-
20000101-
264.html
">Adobe Premiere
</a
> og
<a href=
"http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf
">Apple Final
931 Cut Studio
</a
> og søk etter
"MPEG LA
".
</p
>
933 <p
>Dette får meg til å lure på om det er brudd på opphavsretten å bruke
934 disse verktøyene i strid med bruksvilkårene uten patentavtale med MPEG
935 LA. Men NRK bruker jo tilsynelatende disse verktøyene uten patentavtale
936 med MPEG LA.
</p
>
938 <p
>I følge forfatteren av Open Broadcast Encoder finnes det to typer
939 H
.264-relaterte avtaler en kan få med MPEG LA. Det er én for å lage
940 programvare og utstyr som produserer H
.264-video, og en annen for å
941 kringkaste video som bruker H
.264. Dette forteller meg at selv om
942 produsentene av utstyr og programvare som NRK bruker har en slik avtale
943 med MPEG LA, så trenges det en egen avtale for å kringkaste video på det
946 <p
>I følge Ryan Rodriguez hos MPEG LA, da jeg spurte ham på epost i
947 juni
2012, har NRK ikke en slik avtale med MPEG LA. Han sa videre at
948 NRK trenger en slik avtale hvis NRK tilbyr H
.264-kodet video til
949 sluttbrukere. Jeg sjekket listen med
950 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
">organisasjoner
951 med avtale med MPEG LA
</a
> og NRK står fortsatt ikke der.
</p
>
953 <p
>Jeg lurer dermed på hva som gjør at NRK kan bruke de overnevnte
954 videoredigeringsverktøyene, som tilsynelatende har krav om avtale med
955 MPEG LA for å kunne brukes slik NRK bruker dem, til å lage videofiler
956 for distribusjon uten å ha en avtale med MPEG LA om distribusjon av
957 H
.264-video? Dette er spesielt interessant å vite for oss andre som
958 også vurderer å spre H
.264-video etter å ha redigert dem med disse mye
959 brukte videoredigeringsverktøyene.
</p
>
960 </blockquote
></p
>
962 <p
>Samme dag fikk jeg automatisk svar om at min henvendelse hadde fått
963 saksid
1294699. Jeg fikk deretter følgende respons fra NRK
964 2015-
06-
09:
</p
>
966 <p
><blockquote
>
967 <p
>Hei, beklager lang svartid, men det tok litt tid å finne ut hvem som kunne
968 svare på dette.
</p
>
970 <p
>For selskaper som leverer h
.264 til sluttbrukere på nett (f.eks
971 NRKs nett- tv utgaver som bruker h
.264) - og som leverer slike
972 tjenester uten betaling fra forbrukere – er det heller ikke påkrevd
973 noen patentavtale.
</p
>
975 <p
><a href=
"http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/
20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%
80%
99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y
">http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/
20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%
80%
99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y
</a
></p
>
977 <p
>Med vennlig hilsen
978 <br
>Gunn Helen Berg
979 <br
>Informasjonskonsulent, Publikumsservice
</p
>
982 <br
>Strategidivisjonen
983 <Br
>Sentralbord: +
47 23 04 70 00
984 <br
>Post: NRK Publikumsservice,
8608 Mo i Rana
985 <br
>nrk.no / info (at) nrk.no
</p
>
986 </blockquote
></p
>
988 Da dette ikke helt var svar på det jeg lurte på, sendte jeg samme dag
989 oppfølgerepost tilbake:
991 <p
><blockquote
>
992 <p
>[Gunn Helen Berg]
993 <br
>> Hei, beklager lang svartid, men det tok litt tid å finne ut hvem som
994 <br
>> kunne svare på dette.
</p
>
996 <p
>Takk for svar. Men det besvarte ikke helt det jeg spurte om.
</p
>
998 <p
>> For selskaper som leverer h
.264 til sluttbrukere på nett (f.eks NRKs
999 <br
>> nett- tv utgaver som bruker h
.264) - og som leverer slike tjenester
1000 <br
>> uten betaling fra forbrukere – er det heller ikke påkrevd noen
1001 <br
>> patentavtale.
1003 <br
>> http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/
20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%
80%
99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y
</p
>
1005 <p
>Spørsmålet er ikke kun om MPEG LA krever patentavtale eller ikke
1006 (hvilket ikke helt besvares av pressemeldingen omtalt over, gitt at
1007 pressemeldingen kom i
2010, to år før MPEG LA ansvarlige for
1008 internasjonal lisensiering egen Ryan Rodriguez fortalte meg på epost
1009 at NRK trenger en lisens.
</p
>
1011 <p
>Det er uklart fra pressemeldingen hva
"Internet Broadcast AVC
1012 Video
" konkret betyr, men i følge en
1013 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf
">presentasjon
1014 fra MPEG LA med tema
"AVC PAtent Portfoli License Briefing
" datert
1015 2015-
05-
15</a
> gjelder
"Internet Broadcast AVC Video
" kun kringkasting
1016 på Internet som ikke tilbyr valg av enkeltinnslag (
"not
1017 title-by-title
"), hvilket jo NRK gjør på sine nettsider. I tillegg
1018 kringkaster jo NRK H
.264-video også utenom Internet (RiksTV, kabel,
1019 satelitt), hvilket helt klart ikke er dekket av vilkårene omtalt i
1020 pressemeldingen.
</p
>
1022 <p
>Spørsmålet mitt er hvordan NRK kan bruke verktøy med bruksvilkår
1023 som krever avtale med MPEG LA for det NRK bruker dem til, når NRK ikke
1024 har avtale med MPEG LA. Hvis jeg forsto spørsmålet riktig, så mener
1025 NRK at dere ikke trenger avtale med MPEG LA, men uten slik avtale kan
1026 dere vel ikke bruke hverken Apple Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premiere
1027 Pro, Avid eller Apples Final Cut Pro X for å redigere video før
1030 <p
>Mine konkrete spørsmål var altså:
</p
>
1034 <li
>Hvis NRK har vurdert om det er behov for en patentavtale med MPEG LA
1035 slik det er krav om i programvarelisensene til blant annet Apple
1036 Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X,
1037 hva var utfallet av en slik vurdering? Kan jeg få kopi av vurderingen
1038 hvis den er gjort skriftlig?
</li
>
1040 <li
>Hvis NRK ikke har vurdert dette, har NRK planer om å vurdere behovet
1041 for patentavtale?
</li
>
1043 <li
>Hva slags saksnummer fikk min henvendelse i NRKs offentlige
1044 postjournal? Jeg ser at postjournalen ikke er publisert for den
1045 aktuelle perioden ennå, så jeg fikk ikke sjekket selv.
</li
>
1048 </blockquote
></p
>
1050 <p
>Det hjelper å ha funnet rette vedkommende i NRK, for denne gangen
1051 fikk jeg svar tilbake dagen etter (
2015-
06-
10), fra Geir Børdalen i
1054 <p
><blockquote
>
1055 <p
>Hei Petter Reinholdtsen
</p
>
1057 <p
>Jeg har sjekket saken med distribusjonssjef for tv, Arild Hellgren
1058 (som var teknologidirektør da bakkenettet ble satt opp). NRK v/
1059 Hellgren hadde møte med MPEG LA sammen med den europeiske
1060 kringkastingsunionen EBU før bakkenettet for TV ble satt opp
1061 (igangsatt høsten
2007). I dette møtet ble det avklart at NRK/EBU ikke
1062 trengte noen patentavtale for h
.264 i forbindelse med oppsett av
1063 bakkenettet eller bruk av MPEG4 h
.264 som kompresjonsalgoritme fordi
1064 tjenesten «in full»(nor: helt) var betalt av utsendelseselskapene og
1065 ikke av forbrukerne.
</p
>
1067 <p
><a href=
"http://www.nrk.no/oppdrag/digitalt-bakkenett-
1.3214555">http://www.nrk.no/oppdrag/digitalt-bakkenett-
1.3214555</a
></p
>
1069 <p
>Det er også klart slått fast at selskaper som leverer video basert
1070 på MPEG4 h
.264 til sluttbrukere på nett, heller ikke påkrevd noen
1071 patentavtale – så lenge de leverer slike tjenester uten betaling fra
1072 sluttbrukere.
</p
>
1074 <a href=
"http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/
20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%
80%
99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y
">http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/
20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%
80%
99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y
</a
>
1076 <p
>“MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will
1077 continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to
1078 end users (known as “Internet Broadcast AVC Video”) during the entire
1079 life of this License. MPEG LA previously announced it would not charge
1080 royalties for such video through December
31,
2015 (see
1081 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%
20LA%
20News%
20List/Attachments/
226/n-
10-
02-
02.pdf
">http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%
20LA%
20News%
20List/Attachments/
226/n-
10-
02-
02.pdf
</a
>),
1082 and today’s announcement makes clear that royalties will continue not
1083 to be charged for such video beyond that time. Products and services
1084 other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be
1085 royalty-bearing.”
</p
>
1087 <p
>Vi har derfor ikke noe behov for å vurdere noen patentavtale med
1090 <p
>Understreker for øvrig at NRK ikke er låst til MPEG4 – h
.264 som
1091 utsendelsesformat – og at vi har brukt og bruker flere andre
1092 alternativer i våre tjenester. Ulike «devicer» har ofte behov for
1093 forskjellige løsninger – og NRK har forsøkt å levere med best mulig
1094 kvalitet /økonomi /stabilitet avhengig av
1095 plattform. Produksjonsformater i NRK spenner for øvrig over en rekke
1096 forskjellige formater – hvor MPEG4 bare er en av disse. Når NRK kjøper
1097 teknisk utstyr er betaling for kodekstøtte ofte en del av
1098 anskaffelsesprisen for denne maskinvaren (enten dette er spesialiserte
1099 enkodere eller forskjellige typer produksjonsutstyr).
</p
>
1101 <p
>Vennlig hilsen
1102 <br
>Geir Børdalen
</p
>
1104 <p
>________________________________________
1105 <br
>Geir Børdalen
1106 <br
>Investeringsansvarlig NRK / Hovedprosjektleder - Origo
1107 <br
>Avdeling for utvikling, innovasjon, investering og eiendom
1108 <br
>NRK medietjenester
1109 <br
>Sentralbord: +
47 23 04 70 00
1110 <br
>Post: NRK, AUTV (RBM5), Pb.
8500 Majorstuen,
0340 Oslo
1112 </blockquote
></p
>
1114 <p
>Et godt og grundig svar, som var informativt om hvordan NRK tenker
1115 rundt patentavtale med MPEG LA, men heller ikke helt besvarte det jeg
1116 lurte på, så jeg sendte epostoppfølging samme dag.
</p
>
1118 <p
><blockquote
>
1119 <p
>[Geir Børdalen]
1120 <br
>> Hei Petter Reinholdtsen
</p
>
1122 <p
>Hei, og takk for raskt svar. Er min henvendelse journalført slik
1123 at den dukker opp i NRKs postjournal?
</p
>
1125 <p
>Svaret ditt var meget nyttig, og jeg forstår ut fra det du skriver
1126 at avklaringen med MPEG LA rundt H
.264-distribusjon via bakkenettet
1127 gjelder alle TV-kanaler i Norge. Hvilke saksnummer fikk dokumenter
1128 som ble opprettet i forbindelse med det omtalte møtet NRK v/Hellgren
1129 og EBU hadde med MPEG LA (dvs. referater, avtaler, etc),
1130 f.eks. dokumentet der formuleringen
"in full
" som du omtaler
1133 <p
>Men det er et par ting jeg fortsatt ikke forstår. Det ene er
1134 hvorfor NRKs forståelse av hva
"Internet Broadcast AVC Video
" dekker
1135 ser ut til å avvike fra det som presenteres i
1136 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf
">lysark
1137 fra MPEG LA
</a
> i mai, der MPEG LA på lysark med overskriften
1138 "AVC/H
.264 License Terms Participation Fees
" og undertittel
"Where
1139 remuneration is from other sources
" skriver
"Internet Broadcast AVC
1140 Video (not title-by-title, not subscription) – no royalty for life of
1141 the AVC Patent Portfolio License
".
</p
>
1143 <p
>Her leser jeg MPEG LA dithen at det kun er kringkasting uten
1144 abonnement via Internet som er dekket at vilkårne omtalt i
1145 pressemeldingen, mens jeg forstår deg dithen at NRK mener NRKs
1146 nettsider som også har enkeltfilmer og innslag (som jeg forstår dekket
1147 av formuleringen
"title-by-title
") dekkes av
"Internet Broadcast AVC
1148 Video
" fra MPEG LA. Hva baserer dere denne tolkningen på? Jeg har
1149 ikke sett noe skriftlig fra MPEG LA som støtter NRKs tolkning, og
1150 lurer på om dere har andre kilder enn den pressemeldingen fra
5 år
1151 tilbake, der NRKS forståelse av hva
"Internet Broadcast AVC Video
"
1152 dekker er beskrevet?
</p
>
1154 <p
>Det andre er at eposten din ikke nevnte spørsmålet mitt om
1155 bruksvilkårene til videoredigeringsverktøyene som NRK bruker. Disse
1156 har som tidligere nevnt krav om at de kun skal brukes til private og
1157 ikke-kommersielle formål med mindre en har avtale med MPEG LA, og uten
1158 avtale med MPEG LA kan det jo virke som om NRK bruker verktøyene i
1159 strid med bruksvilkårene. Hva gjør at disse bruksvilkårene ikke
1160 gjelder for NRK?
</p
>
1161 </blockquote
></p
>
1163 <p
>Noen minutter senere får jeg foreløpig siste svar i
1164 føljetongen:
</p
>
1166 <p
><blockquote
>
1167 <p
>Hei igjen
</p
>
1169 <p
>Vårt dokumentarkiv har fått en kopi (journalføringsnr kan jeg
1170 dessverre ikke gi deg).
<p
>
1172 <p
>> Svaret ditt var meget nyttig, og jeg forstår ut fra det du
1173 <br
>> skriver at avklaringen med MPEG LA rundt H
.264-distribusjon via
1174 <br
>> bakkenettet gjelder alle TV-kanaler i Norge.
</p
>
1176 <p
>Svar: Kan ikke svare for andre enn for NRK/EBU - og for bakkenettet
1177 i Norge er det kun NRK som er et lisensbasert selskap. Kan ikke gi noe
1178 svar på saksnr på dokumenter eller ytterligere informasjon da jeg selv
1179 ikke var del i dette.
</p
>
1181 <p
>> Men det er et par ting jeg fortsatt ikke forstår. ...
</p
>
1183 <p
>Svar: Kan ikke gå ytterligere inn i dette fra min side og mitt
1184 fagfelt som er produksjon/publisering og systemstrukturene bak
1185 disse. For øvrig ligger det etter vår formening ingen begrensninger
1186 for NRK i mulighetene til publisering mht til kodek i
1187 produksjonssystemer. Som tidligere skrevet mener vi at NRK ikke
1188 trenger noen avtale med MPEG LA og støtter oss til det vi allerede har
1189 kommunisert i forrige epost.
</p
>
1192 <br
>Geir Børdalen
</p
>
1193 </blockquote
></p
>
1195 <p
>Det syntes vanskelig å komme videre når NRK ikke ønsker å gå inn i
1196 problemstillingen rundt bruksvilkårene til videoredigeringsverktøyene
1197 NRK bruker, så jeg sendte takk for svarene og avsluttet utvekslingen
1200 <p
><blockquote
>
1201 <p
>Tusen takk for rask respons, og oppklarende forklaring om hvordan
1202 NRK tenker rundt MPEG LA.
</p
>
1204 <p
>Jeg vil høre med NRK-arkivet for å se om de kan spore opp de
1205 omtalte dokumentene. Jeg setter pris på om du kan dele titler, dato
1206 eller annen informasjon som kan gjøre det enklere for arkivet å finne
1209 <p
>Når det gjelder hvordan bruksvilkårene til
1210 videoredigeringsverktøyene skal tolkes, så skal jeg høre med MPEG LA
1211 og produsentene av verktøyene for å forsøke å få klarhet i hva de
1212 mener er rikgig rettstilstand.
</p
>
1213 </blockquote
></p
>
1215 <p
>Jeg ble litt klokere, men fortsatt er det uklart for meg hva som er
1216 grunnlaget til NRK for å se bort fra bruksvilkår i
1217 videoredigeringsprogramvare som krever MPEG LA-avtale til alt annet
1218 enn privat og ikke-kommersiell bruk.
</p
>
1223 <title>Hvordan vurderer regjeringen H
.264-patentutfordringen?
</title>
1224 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvordan_vurderer_regjeringen_H_264_patentutfordringen_.html
</link>
1225 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvordan_vurderer_regjeringen_H_264_patentutfordringen_.html
</guid>
1226 <pubDate>Sun,
16 Nov
2014 10:
30:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
1227 <description><p
>For en stund tilbake spurte jeg Fornyingsdepartementet om hvilke
1228 juridiske vurderinger rundt patentproblemstillingen som var gjort da
1229 H
.264 ble tatt inn i
<a href=
"http://standard.difi.no/
">statens
1230 referansekatalog over standarder
</a
>. Stig Hornnes i FAD tipset meg
1231 om følgende som står i oppsumeringen til høringen om
1232 referansekatalogen versjon
2.0, som jeg siden ved hjelp av en
1233 innsynsforespørsel fikk tak i
1234 <a href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/
200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile
&do=get
&target=kongelig-resolusjon.pdf
">PDF-utgaven av
</a
>
1235 datert
2009-
06-
03 (saksnummer
200803291, saksbehandler Henrik
1236 Linnestad).
</p
>
1238 <p
>Der står det følgende om problemstillingen:
</p
>
1240 <p
><blockquote
>
1241 <strong
>4.4 Patentproblematikk
</strong
>
1243 <p
>NUUG og Opera ser det som særlig viktig at forslagene knyttet til
1244 lyd og video baserer seg på de royalty-frie standardene Vorbis, Theora
1247 <p
>Kommentarene relaterer seg til at enkelte standarder er åpne, men
1248 inneholder tekniske prosedyrer som det i USA (og noen andre land som
1249 Japan) er gitt patentrettigheter til. I vårt tilfelle berører dette
1250 spesielt standardene Mp3 og H
.264, selv om Politidirektoratet peker på
1251 at det muligens kan være tilsvarende problematikk også for Theora og
1252 Vorbis. Dette medfører at det i USA kan kreves royalties for bruk av
1253 tekniske løsninger knyttet til standardene, et krav som også
1254 håndheves. Patenter kan imidlertid bare hevdes i de landene hvor
1255 patentet er gitt, så amerikanske patenter gjelder ikke andre steder
1258 <p
>Spesielt for utvikling av fri programvare er patenter
1259 problematisk. GPL, en
"grunnleggende
" lisens for distribusjon av fri
1260 programvare, avviser at programvare kan distribueres under denne
1261 lisensen hvis det inneholder referanser til patenterte rutiner som
1262 utløser krav om royalties. Det er imidlertid uproblematisk å
1263 distribuere fri programvareløsninger under GPL som benytter de
1264 aktuelle standardene innen eller mellom land som ikke anerkjenner
1265 patentene. Derfor finner vi også flere implementeringer av Mp3 og
1266 H
.264 som er fri programvare, lisensiert under GPL.
</p
>
1268 <p
>I Norge og EU er patentlovgivningen langt mer restriktiv enn i USA,
1269 men det er også her mulig å få patentert metoder for løsning av et
1270 problem som relaterer seg til databehandling. Det er AIF bekjent ikke
1271 relevante patenter i EU eller Norge hva gjelder H
.264 og Mp3, men
1272 muligheten for at det finnes patenter uten at det er gjort krav om
1273 royalties eller at det senere vil gis slike patenter kan ikke helt
1276 <p
>AIF mener det er et behov for å gi offentlige virksomheter mulighet
1277 til å benytte antatt royaltyfrie åpne standarder som et likeverdig
1278 alternativ eller i tillegg til de markedsledende åpne standardene.
</p
>
1280 </blockquote
></p
>
1282 <p
>Det ser dermed ikke ut til at de har vurdert patentspørsmålet i
1283 sammenheng med opphavsrettsvilkår slik de er formulert for f.eks.
1284 Apple Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Sorenson-verktøyene,
1285 der det kreves brukstillatelse for patenter som ikke er gyldige i
1286 Norge for å bruke disse verktøyene til annet en personlig og ikke
1287 kommersiell aktivitet når det gjelder H
.264-video. Jeg må nok lete
1288 videre etter svar på det spørsmålet.
</p
>
1293 <title>Do you need an agreement with MPEG-LA to publish and broadcast H
.264 video in Norway?
</title>
1294 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Do_you_need_an_agreement_with_MPEG_LA_to_publish_and_broadcast_H_264_video_in_Norway_.html
</link>
1295 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Do_you_need_an_agreement_with_MPEG_LA_to_publish_and_broadcast_H_264_video_in_Norway_.html
</guid>
1296 <pubDate>Mon,
25 Aug
2014 22:
10:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
1297 <description><p
>Two years later, I am still not sure if it is legal here in Norway
1298 to use or publish a video in H
.264 or MPEG4 format edited by the
1299 commercially licensed video editors, without limiting the use to
1300 create
"personal
" or
"non-commercial
" videos or get a license
1301 agreement with
<a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com
">MPEG LA
</a
>. If one
1302 want to publish and broadcast video in a non-personal or commercial
1303 setting, it might be that those tools can not be used, or that video
1304 format can not be used, without breaking their copyright license. I
1306 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html
">Back
1307 then
</a
>, I found that the copyright license terms for Adobe Premiere
1308 and Apple Final Cut Pro both specified that one could not use the
1309 program to produce anything else without a patent license from MPEG
1310 LA. The issue is not limited to those two products, though. Other
1311 much used products like those from Avid and Sorenson Media have terms
1312 of use are similar to those from Adobe and Apple. The complicating
1313 factor making me unsure if those terms have effect in Norway or not is
1314 that the patents in question are not valid in Norway, but copyright
1315 licenses are.
</p
>
1317 <p
>These are the terms for Avid Artist Suite, according to their
1318 <a href=
"http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/legal-notices/legal-enduserlicense2
">published
1320 <a href=
"http://www.avid.com/static/resources/common/documents/corporate/LICENSE.pdf
">license
1321 text
</a
> (converted to lower case text for easier reading):
</p
>
1323 <p
><blockquote
>
1324 <p
>18.2. MPEG-
4. MPEG-
4 technology may be included with the
1325 software. MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this notice:
</p
>
1327 <p
>This product is licensed under the MPEG-
4 visual patent portfolio
1328 license for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer for (i)
1329 encoding video in compliance with the MPEG-
4 visual standard (“MPEG-
4
1330 video”) and/or (ii) decoding MPEG-
4 video that was encoded by a
1331 consumer engaged in a personal and non-commercial activity and/or was
1332 obtained from a video provider licensed by MPEG LA to provide MPEG-
4
1333 video. No license is granted or shall be implied for any other
1334 use. Additional information including that relating to promotional,
1335 internal and commercial uses and licensing may be obtained from MPEG
1336 LA, LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com. This product is licensed under
1337 the MPEG-
4 systems patent portfolio license for encoding in compliance
1338 with the MPEG-
4 systems standard, except that an additional license
1339 and payment of royalties are necessary for encoding in connection with
1340 (i) data stored or replicated in physical media which is paid for on a
1341 title by title basis and/or (ii) data which is paid for on a title by
1342 title basis and is transmitted to an end user for permanent storage
1343 and/or use, such additional license may be obtained from MPEG LA,
1344 LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com for additional details.
</p
>
1346 <p
>18.3. H
.264/AVC. H
.264/AVC technology may be included with the
1347 software. MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this notice:
</p
>
1349 <p
>This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for
1350 the personal use of a consumer or other uses in which it does not
1351 receive remuneration to (i) encode video in compliance with the AVC
1352 standard (“AVC video”) and/or (ii) decode AVC video that was encoded
1353 by a consumer engaged in a personal activity and/or was obtained from
1354 a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No license is granted
1355 or shall be implied for any other use. Additional information may be
1356 obtained from MPEG LA, L.L.C. See http://www.mpegla.com.
</p
>
1357 </blockquote
></p
>
1359 <p
>Note the requirement that the videos created can only be used for
1360 personal or non-commercial purposes.
</p
>
1362 <p
>The Sorenson Media software have
1363 <a href=
"http://www.sorensonmedia.com/terms/
">similar terms
</a
>:
</p
>
1365 <p
><blockquote
>
1367 <p
>With respect to a license from Sorenson pertaining to MPEG-
4 Video
1368 Decoders and/or Encoders: Any such product is licensed under the
1369 MPEG-
4 visual patent portfolio license for the personal and
1370 non-commercial use of a consumer for (i) encoding video in compliance
1371 with the MPEG-
4 visual standard (“MPEG-
4 video”) and/or (ii) decoding
1372 MPEG-
4 video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a personal and
1373 non-commercial activity and/or was obtained from a video provider
1374 licensed by MPEG LA to provide MPEG-
4 video. No license is granted or
1375 shall be implied for any other use. Additional information including
1376 that relating to promotional, internal and commercial uses and
1377 licensing may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See
1378 http://www.mpegla.com.
</p
>
1380 <p
>With respect to a license from Sorenson pertaining to MPEG-
4
1381 Consumer Recorded Data Encoder, MPEG-
4 Systems Internet Data Encoder,
1382 MPEG-
4 Mobile Data Encoder, and/or MPEG-
4 Unique Use Encoder: Any such
1383 product is licensed under the MPEG-
4 systems patent portfolio license
1384 for encoding in compliance with the MPEG-
4 systems standard, except
1385 that an additional license and payment of royalties are necessary for
1386 encoding in connection with (i) data stored or replicated in physical
1387 media which is paid for on a title by title basis and/or (ii) data
1388 which is paid for on a title by title basis and is transmitted to an
1389 end user for permanent storage and/or use. Such additional license may
1390 be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com for
1391 additional details.
</p
>
1393 </blockquote
></p
>
1395 <p
>Some free software like
1396 <a href=
"https://handbrake.fr/
">Handbrake
</A
> and
1397 <a href=
"http://ffmpeg.org/
">FFMPEG
</a
> uses GPL/LGPL licenses and do
1398 not have any such terms included, so for those, there is no
1399 requirement to limit the use to personal and non-commercial.
</p
>
1404 <title>Hvor godt fungerer Linux-klienter mot MS Exchange?
</title>
1405 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvor_godt_fungerer_Linux_klienter_mot_MS_Exchange_.html
</link>
1406 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvor_godt_fungerer_Linux_klienter_mot_MS_Exchange_.html
</guid>
1407 <pubDate>Tue,
26 Nov
2013 18:
50:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
1408 <description><p
>Jeg
1409 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_pent_m_te_p__onsdag_om_bruken_av_Microsoft_Exchange_ved_Universitetet_i_Oslo.html
">skrev
1410 i juni om protestene
</a
> på planene til min arbeidsplass,
1411 <a href=
"http://www.uio.no/
">Universitetet i Oslo
</a
>, om å gå bort fra
1412 fri programvare- og åpne standardløsninger for å håndtere epost,
1413 vekk fra IETF-standarden SIEVE for filtrering av epost og over til
1414 godseide spesifikasjoner og epostsystemet Microsoft Exchange.
1415 Protestene har fått litt ny omtale i media de siste dagene, i tillegg
1416 til de oppslagene som kom i mai.
</p
>
1420 <li
>2013-
11-
26 <a href=
"http://www.version2.dk/artikel/gigantisk-outlook-konvertering-moeder-protester-paa-universitet-
55147">Gigantisk Outlook-konvertering møder protester på universitet
</a
> - versjon2.dk
</li
>
1422 <li
>2013-
11-
25
1423 <a href=
"http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article279407.ece
">Microsoft-protest
1424 på Universitetet
</a
> - Computerworld
</li
>
1426 <li
>2013-
11-
25
1427 <a href=
"http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/
2013/
11/uio-bor-bruke-apen-programvare.html
">Kjemper
1428 mot innføring av Microsoft Exchange på UiO
</a
> - Uniforum
</li
>
1430 <li
>2013-
11-
25
1431 <a href=
"http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/
2013/
11/uio-utsetter-innforing-av-nytt-e-postsystem.html
">Utsetter
1432 innføring av nytt e-postsystem
</a
> - Uniforum
</li
>
1434 <li
>2013-
05-
29
1435 <a href=
"http://universitas.no/nyhet/
58462/forsvarer-nytt-it-system
">Forsvarer
1436 nytt IT-system
</a
> - Universitas
</li
>
1438 <li
>2013-
05-
23
1439 <a href=
"http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/
2013/
05/uio-innforer-nytt-epost-og-kalendersystem.html
">UiO
1440 innfører nytt epost- og kalenderverktøy
</a
> - Uniforum
</li
>
1442 <li
>2013-
05-
22
1443 <a href=
"http://universitas.no/nyhet/
58424/protestgruppe-vil-stanse-it-system
">Protestgruppe
1444 vil stanse IT-system
</a
> - Universitas
</li
>
1446 <li
>2013-
05-
15
1447 <a href=
"http://www.uniforum.uio.no/leserbrev/
2013/uio-ma-ha-kontroll-over-sitt-eget-epostsystem.html
">UiO
1448 må ha kontroll over sitt eget epostsystem
</a
> - Uniforum
</li
>
1452 <p
>Prosjektledelsen har fortalt at dette skal fungere like godt for
1453 Linux-brukere som for brukere av Microsoft Windows og Apple MacOSX,
1454 men jeg lurer på hva slags erfaringer Linux-brukere i eksisterende
1455 miljøer som bruker MS Exchange har gjort. Hvis du har slik erfaring
1456 hadet det vært veldig fint om du kan send et leserbrev til
1457 <a href=
"http://www.uniforum.uio.no/
">Uniforum
</a
> og fortelle om hvor
1458 greit det er å bruke Exchange i kryss-platform-miljøer? De jeg har
1459 snakket med sier en greit får lest e-posten sin hvis Exchange har
1460 slått på IMAP-funksjonalitet, men at kalender og møtebooking ikke
1461 fungerer godt for Linux-klienter. Jeg har ingen personlig erfaring å
1462 komme med, så jeg er nysgjerrig på hva andre kan dele av erfaringer
1463 med universitetet.
</p
>
1465 <p
>Mitt ankerpunkt mot å bytte ut fri programvare som fungerer godt
1466 med godseid programvare er at en mister kontroll over egen
1467 infrastruktur, låser seg inn i en løsning det vil bli dyrt å komme ut
1468 av, uten at en får funksjonalitet en ikke kunne skaffet seg med fri
1469 programvare, eventuelt videreutviklet med de pengene som brukes på
1470 overgangen til MS Exchange. Personlig planlegger jeg å fortsette å
1471 laste ned all eposten min til lokal maskin for indeksering og lesing
1472 med
<a href==
"http://notmuchmail.org
">notmuch
</a
>, så jeg håper jeg
1473 ikke blir veldig skadelidende av overgangen.
</p
>
1475 <p
><a href=
"http://dinis.linguateca.pt/Diana/ImotMSUiO.html
">Underskriftslista
1476 for oss som er mot endringen
</a
>, som omtales i artiklene, er fortsatt
1477 åpen for de som vil signere på oppropet. Akkurat nå er det
298
1478 personer som har signert.
</p
>
1483 <title>Åpent møte på onsdag om bruken av Microsoft Exchange ved Universitetet i Oslo
</title>
1484 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_pent_m_te_p__onsdag_om_bruken_av_Microsoft_Exchange_ved_Universitetet_i_Oslo.html
</link>
1485 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_pent_m_te_p__onsdag_om_bruken_av_Microsoft_Exchange_ved_Universitetet_i_Oslo.html
</guid>
1486 <pubDate>Mon,
3 Jun
2013 14:
00:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
1487 <description><p
>Jeg jobber til daglig ved
<a href=
"http://www.uio.no/
">Universitetet
1488 i Oslo
</a
>, en institusjon som lenge har vektlagt verdien av åpne
1489 standarder og fri programvare. Men noe har endret seg, og for en
1490 liten stund tilbake annonserte USIT at dagens fungerende e-postsystemet
1491 basert på fri programvare skulle byttes ut med Microsoft Exchange og
1492 at Microsoft Outlook skulle bli den best fungerende men antagelig ikke
1493 eneste støttede e-postklienten. Annonseringen har ført til flere
1494 protester og
<a href=
"http://folk.uio.no/dssantos/nooutlookatuio/
">en
1495 underskriftskampanje
</a
>, initiert av Diana Santos, der så langt
253
1496 personer har signert. Prosjektet
1497 <a href=
"http://www.usit.uio.no/prosjekter/nike/
">NIKE (Ny integrert
1498 kalender/e-post)
</a
> ble initiert for å se på mulige løsninger med
1499 utgangspunkt i at en kombinert epost/kalenderløsning var påkrevd, og
1501 <a href=
"http://www.usit.uio.no/prosjekter/nike-implementasjon/
">NIKE-implementasjon
</a
>
1502 er igang med å rulle ut MS Exchange ved Universitetet i Oslo.
</p
>
1504 <p
>For kun kort tid siden ble det annonsert at det blir et åpent møte
1505 med ledelsen hos universitetet i Oslo med disse planene som tema:
</p
>
1507 <p
>Tid:
<strong
>Onsdag
2013-
06-
05 kl.
10:
00</strong
>
1508 <br
>Sted:
<strong
>9. etasje i Lucy Smiths hus (admin-bygget)
</strong
></p
>
1510 <p
> Det kan være en god plass å stille opp hvis en som meg ikke tror
1511 valget av Microsoft Exchange som sentral epostinfrastruktur er et
1512 heldig valg for Norges ledende forskningsuniversitet, men at en er mer
1514 <a href=
"http://nuug.no/dokumenter/kronikk-friprog-itsikkerhet.shtml
">beholde
1515 kontrollen over egen infrastruktur
</a
>.
</p
>
1517 <p
>Saken har ført til endel presseoppslag så langt. Her er de jeg har
1518 fått med meg:
</p
>
1522 <li
>2013-
05-
29
1523 <a href=
"http://universitas.no/nyhet/
58462/forsvarer-nytt-it-system
">Forsvarer
1524 nytt IT-system
</a
> - Universitas
</li
>
1526 <li
>2013-
05-
23
1527 <a href=
"http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/
2013/
05/uio-innforer-nytt-epost-og-kalendersystem.html
">UiO
1528 innfører nytt epost- og kalenderverktøy
</a
> - Uniforum
</li
>
1531 <li
>2013-
05-
22
1532 <a href=
"http://universitas.no/nyhet/
58424/protestgruppe-vil-stanse-it-system
">Protestgruppe
1533 vil stanse IT-system
</a
> - Universitas
</li
>
1536 <li
>2013-
05-
15
1537 <a href=
"http://www.uniforum.uio.no/leserbrev/
2013/uio-ma-ha-kontroll-over-sitt-eget-epostsystem.html
">UiO
1538 må ha kontroll over sitt eget epostsystem
</a
> - Uniforum
</li
>
1547 <title>Mer innsyn i bakgrunnen for fjerning av ODF fra statens standardkatalog
</title>
1548 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_innsyn_i_bakgrunnen_for_fjerning_av_ODF_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html
</link>
1549 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_innsyn_i_bakgrunnen_for_fjerning_av_ODF_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html
</guid>
1550 <pubDate>Tue,
9 Apr
2013 10:
30:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
1551 <description><p
>For cirka en måned siden
1552 <ahref=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjeringen__Fornyingsdepartementet_og_DIFI_g_r_inn_for___fjerne_ODF_som_obligatorisk_standard_i_det_offentlige.html
">ba
1553 jeg om begrunnelse på nektet innsyn i dokumenter
</a
> om
1554 standardkatalogen fra Fornyingsdepartementet. I dag fikk jeg svar fra
1555 Fornyingsdepartementet, og tilgang til dokumentene. Jeg fikk både
1556 innsyn i vedlegg sendt fra DIFI, og også innsyn i et notat brukt
1557 internt i Fornyingsdepartementet:
</p
>
1561 <li
><a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-Fornyingsdepartementet/sak-
2012-
2168/Oppsummering%
20av%
20h%f8ringen%
20om%
20endringer%
20i%
20forskrift%
20om%
20IT-standarder.pdf
">Epost fra DIFI til Fornyingsdepartementet, datert
2012-
11-
23</a
></li
>
1563 <li
><a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-Fornyingsdepartementet/sak-
2012-
2168/Oppsummering%
20og%
20anbefaling%
20etter%
20h%f8ring.pdf
">vedlegg
1, Oppsummering og anbefalinger etter høring av endringer i forskrift om IT-standarer i offentlig forvaltning, datert
2012-
11-
23</a
></li
>
1565 <li
><a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-Fornyingsdepartementet/sak-
2012-
2168/Vedlegg%
20Om%
20h%f8ringe.docx%
20(L)(
898066).pdf
">Notat fra avdeling for IKT og fornying til statsråd i Fornyingsdepartementet om høringen, datert
2013-
01-
03</a
></li
>
1569 <p
>Det bør nevnes at da jeg ble nektet innsyn hos mottaker
1570 Fornyingsdepartementet på høringsoppsummeringen som DIFI hadde sendt
1571 ut, spurte jeg DIFI om innsyn i stedet. Det fikk jeg i løpet av et
1572 par dager. Moralen er at hvis ikke mottaker ikke vil gi innsyn, spør
1573 avsender i stedet. Kanskje de har forskjellig forståelse av hva som
1574 bør holdes skjult for folket. Her er de tilsvarende dokumentene jeg
1575 fikk innsyn i fra DIFI:
</p
>
1579 <li
><a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-DIFI/Epostforsendelse.pdf
">Epost fra DIFI til Fornyingsdepartementet, datert
2012-
11-
23</a
></li
>
1581 <li
><a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-DIFI/Vedlegg%
201,%
20Oppsummering%
20av%
20h%f8ring%
20om%
20endringer%
20i%
20forskrift%
20om%
20IT-standarder.pdf
">vedlegg
1, Oppsummering og anbefalinger etter høring av endringer i forskrift om IT-standarer i offentlig forvaltning, datert
2012-
11-
23</a
></li
>
1583 <li
><a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-DIFI/Vedlegg%
202,%
20Forslag%
20til%
20endringsforskrift.pdf
">Vedlegg
2, Forslag til endringsforskrift, udatert
</a
></li
>
1585 <li
><a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-DIFI/Vedlegg%
203%
20Forskrift%
20om%
20IT-standarder%
20i%
20offentlig%
20forvaltning.pdf
">Vedlegg
3, Forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig forvaltning, udatert
</a
></li
>
1589 <p
>Det jeg synes er mest interessant er endel av aktørene som
1590 protesterte på fjerningen (Kartverket, Drammen kommune), og hvordan
1591 høringsoppsummeringen ikke tar stilling til effekten av å fjerne ODF
1592 fra katalogen.
</p
>
1597 <title>Regjeringen, FAD og DIFI går inn for å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk standard i det offentlige
</title>
1598 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjeringen__FAD_og_DIFI_g_r_inn_for___fjerne_ODF_som_obligatorisk_standard_i_det_offentlige.html
</link>
1599 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjeringen__FAD_og_DIFI_g_r_inn_for___fjerne_ODF_som_obligatorisk_standard_i_det_offentlige.html
</guid>
1600 <pubDate>Mon,
18 Mar
2013 21:
10:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
1601 <description><p
>I
1602 <a href=
"http://standard.difi.no/hoyring/forslag-om-endring-av-forskrift-om-it-standarder-i-offentlig-forvaltning
">siste
1604 <a href=
"http://standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder
">referansekatalogen
1605 for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor
</a
>, med høringsfrist
2012-
09-
30
1606 (DIFI-sak
2012/
498), ble det foreslått å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk
1607 standard når en publiserte dokumenter som skulle kunne redigeres
1608 videre av mottaker. NUUG og andre protesterte på forslaget, som er et
1609 langt steg tilbake når det gjelder å sikre like rettigheter for alle
1610 når en kommuniserer med det offentlige. For noen dager siden ble jeg
1611 oppmerksom på at Direktoratet for forvaltning og IKT (DIFI) og
1612 Fornyings-,administrasjons- og kirkedepartementet (FAD) har
1613 konkludert, og oversendt forslag til regjeringen i saken. FADs
1615 <a href=
"http://www.oep.no/search/result.html?period=none
&descType=both
&caseNumber=
2012%
2F2168
&senderType=both
&documentType=all
&list2=
94&searchType=advanced
&Search=S%C3%B8k+i+journaler
">2012/
2168</a
>-
8,
1616 «Utkast til endring av standardiseringsforskriften» datert
2013-
02-
06
1617 har følgende triste oppsummering fra høringen i saken:
</p
>
1619 <p
><blockquote
>
1620 Det kom noen innvendinger på forslaget om å fjerne ODF som
1621 obligatorisk standard for redigerbare dokumenter. Innvendingene har
1622 ikke blitt ilagt avgjørende vekt.
1623 </blockquote
></p
>
1625 <p
>Ved å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk format ved publisering av
1626 redigerbare dokumenter setter en Norge tiår tilbake. Det som vil skje
1627 er at offentlige etater går tilbake til kun å publisere dokumenter på
1628 et av de mange formatene til Microsoft Office, og alle som ikke
1629 aksepterer bruksvilkårene til Microsoft eller ikke har råd til å bruke
1630 penger på å få tilgang til Microsoft Office må igjen basere seg på
1631 verktøy fra utviklerne som er avhengig av å reversutvikle disse
1632 formatene. I og med at ISO-spesifikasjonen for OOXML ikke komplett og
1633 korrekt spesifiserer formatene til MS Office (men er nyttige å titte i
1634 når en reversutvikler), er en tilbake til en situasjon der en ikke har
1635 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html
">en
1636 fri og åpen standard
</a
> å forholde seg til, men i stedet må springe
1637 etter Microsoft. Alle andre leverandører enn Microsoft vil dermed ha
1638 en seriøs ulempe. Det er som å fjerne krav om bruk av meter som
1639 måleenhet, og heretter aksepterer alle måleenheter som like gyldige,
1640 når en vet at den mest brukte enheten vil være armlengden til Steve
1641 Ballmer slik Microsoft måler den.
</p
>
1643 <p
>Jeg er ikke sikker på om forslaget er vedtatt av regjeringen ennå.
1644 Kristian Bergem hos DIFI nevnte på et møte forrige tirsdag at han
1645 trodde det var vedtatt i statsråd
8. mars, men jeg har ikke klart å
1646 finne en skriftlig kilde på regjeringen.no som bekrefter dette.
1647 Kanskje det ennå ikke er for sent...
</p
>
1649 <p
>Jeg ba i forrige uke om innsyn i dokument
6,
7 og
8 i FAD-saken, og
1650 har i dag fått innsyn i dokument
7 og
8. Ble nektet innsyn i
1651 dokumentet med tittelen «Oppsummering av høring om endringer i
1652 forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig forvaltning» med hjemmel i
1653 off. lovens §
15.1, så det er vanskelig å vite hvordan argumentene fra
1654 høringen ble mottatt og forstått av saksbehandleren hos DIFI. Lurer
1655 på hvordan jeg kan klage på at jeg ikke fikk se oppsummeringen. Fikk
1656 tre PDFer tilsendt fra FAD,
1657 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-FAD/sak-
2012-
2168/
20130115%
20Notat%
20FAD%
20-%
20EHF.pdf%
20(L)(
889185).pdf
">Endring av underversjon i EHF
</a
>,
1658 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-FAD/sak-
2012-
2168/Bakgrunnsnotat%
20knyttet%
20til%
20versjon%
20av%
20EHF%
20standarden%
20i%
20Forskrift%
20om%
20IT-standarder%
20i%
20offentlig%
20sektor.pdf
">Bakgrunnsnotat knyttet til versjon av EHF standarden i Forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig sektor
</a
> og
1659 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-FAD/sak-
2012-
2168/Utkast%
20Kongelig%
20resolusjon.docx%
20(L)(
898064).pdf
">Utkast til endring av standardiseringsforskriften
</a
>, hvis du vil ta en titt.
</p
>
1664 <title>"Electronic
" paper invoices - using vCard in a QR code
</title>
1665 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_Electronic__paper_invoices___using_vCard_in_a_QR_code.html
</link>
1666 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_Electronic__paper_invoices___using_vCard_in_a_QR_code.html
</guid>
1667 <pubDate>Tue,
12 Feb
2013 10:
30:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
1668 <description><p
>Here in Norway, electronic invoices are spreading, and the
1669 <a href=
"http://www.anskaffelser.no/e-handel/faktura
">solution promoted
1670 by the Norwegian government
</a
> require that invoices are sent through
1671 one of the approved facilitators, and it is not possible to send
1672 electronic invoices without an agreement with one of these
1673 facilitators. This seem like a needless limitation to be able to
1674 transfer invoice information between buyers and sellers. My preferred
1675 solution would be to just transfer the invoice information directly
1676 between seller and buyer, for example using SMTP, or some HTTP based
1677 protocol like REST or SOAP. But this might also be overkill, as the
1678 "electronic
" information can be transferred using paper invoices too,
1679 using a simple bar code. My bar code encoding of choice would be QR
1680 codes, as this encoding can be read by any smart phone out there. The
1681 content of the code could be anything, but I would go with
1682 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCard
">the vCard format
</a
>, as
1683 it too is supported by a lot of computer equipment these days.
</p
>
1685 <p
>The vCard format support extentions, and the invoice specific
1686 information can be included using such extentions. For example an
1687 invoice from SLX Debian Labs (picked because we
1688 <a href=
"http://www.linuxiskolen.no/slxdebianlabs/donations.html
">ask
1689 for donations to the Debian Edu project
</a
> and thus have bank account
1690 information publicly available) for NOK
1000.00 could have these extra
1693 <p
><pre
>
1695 X-INVOICE-AMOUNT:NOK1000.00
1696 X-INVOICE-KID:
123412341234
1697 X-INVOICE-MSG:Donation to Debian Edu
1698 X-BANK-ACCOUNT-NUMBER:
16040884339
1699 X-BANK-IBAN-NUMBER:NO8516040884339
1700 X-BANK-SWIFT-NUMBER:DNBANOKKXXX
1701 </pre
></p
>
1703 <p
>The X-BANK-ACCOUNT-NUMBER field was proposed in a stackoverflow
1705 <a href=
"http://stackoverflow.com/questions/
10045664/storing-bank-account-in-vcard-file
">how
1706 to put bank account information into a vCard
</a
>. For payments in
1707 Norway, either X-INVOICE-KID (payment ID) or X-INVOICE-MSG could be
1708 used to pass on information to the seller when paying the invoice.
</p
>
1710 <p
>The complete vCard could look like this:
</p
>
1712 <p
><pre
>
1715 ORG:SLX Debian Labs Foundation
1716 ADR;WORK:;;Gunnar Schjelderups vei
29D;OSLO;;
0485;Norway
1717 URL;WORK:http://www.linuxiskolen.no/slxdebianlabs/
1718 EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:sdl-styret@rt.nuug.no
1719 REV:
20130212T095000Z
1721 X-INVOICE-AMOUNT:NOK1000.00
1722 X-INVOICE-MSG:Donation to Debian Edu
1723 X-BANK-ACCOUNT-NUMBER:
16040884339
1724 X-BANK-IBAN-NUMBER:NO8516040884339
1725 X-BANK-SWIFT-NUMBER:DNBANOKKXXX
1727 </pre
></p
>
1729 <p
>The resulting QR code created using
1730 <a href=
"http://fukuchi.org/works/qrencode/
">qrencode
</a
> would look
1731 like this, and should be readable (and thus checkable) by any smart
1732 phone, or for example the
<a href=
"http://zbar.sourceforge.net/
">zbar
1733 bar code reader
</a
> and feed right into the approval and accounting
1736 <p
><img src=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/
2013-
02-
12-qr-invoice.png
"></p
>
1738 <p
>The extension fields will most likely not show up in any normal
1739 vCard reader, so those parts would have to go directly into a system
1740 handling invoices. I am a bit unsure how vCards without name parts
1741 are handled, but a simple test indicate that this work just fine.
</p
>
1743 <p
><strong
>Update
2013-
02-
12 11:
30</strong
>: Added KID to the proposal
1744 based on feedback from Sturle Sunde.
</p
>
1749 <title>12 years of outages - summarised by Stuart Kendrick
</title>
1750 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/
12_years_of_outages___summarised_by_Stuart_Kendrick.html
</link>
1751 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/
12_years_of_outages___summarised_by_Stuart_Kendrick.html
</guid>
1752 <pubDate>Fri,
26 Oct
2012 14:
20:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
1753 <description><p
>I work at the
<a href=
"http://www.uio.no/
">University of Oslo
</a
>
1754 looking after the computers, mostly on the unix side, but in general
1755 all over the place. I am also a member (and currently leader) of
1756 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/
">the NUUG association
</a
>, which in turn
1757 make me a member of
<a href=
"http://www.usenix.org/
">USENIX
</a
>. NUUG
1758 is an member organisation for us in Norway interested in free
1759 software, open standards and unix like operating systems, and USENIX
1760 is a US based member organisation with similar targets. And thanks to
1761 these memberships, I get all issues of the great USENIX magazine
1762 <a href=
"https://www.usenix.org/publications/login
">;login:
</a
> in the
1763 mail several times a year. The magazine is great, and I read most of
1764 it every time.
</p
>
1766 <p
>In the last issue of the USENIX magazine ;login:, there is an
1767 article by
<a href=
"http://www.skendric.com/
">Stuart Kendrick
</a
> from
1768 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center titled
1769 "<a href=
"https://www.usenix.org/publications/login/october-
2012-volume-
37-number-
5/what-takes-us-down
">What
1770 Takes Us Down
</a
>" (longer version also
1771 <a href=
"http://www.skendric.com/problem/incident-analysis/
2012-
06-
30/What-Takes-Us-Down.pdf
">available
1772 from his own site
</a
>), where he report what he found when he
1773 processed the outage reports (both planned and unplanned) from the
1774 last twelve years and classified them according to cause, time of day,
1775 etc etc. The article is a good read to get some empirical data on
1776 what kind of problems affect a data centre, but what really inspired
1777 me was the kind of reporting they had put in place since
2000.
<p
>
1779 <p
>The centre set up a mailing list, and started to send fairly
1780 standardised messages to this list when a outage was planned or when
1781 it already occurred, to announce the plan and get feedback on the
1782 assumtions on scope and user impact. Here is the two example from the
1783 article: First the unplanned outage:
1785 <blockquote
><pre
>
1786 Subject: Exchange
2003 Cluster Issues
1787 Severity: Critical (Unplanned)
1788 Start: Monday, May
7,
2012,
11:
58
1789 End: Monday, May
7,
2012,
12:
38
1790 Duration:
40 minutes
1791 Scope: Exchange
2003
1792 Description: The HTTPS service on the Exchange cluster crashed, triggering
1795 User Impact: During this period, all Exchange users were unable to
1796 access e-mail. Zimbra users were unaffected.
1798 </pre
></blockquote
>
1800 Next the planned outage:
1802 <blockquote
><pre
>
1803 Subject: H Building Switch Upgrades
1804 Severity: Major (Planned)
1805 Start: Saturday, June
16,
2012,
06:
00
1806 End: Saturday, June
16,
2012,
16:
00
1809 Description: Currently, Catalyst
4006s provide
10/
100 Ethernet to end-
1810 stations. We will replace these with newer Catalyst
1812 User Impact: All users on H2 will be isolated from the network during
1813 this work. Afterward, they will have gigabit
1816 </pre
></blockquote
>
1818 <p
>He notes in his article that the date formats and other fields have
1819 been a bit too free form to make it easy to automatically process them
1820 into a database for further analysis, and I would have used ISO
8601
1821 dates myself to make it easier to process (in other words I would ask
1822 people to write
'2012-
06-
16 06:
00 +
0000' instead of the start time
1823 format listed above). There are also other issues with the format
1824 that could be improved, read the article for the details.
</p
>
1826 <p
>I find the idea of standardising outage messages seem to be such a
1827 good idea that I would like to get it implemented here at the
1828 university too. We do register
1829 <a href=
"http://www.uio.no/tjenester/it/aktuelt/planlagte-tjenesteavbrudd/
">planned
1830 changes and outages in a calendar
</a
>, and report the to a mailing
1831 list, but we do not do so in a structured format and there is not a
1832 report to the same location for unplanned outages. Perhaps something
1833 for other sites to consider too?
</p
>
1838 <title>NUUGs høringsuttalelse til DIFIs forslag om å kaste ut ODF fra statens standardkatalog
</title>
1839 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_h_ringsuttalelse_til_DIFIs_forslag_om___kaste_ut_ODF_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html
</link>
1840 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_h_ringsuttalelse_til_DIFIs_forslag_om___kaste_ut_ODF_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html
</guid>
1841 <pubDate>Mon,
1 Oct
2012 08:
20:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
1842 <description><p
>Som jeg
1843 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html
">skrev
1844 i juni
</a
> har DIFI foreslått å fjerne krav om å bruke ODF til
1845 utveksling av redigerbare dokumenter med det offentlige, og
1846 derigjennom tvinge innbyggerne til å forholde seg til formatene til MS
1847 Office når en kommuniserer med det offentlige.
</p
>
1849 <p
>I går kveld fikk vi i
<a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/
">NUUG
</a
>
1850 fullført vår høringsuttalelse og sendt den inn til DIFI. Du finner
1851 <a href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/
201209-forskrift-standardkatalog
">uttalelsen
1852 på wikien
</a
>. Ta en titt. Fristen for å sende inn uttalelse var i
1853 går søndag, men en får kanskje sitt innspill med hvis en sender i
1859 <title>Free software forced Microsoft to open Office (and don
't forget Officeshots)
</title>
1860 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Free_software_forced_Microsoft_to_open_Office__and_don_t_forget_Officeshots_.html
</link>
1861 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Free_software_forced_Microsoft_to_open_Office__and_don_t_forget_Officeshots_.html
</guid>
1862 <pubDate>Thu,
23 Aug
2012 14:
20:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
1863 <description><p
>I came across a great comment from Simon Phipps today, about how
1864 <a href=
"http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/how-microsoft-was-forced-open-office-
200233">Microsoft
1865 have been forced to open Office
</a
>, and it made me remember and
1866 revisit the great site
1867 <a href=
"http://www.officeshots.org/
">officeshots
</a
> which allow you
1868 to check out how different programs present the ODF file format. I
1869 recommend both to those of my readers interested in ODF. :)
</p
>
1874 <title>OOXML og standardisering
</title>
1875 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OOXML_og_standardisering.html
</link>
1876 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OOXML_og_standardisering.html
</guid>
1877 <pubDate>Wed,
25 Jul
2012 21:
10:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
1878 <description><p
>DIFI har
1879 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html
">en
1880 høring gående
</a
> om ny versjon av statens standardkatalog, med frist
1881 2012-
09-
30, der det foreslås å fjerne ODF fra katalogen og ta inn ISO
1882 OOXML. I den anledning minnes jeg
1883 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Refkat_v2.pdf
">notatet
1884 FAD skrev
</a
> da versjon
2 av standardkatalogen var under
1885 utarbeidelse, da FAD og DIFI fortsatt forsto poenget med og verdien av
1886 frie og åpne standarder.
</p
>
1888 <p
>Det er mange som tror at OOXML er ett spesifikt format, men det
1889 brukes ofte som fellesbetegnelse for både formatet spesifisert av
1890 ECMA, ISO, og formatet produsert av Microsoft Office (aka docx), som
1891 dessverre ikke er det samme formatet. Fra en av de som implementerte
1892 støtte for docx-formatet i KDE fikk jeg høre at ISO-spesifikasjonen
1893 var en nyttig referanse, men at det var mange avvik som gjorde at en
1894 ikke kunne gå ut ifra at Microsoft Office produserte dokumenter i
1895 henhold til ISO-spesifikasjonen.
</p
>
1897 <p
>ISOs OOXML-spesifikasjon har (eller hadde, usikker på om
1898 kommentaren er oppdatert) i følge
1899 <a href=
"http://surguy.net/articles/ooxml-validation-and-technical-review.xml
">Inigo
1900 Surguy
</a
> feil i mer enn
10% av eksemplene, noe som i tillegg gjør
1901 det vanskelig å bruke spesifikasjonen til å implementere støtte for
1902 ISO OOXML. Jeg har ingen erfaring med å validere OOXML-dokumenter
1904 <a href=
"http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=
5124">Microsoft
1905 har laget en validator
</a
> som jeg ikke kan teste da den kun er
1906 tilgjengelig på MS Windows. Finner også en annen kalt
1907 <a href=
"http://code.google.com/p/officeotron/
">Office-O-Tron
</A
> som
1908 er oppdatert i fjor. Lurer på om de validerer at dokumenter er i
1909 formatet til Microsoft office, eller om de validerer at de er i
1910 henhold til formatene spesifisert av ECMA og ISO. Det hadde også vært
1911 interessant å se om docx-dokumentene publisert av det offentlige er
1912 gyldige ISO OOXML-dokumenter.
</p
>
1917 <title>Mer oppfølging fra MPEG-LA om avtale med dem for å kringkaste og publisere H
.264-video
</title>
1918 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_oppf_lging_fra_MPEG_LA_om_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html
</link>
1919 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_oppf_lging_fra_MPEG_LA_om_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html
</guid>
1920 <pubDate>Thu,
5 Jul
2012 23:
50:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
1921 <description><p
>I føljetongen om H
.264
1922 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html
">forlot
1923 jeg leserne i undring
</a
> om hvor pakken fra MPEG-LA tok veien, og om
1924 hvilke selskaper i Norge som har avtale med MPEG-LA. Da Ryan hos
1925 MPEG-LA dro på ferie sendte jeg min melding videre til hans kollega,
1926 og dagen etter fikk jeg følgende svar derfra:
</p
>
1928 <p
><blockquote
>
1929 <p
>Date: Fri,
29 Jun
2012 18:
32:
34 +
0000
1930 <br
>From: Sidney Wolf
&lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
1931 <br
>To: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;pere (at) hungry.com
&gt;
1932 <br
>Cc: Ryan Rodriguez
&lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
1933 <br
>Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?
</p
>
1935 <p
>Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,
</p
>
1937 <p
>Thank you for your message. As you know, Ryan is currently our of the
1938 office, so it will be my pleasure to assist you.
</p
>
1940 <p
>Per your request, attached please find an electronic copy of the
1941 AVC Patent Portfolio License. Please note that the electronic copy of
1942 the License is provided as a convenience and for informational
1943 purposes only. When concluding the Licenses, only the hard copies
1944 provided by MPEG LA may be used.
</p
>
1946 <p
>To your question, MPEG LA lists our Licensees on our website
1947 according to each program. The lists are in alphabetical order, so it
1948 is very easy to search.
</p
>
1950 <p
>I hope that this was helpful. If we can be of additional
1951 assistance, please let me know.
</p
>
1953 <p
>Kind regards,
</p
>
1955 <p
>Sidney A. Wolf
1956 <br
>Manager, Global Licensing
1957 <br
>MPEG LA
</p
>
1958 </blockquote
></p
>
1960 <p
>Selv om et epostvedlegg er nyttig for mottakeren, så håpet jeg å få
1961 et dokument jeg kunne dele med alle leserne av bloggen min, og ikke et
1962 som må deles på individuell basis. Opphavsretten krever godkjenning
1963 fra rettighetsinnehaver før en kan gjøre slikt, så dermed fulgte jeg
1964 opp med et spørsmål om dette var greit.
</p
>
1966 <p
><blockquote
>
1967 <p
>Date: Wed,
4 Jul
2012 20:
25:
06 +
0200
1968 <br
>From: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;pere (at) hungry.com
&gt;
1969 <br
>To: Sidney Wolf
&lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
1970 <br
>Cc: Ryan Rodriguez
&lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
1971 <br
>Subject: Re: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?
</p
>
1973 <p
>Thank you for your reply.
</p
>
1975 <p
>[Sidney Wolf]
1976 <br
>&gt; Per your request, attached please find an electronic copy of the AVC
1977 <br
>&gt; Patent Portfolio License. Please note that the electronic copy of
1978 <br
>&gt; the License is provided as a convenience and for informational
1979 <br
>&gt; purposes only. When concluding the Licenses, only the hard copies
1980 <br
>&gt; provided by MPEG LA may be used.
</p
>
1982 <p
>This is useful for me to learn, but the reason I asked for the
1983 Internet address of the licensing document was to ensure I could
1984 publish a link to it when I discuss the topic of H
.264 licensing here
1985 in Norway, and allow others to verify my observations. I can not do
1986 the same with an email attachment. Thus I would like to ask you if it
1987 is OK with MPEG LA that I publish this document on the Internet for
1988 others to read?
</p
>
1990 <p
>&gt; To your question, MPEG LA lists our Licensees on our website
1991 <br
>&gt; according to each program. The lists are in alphabetical order, so
1992 <br
>&gt; it is very easy to search.
</p
>
1994 <p
>I am afraid this do not help me locate Norwegian companies in the
1995 list of Licensees. I do not know the name of all companies and
1996 organisations in Norway, and thus do not know how to locate the
1997 Norwegian ones on that list.
</p
>
1999 <p
>&gt; I hope that this was helpful. If we can be of additional assistance,
2000 <br
>&gt; please let me know.
</p
>
2002 <p
>Absoutely helpful to learn more about how MPEG LA handle licensing.
</p
>
2005 <br
>Happy hacking
2006 <br
>Petter Reinholdtsen
</p
>
2007 </blockquote
></p
>
2009 <p
>Jeg håpet også at det skulle være mulig å få vite hvilke av de
2010 mange hundre som har avtale med MPEG-LA om bruk av H
.264 som holdt til
2011 i Norge. Begge mine håp falt i grus med svaret fra MPEG-LA.
2013 <p
><blockquote
>
2014 <p
>Date: Thu,
5 Jul
2012 17:
42:
39 +
0000
2015 <br
>From: Sidney Wolf
&lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
2016 <br
>To:
'Petter Reinholdtsen
' &lt;pere (at) hungry.com
&gt;
2017 <br
>Cc: Ryan Rodriguez
&lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
2018 <br
>Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?
</p
>
2020 <p
>Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,
</p
>
2022 <p
>Thank you for your reply.
</p
>
2024 <p
>We appreciate the additional explanation you have provided and for
2025 asking our permission to publish the electronic copy of the License in
2026 advance of doing so. Typically, MPEG LA prefers to distribute the
2027 electronic copies of our Licenses to interested parties. Therefore,
2028 please feel free to send interested parties to the AVC portion of our
2029 website, http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Intro.aspx for
2030 their further reference.
</p
>
2032 <p
>As previously mentioned, MPEG LA maintains a list of Licensees in good
2033 standing on our website according to each program. Due to the large
2034 volume of Licensees, it would be administratively impractical to
2035 provide this level of detail to interested parties. Therefore, I am
2036 afraid we are not in a position to assist you with your request.
</p
>
2038 <p
>Kind regards,
</p
>
2040 <p
>Sidney A. Wolf
2041 <br
>Manager, Global Licensing
2042 <br
>MPEG LA
</p
>
2043 </blockquote
></p
>
2045 <p
>Men takket være epostvedlegget kunne jeg søke på Google etter
2046 setningen
"WHEREAS, a video standard commonly referred to as AVC has
2047 been defined and is referred to in this Agreement as the “AVC
2048 Standard” (as more fully defined herein below)
" som finnes i avtalen,
2049 og lokalisere en kopi fra
2007 av
2050 <a href=
"http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/
1342960/
000119312509050004/dex1024.htm
">lisensavtalen
2051 mellom MPEG-LA og DivX, Inc.
</a
>, slik at mine lesere kan se hvordan
2052 avtalen så ut da. Jeg har ikke sammenlignet tekstene for å se om noe
2053 har endret seg siden den tid, men satser på at teksten er representativ.
</p
>
2055 <p
>Jeg aner fortsatt ikke hvor FedEx tok veien med pakken fra
2058 <p
>Update
2012-
07-
06: Jeg er visst ikke den første som forsøker å få
2059 klarhet i problemstillinger rundt H
.264, og kom nettopp over en veldig
2060 interessant bloggpost fra
2010 hos LibreVideo med tittelen
2061 "<a href=
"http://www.librevideo.org/blog/
2010/
06/
14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-
264-licensing/
">MPEG-LA
2062 answers some questions about AVC/H
.264 licensing
</a
>. Anbefales!
</p
>
2067 <title>DIFI foreslår å kaste ut ODF og ta inn OOXML fra statens standardkatalog
</title>
2068 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html
</link>
2069 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html
</guid>
2070 <pubDate>Fri,
29 Jun
2012 18:
00:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2071 <description><p
>DIFI har nettopp annonsert høring om revisjon av
2072 <a href=
"http://www.standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder
">standardkatalogen
</a
>,
2073 og endelig har Microsoft fått viljen sin. Se
2074 <a href=
"http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/forslag-om-endring-av-forskrift-om-it-standarder-i-offentlig-forvaltning
">høringssiden
</a
>
2075 for hele teksten.
</p
>
2077 <p
>Her er forslaget i sin helhet:
</p
>
2079 <p
><blockquote
>
2080 <p
>3.2 Revisjon av krav til redigerbare dokumenter
</p
>
2082 <p
>I første versjon av referansekatalogen i
2007 ble det satt krav om
2083 Open Document Format (ODF), versjon
1.1 (OASIS,
1.2.2007) for
2084 redigerbare dokumenter. Kravet var obligatorisk for stat og sterkt
2085 anbefalt for kommunal sektor. I
2009 ble kravet gjort obligatorisk for
2086 hele offentlig sektor i
2087 <a href=
"http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/fa/xa-
20090925-
1222.html
">forskrift
2088 om IT-standarder i forvaltningen
</a
>. Anvendelsesområdet for kravet
2089 har vært begrenset til publisering av dokumenter som skal bearbeides
2090 videre (§
4 nr.
1 andre ledd). I
2011 ble anvendelsesområdet utvidet
2091 til å omfatte utveksling av dokumenter beregnet for redigering som
2092 vedlegg til e-post (§
4 nr.
2).
</p
>
2094 <p
>Office Open XML ISO/IEC
29500:
2011 (OOXML) er et dokumentformat
2095 opprinnelig utviklet av Microsoft med tilsvarende anvendelsesområde
2096 som ODF. Formatet er blant annet tatt i bruk i nyere versjoner av
2097 kontorstøtteprogamvaren MS Office. Difi har foretatt en
2098 <a href=
"http://www.standard.difi.no/filearchive/revisjonsvurdering-standarder-for-redigerbare-dokumenter-v1-
0.pdf
">revisjonsvurdering
</a
>
2099 av krav som stilles til redigerbare dokumenter i Forskrift om
2100 IT-standarder i forvaltningen, og anbefaler at kravet til ODF
2101 fjernes. Dette innebærer at det ikke stilles krav til dokumentformater
2102 for redigerbare dokumenter ved publisering på offentlige virksomheters
2103 nettsider og for redigerbare vedlegg til e-post som sendes fra
2104 offentlige virksomheter til innbyggere og næringsliv. Offentlige
2105 virksomheter vil dermed stå fritt til å publisere eller sende
2106 redigerbare dokumenter i det format som ivaretar brukernes behov
2109 <p
>Forslaget innebærer at krav til ODF utgår §
4 nr.
1 tredje ledd og
2110 §
4 nr.
2 første ledd
</p
>
2112 <P
>Imidlertid bør det stilles strengere krav til hvilke formater
2113 offentlige virksomheter plikter å motta redigerbare dokumenter. Vi
2114 mener at det ikke bør skilles mellom mottak av redigerbare dokumenter
2115 som sendes i ODF eller OOXML3, som begge er åpne standarder. Dette
2116 medfører at innbyggere og næringsliv skal kunne basere sitt valg av
2117 programvare på egne behov og ikke på de valg offentlige virksomheter
2118 tar. Kravet vil omfatte hele offentlig sektor, herunder
2119 utdanningssektoren, hvor det kanskje er størst bruk av ODF. Kravet er
2120 foreslått som ny §
4 nr
.2 andre ledd
</p
>
2121 </blockquote
></p
>
2123 <P
>De satser vel på at det hele blir glemt over sommeren, og at de
2124 fleste har glemt Standard Norge og ISOs fallitt fra da OOXML ble
2125 jukset igjennom som ISO-standard. Jeg håper mine lesere sender inn
2126 høringsuttalelser til høringen.
</p
>
2128 <p
>Anbefaler alle å friske opp sine argumenter ved å lese
2129 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html
">svaret
2130 fra senator Edgar Villanueva til Microsoft i Peru
</a
>. Det er en
2131 klassisk tekst som er like gyldig i dag som da det ble skrevet.
</p
>
2137 <title>Departementenes servicesenter har ingen avtale om bruk av H
.264 med MPEG-LA
</title>
2138 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Departementenes_servicesenter_har_ingen_avtale_om_bruk_av_H_264_med_MPEG_LA.html
</link>
2139 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Departementenes_servicesenter_har_ingen_avtale_om_bruk_av_H_264_med_MPEG_LA.html
</guid>
2140 <pubDate>Fri,
29 Jun
2012 09:
40:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2141 <description><p
>Da fikk jeg nettopp svar fra
2142 <a href=
"http://www.dss.dep.no/
">Departementenes servicesenter
</a
>
2144 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html
">mitt
2145 spørsmål om avtale rundt bruk av H
.264</a
>. De har ingen avtale med
2146 MPEG LA eller dets representanter. Her er svaret.
2148 <p
><blockquote
>
2150 <p
>Date: Fri,
29 Jun
2012 07:
04:
42 +
0000
2151 <br
>From: Nielsen Mette Haga
&lt;Mette-Haga.Nielsen (at) dss.dep.no
&gt;
2152 <br
>To: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;petter.reinholdtsen (at) ...
&gt;
2153 <br
>CC: Postmottak
&lt;Postmottak (at) dss.dep.no
&gt;
2154 <br
>Subject: SV: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H
.264-relaterte avtaler
</p
>
2156 <p
>DSS har ikke inngått noen egen lisensavtale med MPEG-LA eller noen som
2157 representerer MPEG-LA i Norge. Videoløsningen på regjeringen.no er
2158 levert av Smartcom:tv. Lisensforholdet rundt H
.264 er ikke omtalt i
2159 vår avtale med Smartcom.
</p
>
2161 <p
>Vennlig hilsen
</p
>
2163 <p
>Mette Haga Nielsen
2164 <br
>Fung. seksjonssjef
</p
>
2166 <p
>Departementenes servicesenter
</p
>
2168 <p
>Informasjonsforvaltning
2170 <p
>Mobil
93 09 83 51
2171 <br
>E-post mette-haga.nielsen (at) dss.dep.no
</p
>
2172 </blockquote
></p
>
2174 <p
>Hvis den norske regjeringen representert ved DSS ikke har slik
2175 avtale, så kan en kanskje konkludere med at det ikke trengs? Jeg er
2176 ikke trygg på at det er god juridisk grunn å stå på, men det er i det
2177 minste interessant å vite at hverken NRK eller DSS har funnet det
2178 nødvendig å ha avtale om bruk av H
.264.
</p
>
2180 <p
>Det forklarer ikke hvordan de kan ignorere bruksvilkårene knyttet
2181 til bruk av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale de bruker til
2182 videoproduksjon, med mindre slike vilkår kan ignoreres av selskaper og
2183 privatpersoner i Norge. Har de lov til å bryte vilkårene, eller har
2184 de brutt dem og så langt sluppet unna med det? Jeg aner ikke.
</p
>
2189 <title>MPEG-LA mener NRK må ha avtale med dem for å kringkaste og publisere H
.264-video
</title>
2190 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html
</link>
2191 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html
</guid>
2192 <pubDate>Thu,
28 Jun
2012 20:
00:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2193 <description><p
>Etter at NRK
2194 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html
">nektet
2195 å spore opp eventuell avtale med MPEG-LA
</a
> eller andre om bruk av
2196 MPEG/H
.264-video etter at jeg
<a
2197 href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html
">ba
2198 om innsyn i slike avtaler
</a
>, tenkte jeg at i stedet for å forsøke å
2199 få NRK til å finne en slik avtale, så burde det være like enkelt å
2200 spørre MPEG-LA om de hadde avtale med NRK. Spørsmålet ble sendt før
2201 jeg fikk tips fra Kieran Kunhya om hvor listen over lisensinnehavere
2202 "in Good Standing
" befant seg. MPEG-LA svarte meg i dag, og kan
2203 fortelle at NRK ikke har noen avtale med dem, så da er i det minste det
2204 slått fast. Ikke overraskende mener MPEG-LA at det trengs en avtale
2205 med MPEG-LA for å streame H
.264, men deres rammer er jo
2206 rettstilstanden i USA og ikke Norge. Jeg tar dermed den delen av
2207 svaret med en klype salt. Jeg er dermed fortsatt ikke klok på om det
2208 trengs en avtale, og hvis det trengs en avtale her i Norge, heller
2209 ikke sikker på om NRK har en avtale med noen andre enn MPEG-LA som
2210 gjør at de ikke trenger avtale direkte med MPEG-LA. Jeg håper NRKs
2211 jurister har vurdert dette, og at det er mulig å få tilgang til
2212 vurderingen uansett om de trenger en avtale eller ikke.
</p
>
2214 <p
>Her er epostutvekslingen med MPEG-LA så langt. Håper ikke
2215 utvekslingen fører til NRK plutselig får en litt uventet pakke fra
2218 <p
><blockquote
>
2219 <p
>Date: Mon,
25 Jun
2012 15:
29:
37 +
0200
2220 <br
>From: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;pere (at) hungry.com
&gt;
2221 <br
>To: licensing-web (at) mpegla.com
2222 <br
>Subject: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?
</p
>
2224 <p
>Hi. I have a small question for you, that I hope it is OK that I
2227 <p
>Is there any license agreements between MPEG-LA and NRK,
&lt;URL:
2228 <a href=
"http://www.nrk.no/
">http://www.nrk.no/
</a
> &gt;, the
2229 Norwegian national broadcasting cooperation? I am not sure if they
2230 need one, and am just curious if such agreeement exist.
</p
>
2232 <p
>The postal address is
</p
>
2234 <p
><blockquote
>
2236 <br
>Postbox
8500, Majorstuen
2239 </blockquote
></p
>
2241 <p
>if it make it easier for you to locate such agreement.
</p
>
2243 <p
>Can you tell me how many entities in Norway have an agreement with
2244 MPEG-LA, and the name of these entities?
</p
>
2247 <br
>Happy hacking
2248 <br
>Petter Reinholdtsen
2249 </blockquote
></p
>
2251 <p
>I dag, to dager senere, fikk jeg følgende svar:
</p
>
2253 <p
><blockquote
>
2254 <p
>Date: Thu,
28 Jun
2012 14:
11:
17 +
0000
2255 <br
>From: Ryan Rodriguez
&lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com
>
2256 <br
>To: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;pere (at) hungry.com
>
2257 <br
>CC: MD Administration
&lt;MDAdministration (at) mpegla.com
>
2258 <br
>Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?
</p
>
2260 <p
>Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,
</p
>
2262 <p
>Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We
2263 appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.
</p
>
2265 <p
>To begin, I will assume that you are referring to AVC/H
.264
2266 technology in your message below, as this technology is commonly used
2267 in the transmission of video content. In that case, please allow me
2268 to briefly summarize the coverage provided by our AVC Patent Portfolio
2271 <P
>Our AVC License provides coverage for end products and video
2272 services that make use of AVC/H
.264 technology. Accordingly, the
2273 party offering such end products and video to End Users concludes the
2274 AVC License and is responsible for paying the applicable royalties
2275 associated with the end products/video they offer.
</p
>
2277 <p
>While the Norwegian Broadcast Corporation (NRK) is not currently a
2278 Licensee to MPEG LA
's AVC License (or any other Portfolio License
2279 offered by MPEG LA), if NRK offers AVC Video to End Users for
2280 remuneration (for example, Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
2281 Television, or Internet Broadcast AVC Video), then NRK will need to
2282 conclude the AVC License and may be responsible for paying applicable
2283 royalties associated with the AVC Video it distributes.
</p
>
2285 <p
>Today I will send you a FedEx package containing a copy of our AVC
2286 License for your review. You should receive the License document
2287 within the next few days.
</p
>
2289 <p
>Meanwhile, MPEG LA currently has several Norwegian Licensees that
2290 can be found under the
"Licensees
" header within the respective
2291 portion of our website. For example, you may find our list of
2292 Licensees in Good Standing to our AVC License in the AVC portion of
2294 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
">http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
</a
></p
>
2296 <p
>I hope the above information is helpful. If you have additional
2297 questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
2298 free to contact me directly. I look forward to hearing from you again
2301 <p
>Best regards,
</p
>
2303 <p
>Ryan
</p
>
2305 <p
>Ryan M. Rodriguez
2306 <br
>Licensing Associate
2308 <br
>5425 Wisconsin Avenue
2310 <br
>Chevy Chase, MD
20815
2312 <br
>Phone: +
1 (
301)
986-
6660 x211
2313 <br
>Fax: +
1 (
301)
986-
8575
2314 <br
>Email: rrodriguez (at) mpegla.com
</p
>
2316 </blockquote
></p
>
2318 <p
>Meldingen om utsendt FedEx-pakke var så merkelig at jeg
2319 øyeblikkelig sendte svar tilbake og spurte hva i alle dager han mente,
2320 da han jo ikke hadde fått noen postadresse som nådde meg.
</p
>
2322 <p
><blockquote
>
2324 <p
>Date: Thu,
28 Jun
2012 16:
36:
15 +
0200
2325 <br
>From: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;pere (at) hungry.com
&gt;
2326 <br
>To: Ryan Rodriguez
&lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
2327 <br
>Cc: MD Administration
&lt;MDAdministration (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
2328 <br
>Subject: Re: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?
</p
>
2330 <p
>[Ryan Rodriguez]
2331 <br
>&gt; Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,
</p
>
2333 <p
>Thank you for your quick reply.
</p
>
2335 <p
>&gt; Today I will send you a FedEx package containing a copy of our AVC
2336 <br
>&gt; License for your review. You should receive the License document
2337 <br
>&gt; within the next few days.
</p
>
2339 <p
>The part about sending a FedEx package confused me, though. I did not
2340 <br
>give you my address, nor am I associated with NRK in any way, so I hope
2341 <br
>you did not try to send me a package using the address of NRK. If you
2342 <br
>would send me the Internet address of to the document, it would be more
2343 <br
>useful to me to be able to download it as an electronic document.
</p
>
2345 <p
>&gt; Meanwhile, MPEG LA currently has several Norwegian Licensees that can
2346 <br
>&gt; be found under the
"Licensees
" header within the respective portion
2347 <br
>&gt; of our website. For example, you may find our list of Licensees in
2348 <br
>&gt; Good Standing to our AVC License in the AVC portion of our website,
2349 <br
>&gt; http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
</p
>
2351 <p
>How can I recognize the Norwegian licensees?
</p
>
2354 <br
>Happy hacking
2355 <br
>Petter Reinholdtsen
</p
>
2356 </blockquote
></p
>
2358 <p
>Selv om jeg svarte kun noen minutter etter at jeg fikk eposten fra
2359 MPEG-LA, fikk jeg eposten under som automatisk var beskjed på min
2360 siste epost. Får håpe noen likevel følger opp
"FedEx-pakken
". For å
2361 øke sjansen for at noen revurderer utsending av pakke uten mottaker,
2362 videresendte jeg min epost til swolf (at) mpegla.com, så får vi se.
2363 Har ikke hørt noe mer
3 timer senere, så jeg mistenker at ingen leste
2364 min epost tidsnok.
</p
>
2366 <p
><blockquote
>
2368 <p
>Date: Thu,
28 Jun
2012 14:
36:
20 +
0000
2369 <br
>From: Ryan Rodriguez
&lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com
&gt;
2370 <br
>To: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;pere (at) hungry.com
&gt;
2371 <br
>Subject: Automatic reply: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?
</p
>
2373 <p
>Thank you for your message.
</p
>
2375 <p
>I will be out of the office until Thursday, July
5 and will respond
2376 to all messages upon my return. If this is a matter that requires
2377 immediate attention, please contact Sidney Wolf (swolf (at)
2378 mpegla.com)
</p
>
2380 <p
>Best regards,
</p
>
2382 <p
>Ryan
</p
>
2384 <p
>Ryan M. Rodriguez
2385 <br
>Licensing Associate
2386 <br
>MPEG LA
</p
>
2388 </blockquote
></p
>
2390 <p
>Litt klokere, men fortsatt ikke klok på mitt opprinnelige spørsmål,
2391 som er om en trenger avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere eller
2392 kringkaste H
.264-video i Norge.
</p
>
2397 <title>NRK nekter å finne og utlevere eventuell avtale med MPEG-LA
</title>
2398 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html
</link>
2399 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html
</guid>
2400 <pubDate>Mon,
25 Jun
2012 15:
10:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2401 <description><p
>Jeg fikk nettopp svar fra NRK på
2402 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html
">min
2403 forespørsel om kopi av avtale
</a
> med MPEG-LA eller andre om bruk av
2404 MPEG og/eller H
.264. Svaret har fått saksreferanse
2011/
371 (mon tro
2405 hva slags sak fra
2011 dette er?) hos NRK og lyder som følger:
</p
>
2407 <p
><blockquote
>
2409 <p
><strong
>Svar på innsynsbegjæring i MPEG / H
.264-relaterte
2410 avtaler
</strong
></p
>
2412 <p
>Viser til innsynsbegjæring av
19. juni
2012. Kravet om innsyn
2413 gjelder avtale som gjør at NRK «ikke er begrenset av de generelle
2414 bruksvilkårene som gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller
2417 <p
>I henhold til offentleglova §
28 annet ledd må innsynskravet gjelde
2418 en bestemt sak eller i rimelig utstrekning saker av en bestemt
2419 sak. Det er på det rene at det aktuelle innsynskravet ikke gjelder en
2420 bestemt sak. Spørsmålet som reiser seg er om identifiseringsgraden er
2421 tilstrekkelig. I Justisdepartementets «Rettleiar til offentleglova»
2422 står følgende:
</p
>
2424 <p
>«Kravet om at innsynskravet må gjelde ei bestemt sak er til hinder
2425 for at eit innsynskrav kan gjelde alle saker av ein bestemt art, utan
2426 at den enkelte saka blir identifisert. Ein kan med andre ord i
2427 utgangspunktet ikkje krevje innsyn i til dømes alle saker om
2428 utsleppsløyve hos Statens forureiningstilsyn frå dei siste tre åra,
2429 med mindre ein identifiserer kvar enkelt sak, til dømes med tilvising
2430 til dato, partar eller liknande.»
</p
>
2432 <p
>Vedrørende denne begrensningen har Justisdepartementet uttalt
2433 følgende (Lovavdelingens uttalelser JDLOV-
2010-
3295):
</p
>
2435 <p
><em
>«Bakgrunnen for avgrensinga av kva innsynskravet kan gjelde,
2436 er fyrst og fremst at meir generelle innsynskrav, utan noka form for
2437 identifikasjon av kva ein eigentleg ynskjer, ville vere svært
2438 vanskelege å handsame for forvaltninga.»
</em
></p
>
2440 <p
>I samme sak uttaler Lovavdelingen følgende:
</p
>
2442 <p
><em
>«Det følgjer vidare av offentleglova §
28 andre ledd at det `i
2443 rimeleg utstrekning
' kan krevjast innsyn i `saker av ein bestemt
2444 art
'. Vilkåret om at eit innsynskrav berre `i rimeleg utstrekning
' kan
2445 gjelde saker av ein bestemt art, er i hovudsak knytt til kor
2446 arbeidskrevjande det vil vere å finne fram til dei aktuelle
2447 dokumenta. I tillegg reknar vi med at vilkåret kan gje grunnlag for å
2448 nekte innsyn i tilfelle der innsynskravet er så omfattande (gjeld så
2449 mange dokument) at arbeidsmengda som ville gått med til å handsame
2450 det, er større enn det ein `i rimeleg utstrekning
' kan krevje (sjølv
2451 om det nok skal mykje til).»
</em
></p
>
2453 <p
>NRK har ikke noen egen sammenstilling over avtaler innenfor
2454 bestemte områder som omtales i innsynsbegjæringen. De måtte søkes på
2455 vanlig måte. I tillegg finnes ikke noen automatisert måte å finne
2456 avtaler som «ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som
2457 gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H
.264». En slik
2458 gjennomgang av avtaler måtte gjøres manuelt av en person med
2459 spesialistkunnskap. Dette vil kreve at NRK avsetter omfattende
2460 ressurser for å finne frem relevante avtaler og for deretter å vurdere
2461 om de dekkes av det innsynsbegjæringen omfattes.
</p
>
2463 <p
>På bakgrunn av dette nekter NRK innsyn, med den begrunnelsen at
2464 innsynskravet er så omfattende at arbeidsmengden for å håndtere kravet
2465 vil være langt større enn det som i rimelig utstrekning kan kreves i
2466 henhold til offentleglova §
28 annet ledd.
</p
>
2468 <p
>Avslag på deres innsynsbegjæring kan påklages til Kultur- og
2469 kirkedepartementet innen tre uker fra det tidspunkt avslaget kommer
2470 frem til mottakeren, i henhold til reglene i offentleglova §
32,
2471 jf. forvaltningsloven kapittel VI. Klagen skal stiles til Kultur- og
2472 kirkedepartementet, og sendes til NRK.
</p
>
2474 <p
>NRK er imidlertid etter Offentleglova forpliktet å gi ut journaler,
2475 slik at en eventuell søknad om innsyn kan tydeligere identifisere
2476 hvilke dokumenter som det ønskes innsyn i. NRKs offentlige journaler
2477 for inneværende og forrige måned ligger ute på
2478 NRK.no/innsyn. Journaler som går lengre tilbake i tid, kan sendes ut
2479 på forespørsel til innsyn (at) nrk.no.
</p
>
2482 <br
>Dokumentarkivet i NRK
2483 <br
>v/ Elin Brandsrud
2484 <br
>Tel. direkte:
23 04 29 29
2485 <br
>Post: RBM3, Postboks
8500 Majorstuen,
0340 Oslo
2486 <br
>innsyn (at) nrk.no
</p
>
2488 </blockquote
></p
>
2491 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/
2012-
06-
25-video-mpegla-nrk.pdf
">i
2492 PDF-form som vedlegg på epost
</a
>. Jeg er litt usikker på hvordan jeg
2493 best går videre for å bli klok, men jeg har jo i hvert fall tre uker
2494 på å vurdere om jeg skal klage. Enten må nok forespørselen
2495 reformuleres eller så må jeg vel klage. Synes jo det er merkelig at
2496 NRK ikke har bedre kontroll med hvilke avtaler de har inngått. Det
2497 burde jo være noen i ledelsen som vet om de har signert en avtale med
2498 MPEG-LA eller ikke...
</p
>
2500 <p
>Oppdatering
2012-
06-
25 20:
20: Et google-søk på
"2011/
371 nrk
"
2501 sendte meg til postjournalen for
2502 <a href=
"http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/
1.8212365!offentligjournal19062012.pdf
">2012-
06-
19</a
>
2504 <a href=
"http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/
1.8214156!offentligjournal20062012.pdf
">2012-
06-
20</a
>
2505 hos NRK som viser mine forespørsler og viser at sakens tittel hos NRK
2506 er
"Graphic Systems Regions MA
2378/
10E
". Videre søk etter
"Graphic
2507 Systems Regions
" viser at dette er saken til et anbud om
2508 "<a href=
"http://no.mercell.com/m/mts/Tender/
27179412.aspx
">a graphics
2509 system for
12 or
13 sites broadcasting regional news
</a
>" hos Mercell
2510 Sourcing Service, også omtalt på
2511 <a href=
"http://www.publictenders.net/tender/
595705">Public
2512 Tenders
</a
> og
2513 <a href=
"http://www.doffin.no/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JAN155521
">Doffin
</a
>.
2514 Jeg er dog usikker på hvordan dette er relatert til min
2515 forespørsel.
</p
>
2517 <p
>Oppdatering
2012-
06-
25 22:
40: Ble tipset av Kieran Kunhya, fra
2519 <a href=
"http://code.google.com/p/open-broadcast-encoder/
">Open
2520 Broadcast Encoder
</a
>, at listen over de som har lisensavtale med
2522 <a href=
"http://www.mpeg-la.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx
">tilgjengelig
2523 på web
</a
>. Veldig fint å oppdage hvor den finnes, da jeg må ha lett
2524 etter feil ting da jeg forsøke å finne den. Der står ikke NRK, men
2525 flere andre
"Broadcasting Company
"-oppføringer. Lurer på om det betyr
2526 at NRK ikke trenger avtale, eller noe helt annet?
</p
>
2531 <title>Trenger en avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere og kringkaste H
.264-video?
</title>
2532 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html
</link>
2533 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html
</guid>
2534 <pubDate>Thu,
21 Jun
2012 13:
40:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2535 <description><p
>Trengs det avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lovlig rett til å
2536 distribuere og kringkaste video i MPEG4 eller med videokodingen H
.264?
2537 <a href=
"http://webmink.com/essays/h-
264/
">H
.264 og MPEG4 er jo ikke en
2538 fri og åpen standard
</a
> i henhold til
2539 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html
">definisjonen
2540 til Digistan
</a
>, så i enkelte land er det ingen tvil om at du må ha
2541 en slik avtale, men jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke vet om det også
2542 gjelder Norge. Det ser uansett ut til å være en juridisk interessant
2543 problemstilling. Men jeg tenkte her om dagen som så, at hvis det er
2544 nødvendig, så har store aktører som
2545 <a href=
"http://www.nrk.no/
">NRK
</a
> og
2546 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/
">regjeringen
</a
> skaffet seg en
2547 slik avtale. Jeg har derfor sendt forespørsel til begge (for
2548 regjeringen sin del er det Departementenes Servicesenter som gjør
2549 jobben), og bedt om kopi av eventuelle avtaler de har om bruk av MPEG
2550 og/eller H
.264 med MPEG-LA eller andre aktører som opererer på vegne
2551 av MPEG-LA. Her er kopi av eposten jeg har sendt til
2552 <a href=
"http://www.dss.dep.no/
">Departementenes Servicesenter
</a
>.
2553 Forespørselen til NRK er veldig lik.
</p
>
2555 <p
><blockquote
>
2557 <p
>Date: Tue,
19 Jun
2012 15:
18:
33 +
0200
2558 <br
>From: Petter Reinholdtsen
2559 <br
>To: postmottak@dss.dep.no
2560 <br
>Subject: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H
.264-relaterte avtaler
2562 <p
>Hei. Jeg ber herved om innsyn og kopi av dokumenter i DSS relatert
2563 til avtaler rundt bruk av videoformatene MPEG og H
.264. Jeg er
2564 spesielt interessert i å vite om DSS har lisensavtale med MPEG-LA
2565 eller noen som representerer MPEG-LA i Norge.
</p
>
2567 <p
>MPEG og H
.264 er videoformater som brukes både til kringkasting
2568 (f.eks. i bakkenett og kabel-TV) og videopublisering på web, deriblant
2569 via Adobe Flash. MPEG-LA,
&lt;URL:
2570 <a href=
"http://www.mpeg-la.com/
">http://www.mpeg-la.com/
</a
> &gt;, er
2571 en organisasjon som har fått oppgaven, av de kjente rettighetshavere
2572 av immaterielle rettigheter knyttet til MPEG og H
.264, å selge
2573 bruksrett for MPEG og H
.264.
</p
>
2575 <p
>Via regjeringen.no kringkastes med MPEG og H
.264-baserte
2576 videoformater, og dette ser ut til å være organisert av DSS. Jeg
2577 antar dermed at DSS har avtale med en eller annen aktør om dette.
</p
>
2579 <p
>F.eks. har Adobe Premiere Pro har følgende klausul i følge
&lt;URL:
2580 <a href=
"http://news.cnet.com/
8301-
30685_3-
20000101-
264.html
">http://news.cnet.com/
8301-
30685_3-
20000101-
264.html
</a
>
2583 <p
><blockquote
>
2585 <p
>6.17. AVC DISTRIBUTION. The following notice applies to software
2586 containing AVC import and export functionality: THIS PRODUCT IS
2587 LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND
2588 NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (a) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE
2589 WITH THE AVC STANDARD (
"AVC VIDEO
") AND/OR (b) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT
2590 WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL
2591 ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER
2592 LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE
2593 IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED
2594 FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE
2595 <a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com
">http://www.mpegla.com
</a
>.
</p
>
2597 </blockquote
></p
>
2599 <p
>Her er det kun
"non-commercial
" og
"personal and non-commercial
"
2600 aktivitet som er tillatt uten ekstra avtale med MPEG-LA.
</p
>
2602 <p
>Et annet tilsvarende eksempel er Apple Final Cut Pro, som har
2603 følgende klausul i følge
&lt;URL:
2604 <a href=
"http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf
">http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf
</a
>
2607 <p
><blockquote
>
2609 <p
>15. Merknad om H
.264/AVC. Hvis Apple-programvaren inneholder
2610 funksjonalitet for AVC-koding og/eller AVC-dekoding, krever
2611 kommersiell bruk ekstra lisensiering og følgende gjelder:
2612 AVC-FUNKSJONALITETEN I DETTE PRODUKTET KAN KUN ANVENDES AV
2613 FORBRUKERE OG KUN FOR PERSONLIG OG IKKE- KOMMERSIELL BRUK TIL (i)
2614 KODING AV VIDEO I OVERENSSTEMMELSE MED AVC-STANDARDEN (
"AVC-VIDEO
")
2615 OG/ELLER (ii) DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO SOM ER KODET AV EN FORBRUKER TIL
2616 PERSONLIG OG IKKE-KOMMERSIELL BRUK OG/ELLER DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO
2617 FRA EN VIDEOLEVERANDØR SOM HAR LISENS TIL Å TILBY
2618 AVC-VIDEO. INFORMASJON OM ANNEN BRUK OG LISENSIERING KAN INNHENTES
2619 FRA MPEG LA L.L.C. SE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.
</p
>
2620 </blockquote
></p
>
2622 <p
>Tilsvarende gjelder for andre programvarepakker, kamera, etc som
2623 bruker MPEG og H
.264, at en må ha en avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lov
2624 til å bruke programmet/utstyret hvis en skal lage noe annet enn
2625 private filmer og i ikke-kommersiell virksomhet.
</p
>
2627 <p
>Jeg er altså interessert i kopi av avtaler DSS har som gjør at en
2628 ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som gjelder for
2629 utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H
.264.
</p
>
2630 </blockquote
></p
>
2632 <p
>Nå venter jeg spent på svaret. Jeg planlegger å blogge om svaret
2638 <title>The cost of ODF and OOXML
</title>
2639 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html
</link>
2640 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html
</guid>
2641 <pubDate>Sat,
26 May
2012 18:
00:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2642 <description><p
>I just come across a blog post from Glyn Moody reporting the
2643 claimed cost from Microsoft on requiring ODF to be used by the UK
2644 government. I just sent him an email to let him know that his
2645 assumption are most likely wrong. Sharing it here in case some of my
2646 blog readers have seem the same numbers float around in the UK.
</p
>
2648 <p
><blockquote
> <p
>Hi. I just noted your
2649 <a href=
"http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/
2012/
04/does-microsoft-office-lock-in-cost-the-uk-government-
500-million/index.htm
">http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/
2012/
04/does-microsoft-office-lock-in-cost-the-uk-government-
500-million/index.htm
</a
>
2652 <p
><blockquote
>"They
're all in Danish, not unreasonably, but even
2653 with the help of Google Translate I can
't find any figures about the
2654 savings of
"moving to a flexible two standard
" as claimed by the
2655 Microsoft email. But I assume it is backed up somewhere, so let
's take
2656 it, and the £
500 million figure for the UK, on trust.
"
2657 </blockquote
></p
>
2659 <p
>I can tell you that the Danish reports are inflated. I believe it is
2660 the same reports that were used in the Norwegian debate around
2007,
2661 and Gisle Hannemyr (a well known IT commentator in Norway) had a look
2662 at the content. In short, the reason it is claimed that using ODF
2663 will be so costly, is based on the assumption that this mean every
2664 existing document need to be converted from one of the MS Office
2665 formats to ODF, transferred to the receiver, and converted back from
2666 ODF to one of the MS Office formats, and that the conversion will cost
2667 10 minutes of work time for both the sender and the receiver. In
2668 reality the sender would have a tool capable of saving to ODF, and the
2669 receiver would have a tool capable of reading it, and the time spent
2670 would at most be a few seconds for saving and loading, not
20 minutes
2671 of wasted effort.
</p
>
2673 <p
>Microsoft claimed all these costs were saved by allowing people to
2674 transfer the original files from MS Office instead of spending
10
2675 minutes converting to ODF. :)
</p
>
2678 <a href=
"http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12_vl02.php
">http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12_vl02.php
</a
>
2680 <a href=
"http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12.php
">http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12.php
</a
>
2681 for background information. Norwegian only, sorry. :)
</p
>
2682 </blockquote
></p
>
2687 <title>OpenOffice.org fungerer da fint for blinde?
</title>
2688 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OpenOffice_org_fungerer_da_fint_for_blinde_.html
</link>
2689 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OpenOffice_org_fungerer_da_fint_for_blinde_.html
</guid>
2690 <pubDate>Mon,
21 May
2012 23:
20:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2691 <description><p
>De siste dagene har høringsuttalelsene om DIFIs forslag til
2692 standardkatalog v3.1 blitt
2693 <a href=
"http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder?tab=comments
">publisert
2694 på DIFIs nettside
</a
>, og jeg kunne der glede meg over at
2695 <a href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/
201204-standardkatalog-v3.1
">NUUGs
</a
>
2696 uttalelse er kommet med. En uttalelse som overrasker og forvirrer meg
2698 <a href=
"http://www.standard.difi.no/filearchive/norges-blindeforbund.pdf
">den
2699 fra Norges Blindeforbund
</a
>, som
5 år etter at Klaus Knopper sammen
2700 med sin blinde kone blant annet
2701 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/
20071211-accessibility/
">demonstrerte
2702 høyttalende OpenOffice.org på nynorsk for blinde
</a
> på et NUUG-møte.
</p
>
2704 <p
><a href=
"https://www.blindeforbundet.no/
">Norges Blindeforbund
</a
>
2705 skriver følgende, som for meg virker å være formulert på sviktende
2708 <p
><blockquote
>
2709 <p
>Bruk av fri programvare
2711 <p
>I FRIPROGSENTERET, RAPPORT
2009-
02: Universell utforming
2712 <a href=
"http://www.kunnskapsbazaren.no/filer/Friprogsenteret-Rapport-Universell_utforming.pdf
">http://www.kunnskapsbazaren.no/filer/Friprogsenteret-Rapport-Universell_utforming.pdf
</a
>
2713 sies det
"Det finnes i dag ikke mange fri programvare-rammeverk eller
2714 generelle løsninger som støtter tilgjengelighet eller som er
2715 universelt utformet.
"</p
>
2717 <p
>Til tross for at det gjennom prinsippene i fri programvare åpnes
2718 for større frihet til selv å påvirke programvareløsninger i retning av
2719 universell utforming viser praksis at virkeligheten er en annen.
2720 Mange av de mest alminnelige frie programvarepakkene mangler delvis
2721 eller fullstendig tilgjengelighet for mennesker med nedsatt
2722 syn. Eksempler på dette er OpenOffice og LibreOffice m.fl.
</p
>
2724 <p
>En annen utfordring ved bruk av fri programvare kan være manglende
2725 kundestøtte og muligheter til opplæring i bruk av løsningen. Svaksynte
2726 og blinde har et høyere behov for denne typen støtte enn andre brukere
2727 ettersom mange av dem har behov for tilleggsprogramvare som skal
2728 fungere sammen med den opprinnelige programvaren, og ettersom man ikke
2729 har de samme muligheter for overblikk over grensesnittet som en seende
2730 bruker. I tillegg til dette kommer de mer tilgjengelighetstekniske
2731 utfordringene som ofte må løses i samarbeid med
2732 programvareleverandør/produsent.
</p
>
2734 <p
>Fri programvare er ikke på samme måte underlagt lovgivning gjennom
2735 for eksempel diskriminerings og tilgjengelighetsloven ettersom det
2736 ikke alltid finnes en produsent/tilbyder av tjenesten eller produktet.
</p
>
2738 <p
>Norges Blindeforbund krever at universell utforming og
2739 brukskvalitet tas med som viktige hensyn i utredninger som ligger til
2740 grunn for valg av standarder som primært leder brukeren mot fri
2741 programvare. Et eksempel på dette er bruk av dokumentformatet ODF som
2742 leder brukeren i retning av OpenOffice, som er helt eller delvis
2743 utilgjengelig for svaksynte og blinde – noe avhengig av plattform og
2744 hjelpemiddelprogramvare.
</p
>
2746 </blockquote
></p
>
2748 <p
>Jeg håper noen involvert i OpenOffice.org og/eller LibreOffice tar
2749 kontakt med Norges Blindeforbund og oppklarer det som for meg virker å
2750 være en misforståelse, i og med at OpenOffice.org så vidt jeg vet
2751 fungerer fint også for blinde.
</p
>
2753 <p
>Jeg ble minnet på problemstillingen da jeg leste Slashdot-saken om
2754 "<a href=
"http://linux.slashdot.org/story/
12/
05/
21/
1417221/the-state-of-linux-accessibility
">The
2755 State of Linux Accessibility
</a
>", som også hevder at Linux fungerer
2756 utmerket for blinde.
</p
>
2761 <title>NUUGs leverer høringsuttalelse om v3.1 av statens referansekatalog
</title>
2762 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_leverer_h_ringsuttalelse_om_v3_1_av_statens_referansekatalog.html
</link>
2763 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_leverer_h_ringsuttalelse_om_v3_1_av_statens_referansekatalog.html
</guid>
2764 <pubDate>Fri,
27 Apr
2012 15:
30:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2765 <description><p
>NUUG-styremedlem Hans-Petter Fjeld
2766 <a href=
"https://plus.google.com/u/
0/
110394259537201279374/posts/AGzRmAuFdW1
">meldte
2767 nettopp
</a
> at han har sendt inn
<a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/
">NUUG
</a
>s
2768 høringsuttalelse angående Difi sin standardkatalog v3.1. Jeg er veldig
2769 glad for at så mange bidro og sikret at vår stemme blir hørt i denne
2770 høringen. Anbefaler alle å lese våre
2771 <a href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/
201204-standardkatalog-v3.1
">to
2772 sider med innspill
</a
>.
</p
>
2777 <title>HTC One X - Your video? What do you mean?
</title>
2778 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html
</link>
2779 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html
</guid>
2780 <pubDate>Thu,
26 Apr
2012 13:
20:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2781 <description><p
>In
<a href=
"http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article243690.ece
">an
2782 article today
</a
> published by Computerworld Norway, the photographer
2783 <a href=
"http://www.urke.com/eirik/
">Eirik Helland Urke
</a
> reports
2784 that the video editor application included with
2785 <a href=
"http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/htc-one-x/#specs
">HTC One
2786 X
</a
> have some quite surprising terms of use. The article is mostly
2787 based on the twitter message from mister Urke, stating:
2789 <p
><blockquote
>
2790 "<a href=
"http://twitter.com/urke/status/
194062269724897280">Drøy
2791 brukeravtale: HTC kan bruke MINE redigerte videoer kommersielt. Selv
2792 kan jeg KUN bruke dem privat.
</a
>"
2793 </blockquote
></p
>
2795 <p
>I quickly translated it to this English message:
</p
>
2797 <p
><blockquote
>
2798 "Arrogant user agreement: HTC can use MY edited videos
2799 commercially. Although I can ONLY use them privately.
"
2800 </blockquote
></p
>
2802 <p
>I
've been unable to find the text of the license term myself, but
2803 suspect it is a variation of the MPEG-LA terms I
2804 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html
">discovered
2805 with my Canon IXUS
130</a
>. The HTC One X specification specifies that
2806 the recording format of the phone is .amr for audio and .mp3 for
2808 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Multi-Rate_audio_codec#Licensing_and_patent_issues
">Adaptive
2809 Multi-Rate audio codec
</a
> with patents which according to the
2810 Wikipedia article require an license agreement with
2811 <a href=
"http://www.voiceage.com/
">VoiceAge
</a
>. MP4 is
2812 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H
.264/MPEG-
4_AVC#Patent_licensing
">MPEG4 with
2813 H
.264</a
>, which according to Wikipedia require a licence agreement
2814 with
<a href=
"http://www.mpegla.com/
">MPEG-LA
</a
>.
</p
>
2816 <p
>I know why I prefer
2817 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">free and open
2818 standards
</a
> also for video.
</p
>
2823 <title>RAND terms - non-reasonable and discriminatory
</title>
2824 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/RAND_terms___non_reasonable_and_discriminatory.html
</link>
2825 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/RAND_terms___non_reasonable_and_discriminatory.html
</guid>
2826 <pubDate>Thu,
19 Apr
2012 22:
20:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
2827 <description><p
>Here in Norway, the
2828 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad.html?id=
339"> Ministry of
2829 Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs
</a
> is behind
2830 a
<a href=
"http://standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder
">directory of
2831 standards
</a
> that are recommended or mandatory for use by the
2832 government. When the directory was created, the people behind it made
2833 an effort to ensure that everyone would be able to implement the
2834 standards and compete on equal terms to supply software and solutions
2835 to the government. Free software and non-free software could compete
2836 on the same level.
</p
>
2838 <p
>But recently, some standards with RAND
2839 (
<a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
">Reasonable
2840 And Non-Discriminatory
</a
>) terms have made their way into the
2841 directory. And while this might not sound too bad, the fact is that
2842 standard specifications with RAND terms often block free software from
2843 implementing them. The reasonable part of RAND mean that the cost per
2844 user/unit is low,and the non-discriminatory part mean that everyone
2845 willing to pay will get a license. Both sound great in theory. In
2846 practice, to get such license one need to be able to count users, and
2847 be able to pay a small amount of money per unit or user. By
2848 definition, users of free software do not need to register their use.
2849 So counting users or units is not possible for free software projects.
2850 And given that people will use the software without handing any money
2851 to the author, it is not really economically possible for a free
2852 software author to pay a small amount of money to license the rights
2853 to implement a standard when the income available is zero. The result
2854 in these situations is that free software are locked out from
2855 implementing standards with RAND terms.
</p
>
2857 <p
>Because of this, when I see someone claiming the terms of a
2858 standard is reasonable and non-discriminatory, all I can think of is
2859 how this really is non-reasonable and discriminatory. Because free
2860 software developers are working in a global market, it does not really
2861 help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable
2862 in Norway. The patent regimes in other countries affect us even here.
2863 I really hope the people behind the standard directory will pay more
2864 attention to these issues in the future.
</p
>
2866 <p
>You can find more on the issues with RAND, FRAND and RAND-Z terms
2868 (
<a href=
"http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/
2010/
11/rand-not-so-reasonable/
">RAND:
2869 Not So Reasonable?
</a
>).
</p
>
2871 <p
>Update
2012-
04-
21: Just came across a
2872 <a href=
"http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/
2012/
04/of-microsoft-netscape-patents-and-open-standards/index.htm
">blog
2873 post from Glyn Moody
</a
> over at Computer World UK warning about the
2874 same issue, and urging people to speak out to the UK government. I
2875 can only urge Norwegian users to do the same for
2876 <a href=
"http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder
">the
2877 hearing taking place at the moment
</a
> (respond before
2012-
04-
27).
2878 It proposes to require video conferencing standards including
2879 specifications with RAND terms.
</p
>
2884 <title>The video format most supported in web browsers?
</title>
2885 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html
</link>
2886 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html
</guid>
2887 <pubDate>Sun,
16 Jan
2011 00:
20:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
2888 <description><p
>The video format struggle on the web continues, and the three
2889 contenders seem to be Ogg Theora, H
.264 and WebM. Most video sites
2890 seem to use H
.264, while others use Ogg Theora. Interestingly enough,
2891 the comments I see give me the feeling that a lot of people believe
2892 H
.264 is the most supported video format in browsers, but according to
2893 the Wikipedia article on
2894 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video
">HTML5 video
</a
>,
2895 this is not true. Check out the nice table of supprted formats in
2896 different browsers there. The format supported by most browsers is
2897 Ogg Theora, supported by released versions of Mozilla Firefox, Google
2898 Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Origyn Web Browser and
2899 BOLT browser, while not supported by Internet Explorer nor Safari.
2900 The runner up is WebM supported by released versions of Google Chrome
2901 Chromium Opera and Origyn Web Browser, and test versions of Mozilla
2902 Firefox. H
.264 is supported by released versions of Safari, Origyn
2903 Web Browser and BOLT browser, and the test version of Internet
2904 Explorer. Those wanting Ogg Theora support in Internet Explorer and
2905 Safari can install plugins to get it.
</p
>
2907 <p
>To me, the simple conclusion from this is that to reach most users
2908 without any extra software installed, one uses Ogg Theora with the
2909 HTML5 video tag. Of course to reach all those without a browser
2910 handling HTML5, one need fallback mechanisms. In
2911 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/
">NUUG
</a
>, we provide first fallback to a
2912 plugin capable of playing MPEG1 video, and those without such support
2913 we have a second fallback to the Cortado java applet playing Ogg
2914 Theora. This seem to work quite well, as can be seen in an
<a
2915 href=
"http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/
20110111-semantic-web/
">example
2916 from last week
</a
>.
</p
>
2918 <p
>The reason Ogg Theora is the most supported format, and H
.264 is
2919 the least supported is simple. Implementing and using H
.264
2920 require royalty payment to MPEG-LA, and the terms of use from MPEG-LA
2921 are incompatible with free software licensing. If you believed H
.264
2922 was without royalties and license terms, check out
2923 "<a href=
"http://webmink.com/essays/h-
264/
">H
.264 – Not The Kind Of
2924 Free That Matters
</a
>" by Simon Phipps.
</p
>
2926 <p
>A incomplete list of sites providing video in Ogg Theora is
2928 <a href=
"http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/List_of_Theora_videos
">the
2929 Xiph.org wiki
</a
>, if you want to have a look. I
'm not aware of a
2930 similar list for WebM nor H
.264.
</p
>
2932 <p
>Update
2011-
01-
16 09:
40: A question from Tollef on IRC made me
2933 realise that I failed to make it clear enough this text is about the
2934 &lt;video
&gt; tag support in browsers and not the video support
2935 provided by external plugins like the Flash plugins.
</p
>
2940 <title>Chrome plan to drop H
.264 support for HTML5
&lt;video
&gt;
</title>
2941 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html
</link>
2942 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html
</guid>
2943 <pubDate>Wed,
12 Jan
2011 22:
10:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
2944 <description><p
>Today I discovered
2945 <a href=
"http://www.digi.no/
860070/google-dropper-h264-stotten-i-chrome
">via
2946 digi.no
</a
> that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement,
2947 <a href=
"http://blog.chromium.org/
2011/
01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html
">yesterday
2948 announced
</a
> plans to drop H
.264 support for HTML5
&lt;video
&gt; in
2949 the browser. The argument used is that H
.264 is not a
"completely
2950 open
" codec technology. If you believe H
.264 was free for everyone
2951 to use, I recommend having a look at the essay
2952 "<a href=
"http://webmink.com/essays/h-
264/
">H
.264 – Not The Kind Of
2953 Free That Matters
</a
>". It is not free of cost for creators of video
2954 tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the
2955 terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from
2956 licensing the patents needed for H
.264. Some background information
2957 on the Google announcement is available from
2958 <a href=
"http://www.osnews.com/story/
24243/Google_To_Drop_H264_Support_from_Chrome
">OSnews
</a
>.
2959 A good read. :)
</p
>
2961 <p
>Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to
2962 promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on
2963 the Internet. This can only be done by publishing using free and open
2964 standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support
2965 for these free and open standards. At the moment there seem to be two
2966 camps in the web browser world when it come to video support. Some
2967 browsers support H
.264, and others support
2968 <a href=
"http://www.theora.org/
">Ogg Theora
</a
> and
2969 <a href=
"http://www.webmproject.org/
">WebM
</a
>
2970 (
<a href=
"http://www.diracvideo.org/
">Dirac
</a
> is not really an option
2971 yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet
2972 and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for
2973 H
.264 to not reach all potential viewers.
2974 Wikipedia keep
<a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video
">an
2975 updated summary
</a
> of the current browser support.
</p
>
2977 <p
>Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep
2978 promoting H
.264, and John Gruber
2979 <a href=
"http://daringfireball.net/
2011/
01/simple_questions
">presents
2980 the mind set
</a
> of these people quite well. His rhetorical questions
2981 provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions
2982 <a href=
"http://www.osnews.com/story/
24245/
10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM
">presenting
2983 the issues with H
.264</a
>. Both are worth a read.
</p
>
2985 <p
>Some argue that if Google is dropping H
.264 because it isn
't free,
2986 they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin. This
2987 argument was covered by Simon Phipps in
2988 <a href=
"http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/
2011/
01/google-and-h264---far-from-hypocritical/index.htm
">todays
2989 blog post
</a
>, which I find to put the issue in context. To me it
2990 make perfect sense to drop native H
.264 support for HTML5 in the
2991 browser while still allowing plugins.
</p
>
2993 <p
>I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest,
2994 is that all the users and promoters of H
.264 suddenly get an uneasy
2995 feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse. A lot of TV
2996 broadcasters have been moving to H
.264 the last few years, and a lot
2997 of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they
2998 could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web
2999 publishing. Suddenly this belief is shaken.
</p
>
3001 <p
>An interesting question is why Google is doing this. While the
3002 presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only
3003 present the argument if the change make sense from a business
3004 perspective. One reason might be that they are currently negotiating
3005 with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the
3006 feeling that dropping H
.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and
3007 Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google.
3008 Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having
3009 to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a
3010 video format not requiring royalties at all. A third reason might be
3011 that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the
3012 Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome.
3013 I guess time will tell.
</p
>
3015 <p
>Update
2011-
01-
15: The Google Chrome team provided
3016 <a href=
"http://blog.chromium.org/
2011/
01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html
">more
3017 background and information on the move
</a
> it a blog post yesterday.
</p
>
3022 <title>What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?
</title>
3023 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html
</link>
3024 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html
</guid>
3025 <pubDate>Thu,
30 Dec
2010 23:
15:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
3026 <description><p
>After trying to
3027 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
">compare
3028 Ogg Theora
</a
> to
3029 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">the Digistan
3030 definition
</a
> of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
3031 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
3032 this. As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
3033 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-
8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
3034 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others. But to be able to complete this in a
3035 reasonable time frame, I will need help.
</p
>
3037 <p
>If you want to help out with this work, please visit
3038 <a href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse
">the
3039 wiki pages I have set up for this
</a
>, and let me know that you want
3040 to help out. The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
3041 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
3042 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
3043 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).
</p
>
3045 <p
>The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do. Do not be
3046 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)
</p
>
3051 <title>The many definitions of a open standard
</title>
3052 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html
</link>
3053 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html
</guid>
3054 <pubDate>Mon,
27 Dec
2010 14:
45:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
3055 <description><p
>One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
3056 "<a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">Free and
3057 Open Standard
</a
>" is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
3058 the term has been decided by Digistan. The term
"Open Standard
" has
3059 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
3060 about standards. One end up discussing which definition is the best
3061 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
3062 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.
</p
>
3064 <p
>But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
3065 standards, here are a few that I know about. This list is not
3066 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
3067 complete survey. More definitions are available on the
3068 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
">wikipedia
3069 page
</a
>.
</p
>
3071 <p
>First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
3072 Interoperability Framework version
1.0. Really sad to notice that BSA
3073 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version
2.0 of the
3074 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
3075 their own people. Anyway, the definition is still available and it
3076 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
3077 specification on equal terms.
</p
>
3081 <p
>The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
3082 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
3083 open standard:
</p
>
3087 <li
>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
3088 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
3089 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
3090 (consensus or majority decision etc.).
</li
>
3092 <li
>The standard has been published and the standard specification
3093 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
3094 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
3095 nominal fee.
</li
>
3097 <li
>The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
3098 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
3099 free basis.
</li
>
3101 <li
>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
</li
>
3106 <p
>Another one originates from my friends over at
3107 <a href=
"http://www.dkuug.dk/
">DKUUG
</a
>, who coined and gathered
3108 support for
<a href=
"http://www.aaben-standard.dk/
">this
3109 definition
</a
> in
2004. It even made it into the Danish parlament as
3110 <a href=
"http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/
20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm
">their
3111 definition of a open standard
</a
>. Another from a different part of
3112 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.
</p
>
3116 <p
>En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:
</p
>
3120 <li
>Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
3121 tilgængelig.
</li
>
3123 <li
>Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
3124 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.
</li
>
3126 <li
>Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
3127 "standardiseringsorganisation
") via en åben proces.
</li
>
3133 <p
>Then there is
<a href=
"http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html
">the
3134 definition
</a
> from Free Software Foundation Europe.
</p
>
3138 <p
>An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is
</p
>
3142 <li
>subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
3143 manner equally available to all parties;
</li
>
3145 <li
>without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
3146 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
3147 Standard themselves;
</li
>
3149 <li
>free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
3150 any party or in any business model;
</li
>
3152 <li
>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
3153 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
3156 <li
>available in multiple complete implementations by competing
3157 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
3164 <p
>A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
3166 <a href=
"http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%
20Standard%
20Definition.pdf
">Open
3167 Standards Checklist
</a
> with a fairly detailed description.
</p
>
3170 <p
>Creation and Management of an Open Standard
3174 <li
>Its development and management process must be collaborative and
3179 <li
>Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
3180 participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
3181 imposed by the organization under which it is developed
3182 and managed.
</li
>
3184 <li
>The processes must be documented and, through a known
3185 method, can be changed through input from all
3186 participants.
</li
>
3188 <li
>The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
3189 the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.
</li
>
3191 <li
>Development and management should strive for consensus,
3192 and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.
</li
>
3194 <li
>The standard specification must be open to extensive
3195 public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
3196 comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.
</li
>
3204 <p
>Use and Licensing of an Open Standard
</p
>
3207 <li
>The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
3208 and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
3209 implementations to the interface described in the standard without
3210 undue or restrictive constraints. Interfaces include APIs,
3211 protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.
</li
>
3213 <li
> The standard must not contain any proprietary
"hooks
" that create
3214 a technical or economic barriers
</li
>
3216 <li
>Faithful implementations of the standard must
3217 interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
3218 program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
3219 programs and mutually to use the information which has been
3220 exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
3221 file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
3222 conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
3223 computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
3224 intended to function.
</li
>
3226 <li
>It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
3227 standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
3228 must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.
</li
>
3230 <li
>It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
3231 fees; also known as
"royalty free
"), worldwide, non-exclusive and
3232 perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
3233 sell products based on the standard. The only exceptions are
3234 terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
3235 outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
3236 patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
3237 only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
3241 <li
> May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
3242 licensees
' patent claims essential to practice that standard
3243 (also known as a reciprocity clause)
</li
>
3245 <li
> May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
3246 or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
3247 essential to practice that standard (also known as a
3248 "defensive suspension
" clause)
</li
>
3250 <li
> The same licensing terms are available to every potential
3256 <li
>The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
3257 implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
3258 or restricted licensing terms
</li
>
3264 <p
>It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
3265 there are so many of them. As you can see, the same holds true for
3266 open standard definitions. Most of the definitions have a lot in
3267 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
3268 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
3269 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
3270 competition to downplay the significance of open standards. I hope we
3271 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
3272 Standards.
</p
>
3277 <title>Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?
</title>
3278 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
</link>
3279 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
</guid>
3280 <pubDate>Sat,
25 Dec
2010 20:
25:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
3281 <description><p
><a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">The
3282 Digistan definition
</a
> of a free and open standard reads like this:
</p
>
3286 <p
>The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
3287 as follows:
</p
>
3291 <li
>A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
3292 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
3293 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.
</li
>
3295 <li
>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
3296 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
3297 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
3300 <li
>The standard has been published and the standard specification
3301 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
3302 distribute, and use it freely.
</li
>
3304 <li
>The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
3305 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
</li
>
3307 <li
>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
</li
>
3311 <p
>The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
3312 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
3313 products based on the standard.
</p
>
3316 <p
>For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
3317 and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short
3318 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the
3319 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
3320 <a href=
"http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/
2009-July/
001632.html
">in
3321 July
2009</a
>, for those that want to see some background information.
3322 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
3323 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.
</p
>
3325 <p
><strong
>Free from vendor capture?
</strong
></p
>
3327 <p
>As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
3328 Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the
3329 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/
">Xiph foundation
</A
> is such vendor, but
3330 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
3331 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
3332 obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph
3333 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
3334 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I
've
3335 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
3336 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
3337 where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an
3338 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
3339 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
3340 specification. But it seem unlikely.
</p
>
3342 <p
><strong
>Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?
</strong
></p
>
3344 <p
>Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
3345 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is
3346 controlled by a single vendor, it isn
't, but I have not found any
3347 documentation indicating this.
</p
>
3349 <p
>According to
3350 <a href=
"http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf
">a report
</a
>
3351 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
3352 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
3353 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
3354 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
3355 report is correct.
</p
>
3357 <p
><strong
>Specification freely available?
</strong
></p
>
3359 <p
>The specification for the
<a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/
">Ogg
3360 container format
</a
> and both the
3361 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/
">Vorbis
</a
> and
3362 <a href=
"http://theora.org/doc/
">Theora
</a
> codeces are available on
3363 the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
3367 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
3368 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
3369 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
3370 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
3371 specification compliance.
3375 <p
>The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
3376 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt
">RFC
3533</a
>, and
3377 this is the term:
<p
>
3381 <p
>This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
3382 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
3383 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
3384 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
3385 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
3386 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
3387 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
3388 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
3389 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
3390 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
3391 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
3392 translate it into languages other than English.
</p
>
3394 <p
>The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
3395 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
</p
>
3398 <p
>All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
3399 this term seem to be fulfilled. There might be a problem with the
3400 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
3401 thus reuse it in other specifications. Not quite sure if that is a
3402 requirement for the Digistan definition.
</p
>
3404 <p
><strong
>Royalty-free?
</strong
></p
>
3406 <p
>There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
3408 <a href=
"http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=
65782">MPEG-LA
</a
>
3410 <a href=
"http://yro.slashdot.org/story/
10/
04/
30/
237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit
">Steve
3411 Jobs
</a
> in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
3412 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
3413 them. Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
3414 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
3415 without paying any royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
3416 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H
.264 codec
3417 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.
</p
>
3419 <p
><strong
>No constraints on re-use?
</strong
></p
>
3421 <p
>I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.
</p
>
3423 <p
><strong
>Conclusion
</strong
></p
>
3425 <p
>3 of
5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining
2
3426 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the
3427 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
3428 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
3429 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
3432 <p
>It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
3433 see if they are free and open standards.
</p
>
3438 <title>The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru
</title>
3439 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html
</link>
3440 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html
</guid>
3441 <pubDate>Sat,
25 Dec
2010 10:
50:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
3442 <description><p
>A few days ago
3443 <a href=
"http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece
">an
3444 article
</a
> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
3446 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework
">European
3447 Interoperability Framework
</a
> has been successfully lobbied by the
3448 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
3449 Nothing very surprising there, given
3450 <a href=
"http://news.slashdot.org/story/
10/
03/
29/
2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe
">earlier
3451 reports
</a
> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
3452 this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of
3453 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-
200506.txt
">an
3454 open standard from version
1</a
> was very good, and something I
3455 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
3456 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">the
3457 definition from Digistan
</A
>. Version
2 have removed the open
3458 standard definition from its content.
</p
>
3460 <p
>Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
3461 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
3462 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
3463 in the public sector in Peru. As the text was not available from a
3464 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
3465 <a href=
"http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html
">my
3466 source
</a
> to ensure it is available also in the future. Some
3467 background information about that story is available in
3468 <a href=
"http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/
6099">an article
</a
> from
3469 Linux Journal in
2002.
</p
>
3472 <p
>Lima,
8th of April,
2002<br
>
3473 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
<br
>
3474 General Manager of Microsoft Perú
</p
>
3476 <p
>Dear Sir:
</p
>
3478 <p
>First of all, I thank you for your letter of March
25,
2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number
1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter.
</p
>
3480 <p
>While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.
</p
>
3482 <p
>With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call
"open source software
" is what the Bill defines as
"free software
", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call
"commercial software
" is what the Bill defines as
"proprietary
" or
"unfree
", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.
</p
>
3484 <p
>It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:
</p
>
3488 <li
>Free access to public information by the citizen.
</li
>
3489 <li
>Permanence of public data.
</li
>
3490 <li
>Security of the State and citizens.
</li
>
3494 <p
>To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.
</p
>
3496 <p
>To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.
</p
>
3498 <p
>To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.
</p
>
3500 <p
>In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.
</p
>
3502 <p
>In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles.
</p
>
3505 <p
>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
<br
>
3506 <li
>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
</li
>
3507 <li
>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
</li
>
3508 <li
>the law does not specify which concrete software to use
</li
>
3509 <li
>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
</li
>
3510 <li
>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
</li
>
3514 <p
>What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning.
</p
>
3516 <p
>We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.
</p
>
3518 <p
>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:
</p
>
3520 <p
>Firstly, you point out that:
"1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution.
"</p
>
3522 <p
>This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter.
</p
>
3524 <p
>The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No.
012-
2001-PCM).
</p
>
3526 <p
>The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions.
</p
>
3528 <p
>It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill.
</p
>
3530 <p
>By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office
"suite
", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved.
</p
>
3532 <p
>To continue; you note that:
" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies...
"</p
>
3534 <p
>This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding
"non-competitive ... practices.
"</p
>
3536 <p
>Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them
"a priori
", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles.
</p
>
3538 <p
>Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement.
</p
>
3540 <p
>On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms
' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.
</p
>
3542 <p
>It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users:
"update your software to the new version
" (at the user
's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider
's judgment alone, are
"old
"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays
"trapped
" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).
</p
>
3544 <p
>You add:
"3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector.
"</p
>
3546 <p
>I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph
6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs.
</p
>
3548 <p
>On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software.
</p
>
3550 <p
>In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.
</p
>
3552 <p
>In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.
</p
>
3554 <p
>It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of
"ad hoc
" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive.
</p
>
3556 <p
>With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model.
</p
>
3558 <p
>Your letter continues:
"4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties.
"</p
>
3560 <p
>Alluding in an abstract way to
"the dangers this can bring
", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.
</p
>
3562 <p
>On security:
</p
>
3564 <p
>National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or
"bugs
" (in programmers
' slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.
</p
>
3566 <p
>What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors.
</p
>
3568 <p
>It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product.
</p
>
3570 <p
>In respect of the guarantee:
</p
>
3572 <p
>As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the
"End User License Agreement
" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS
'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.
</p
>
3574 <p
>On Intellectual Property:
</p
>
3576 <p
>Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one
's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on
27th September
2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of
3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).
</p
>
3578 <p
>You go on to say that:
"The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position.
"</p
>
3580 <p
>This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL).
</p
>
3582 <p
>Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats.
</p
>
3584 <p
>If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State.
</p
>
3586 <p
>You continue:
"6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only
8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other
92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time.
"</p
>
3588 <p
>This argument repeats that already given in paragraph
5 and partly contradicts paragraph
3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only
8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.
</p
>
3590 <p
>In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph
3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software (
"blue screens of death
", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability.
</p
>
3592 <p
>You further state that:
"7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries.
"</p
>
3594 <p
>I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you.
</p
>
3596 <p
>On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than
8% of the total.
</p
>
3598 <p
>You continue:
"8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market.
"</p
>
3600 <p
>Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely.
</p
>
3602 <p
>The second argument refers to
"problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector
" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code.
</p
>
3604 <p
>You then say that:
"9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place.
"</p
>
3606 <p
>This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph
4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software.
</p
>
3608 <p
>On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.
</p
>
3610 <p
>You continue by observing that:
"10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices
40 million US$/year, exports
4 million US$ (
10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment.
"</p
>
3612 <p
>It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.
</p
>
3614 <p
>What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments.
</p
>
3616 <p
>You go on to say that:
"11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry.
"</p
>
3618 <p
>This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad.
</p
>
3620 <p
>You then state that:
"12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools.
"</p
>
3622 <p
>In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn
't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That
's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software.
</p
>
3624 <p
>You end with a rhetorical question:
"13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn
't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?
"</p
>
3626 <p
>We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.
</p
>
3628 <p
>The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public.
</p
>
3630 <p
>In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.
</p
>
3632 <p
>I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.
</p
>
3634 <p
>Cordially,
<br
>
3635 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
<br
>
3636 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.
</p
>
3642 <title>Officeshots still going strong
</title>
3643 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html
</link>
3644 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html
</guid>
3645 <pubDate>Sat,
25 Dec
2010 09:
40:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
3646 <description><p
>Half a year ago I
3647 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html
">wrote
3648 a bit
</a
> about
<a href=
"http://www.officeshots.org/
">OfficeShots
</a
>,
3649 a web service to allow anyone to test how ODF documents are handled by
3650 the different programs reading and writing the ODF format.
</p
>
3652 <p
>I just had a look at the service, and it seem to be going strong.
3653 Very interesting to see the results reported in the gallery, how
3654 different Office implementations handle different ODF features. Sad
3655 to see that KOffice was not doing it very well, and happy to see that
3656 LibreOffice has been tested already (but sadly not listed as a option
3657 for OfficeShots users yet). I am glad to see that the ODF community
3658 got such a great test tool available.
</p
>
3663 <title>Best å ikke fortelle noen at streaming er nedlasting...
</title>
3664 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html
</link>
3665 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html
</guid>
3666 <pubDate>Sat,
30 Oct
2010 11:
20:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
3667 <description><p
>I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta
3668 <a href=
"http://nrkbeta.no/
2010/
10/
27/bakom-blindpassasjer-del-
1/
">om
3669 hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget
</a
> i forbindelse med at
3670 filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et
3671 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">fritt og
3672 åpent format
</a
>. Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der
07:
39.
</p
>
3674 <p
><blockquote
>
3675 <p
>"Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra
3676 nedlasting. Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer
3677 som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den
3678 nødvendige forkunnskapen.
"</p
>
3680 <p
>Haha. Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å
3681 beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig. Å skrive noe slikt
3682 er å forlede leseren.
</p
>
3684 <p
>Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun
3685 vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.
</p
>
3687 <p
>Anbefaler forresten å lese
3688 <a href=
"http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/
2010/
10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm
">http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/
2010/
10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm
</a
>
3689 om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer
3690 (DRM) fungerte. Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo
3691 derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass,
3692 men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge
3693 opp under.
</p
>
3694 </blockquote
></p
>
3696 <p
>Ca.
20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i
3699 <p
><blockquote
>
3700 <p
>From: Anders Hofseth
&lt;XXX@gmail.com
>
3701 <br
>To:
"pere@hungry.com
" &lt;pere@hungry.com
>
3702 <br
>Cc: Eirik Solheim
&lt;XXX@gmail.com
>, Jon Ståle Carlsen
&lt;XXX@gmail.com
>, Henrik Lied
&lt;XXX@gmail.com
>
3703 <br
>Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar:
"Bakom Blindpassasjer: del
1"
3704 <br
>Date: Sat,
30 Oct
2010 07:
58:
44 +
0200</p
>
3706 <p
>Hei Petter.
3707 <br
>Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon,
3708 men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt
3709 om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
3710 særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.
</p
>
3712 <p
>Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er
3713 fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
3714 konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...
</p
>
3716 <p
>Med hilsen,
3717 <br
>-anders
</p
>
3719 <p
>Ring meg om noe er uklart:
95XXXXXXX
</p
>
3720 </blockquote
></p
>
3722 <p
>Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte
3723 over følgende svar. I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas
3724 kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet.
3725 Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å
3726 unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.
</p
>
3728 <p
><blockquote
>
3729 <p
>From: Petter Reinholdtsen
&lt;pere@hungry.com
>
3730 <br
>To: Anders Hofseth
&lt;XXX@gmail.com
>
3731 <br
>Cc: Eirik Solheim
&lt;XXX@gmail.com
>,
3732 <br
> Jon Ståle Carlsen
&lt;XXX@gmail.com
>,
3733 <br
> Henrik Lied
&lt;XXX@gmail.com
>
3734 <br
>Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar:
"Bakom Blindpassasjer: del
1"
3735 <br
>Date: Sat,
30 Oct
2010 08:
24:
34 +
0200</p
>
3737 <p
>[Anders Hofseth]
3738 <br
>> Hei Petter.
</p
>
3740 <p
>Hei.
</p
>
3742 <p
>> Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
3743 <br
>> om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
3744 <br
>> å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
3745 <br
>> særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.
</p
>
3747 <p
>Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon. Den
3748 vil nok fortsette en stund til. :)
</p
>
3750 <p
>Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med
3751 vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne
3752 fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.
</p
>
3754 <p
>Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke
3755 faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold
3756 som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker
3759 <p
>Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på
3760 web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta.
3761 Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)
</p
>
3763 <p
>> Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
3764 <br
>> og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
3765 <br
>> konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...
</p
>
3767 <p
>Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og
3768 heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen
3769 mot de som vil låse kulturen inne. Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK
3770 godtar å forlede publikum. Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som
3771 skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i
3772 formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til
3773 H
.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).
</p
>
3775 <p
>At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive
3776 påstander om at
"streaming beskytter mot nedlasting
" som bare er egnet
3777 til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.
</p
>
3779 <p
>Anbefaler
&lt;URL:
<a href=
"http://webmink.com/
2010/
09/
03/h-
264-and-foss/
">http://webmink.com/
2010/
09/
03/h-
264-and-foss/
</a
>> og en
3781 &lt;URL:
<a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html
">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html
</a
> >.
3782 for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H
.264 innebærer.
</p
>
3784 <p
>Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke
3785 kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade
3786 samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall
3787 synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er
3788 langt på overtid.
</p
>
3790 <p
>> Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX
</p
>
3792 <p
>Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på.
3793 Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en
3794 gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted
3795 for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med
3796 ryggraden på plass.
</p
>
3798 <p
>PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.
</p
>
3800 <p
>Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet.
3801 &lt;URL:
<a href=
"http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft
">http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft
</a
> > og
3802 &lt;URL:
<a href=
"http://patentabsurdity.com/
">http://patentabsurdity.com/
</a
> > hadde vært noe å kringkaste på
3805 <p
>Vennlig hilsen,
3807 <br
>Petter Reinholdtsen
</p
>
3812 <title>Standardkrav inn i anbudstekster?
</title>
3813 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html
</link>
3814 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html
</guid>
3815 <pubDate>Sun,
17 Oct
2010 19:
30:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
3816 <description><p
>Hvis det å følge standarder skal ha noen effekt overfor
3817 leverandører, så må slike krav og ønsker komme inn i anbudstekster når
3818 systemer kjøpes inn. Har ikke sett noen slike formuleringer i anbud
3819 så langt, men har tenkt litt på hva som bør inn. Her er noen ideer og
3820 forslag. Min drøm er at en kan sette krav til slik støtte i
3821 anbudstekster, men så langt er det nok mer sannsynlig at en må nøye
3822 seg med å skrive at det er en fordel om slik støtte er tilstede i
3823 leveranser.
</p
>
3825 <p
>Som systemadministrator på Universitetet er det typisk to områder
3826 som er problematiske for meg. Det ene er admin-grensesnittene på
3827 tjenermaskiner, som vi ønsker å bruke via ssh. Det andre er nettsider
3828 som vi ønsker å bruke via en nettleser. For begge deler er det viktig
3829 at protokollene og formatene som brukes følger standarder våre verktøy
3832 <p
>De fleste har nå støtte for SSH som overføringsprotkoll for
3833 admin-grensesnittet, men det er ikke tilstrekkelig for å kunne stille
3834 inn f.eks BIOS og RAID-kontroller via ssh-forbindelsen. Det er flere
3835 aktuelle protokoller for fremvisning av BIOS-oppsett og
3836 oppstartmeldinger, og min anbefaling ville være å kreve
3837 VT100-kompatibel protokoll, for å sikre at flest mulig
3838 terminalemulatorer kan forstå hva som kommer fra admin-grensesnittet
3839 via ssh. Andre aktuelle alternativer er ANSI-terminalemulering og
3840 VT220. Kanskje en formulering ala dette i anbudsutlysninger vil
3843 <p
><blockquote
>
3844 BIOS og oppstartmeldinger i administrasjonsgrensesnittet til maskinen
3845 bør/skal være tilgjengelig via SSH-protokollen som definert av IETF
3846 (RFC
4251 mfl.) og følge terminalfremvisningprotokollen VT100 (ref?)
3847 når en kobler seg til oppstart via ssh.
3848 </blockquote
></p
>
3850 <p
>Har ikke lykkes med å finne en god referanse for
3851 VT100-spesifikasjonen.
</p
>
3853 <p
>Når det gjelder nettsider, så er det det HTML, CSS og
3854 JavaScript-spesifikasjonen til W3C som gjelder.
</p
>
3856 <p
><blockquote
>
3857 Alle systemets nettsider bør/skal være i henhold til statens
3858 standardkatalogs krav om nettsider og følge HTML-standarden som
3859 definert av W3C, og validere uten feil hos W3Cs HTML-validator
3860 (http://validator.w3.org). Hvis det brukes CSS så bør/skal denne
3861 validere uten feil hos W3Cs CSS-validator
3862 (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/). Eventuelle JavaScript skal
3863 være i henhold til EcmaScript-standarden. I tillegg til å følge de
3864 overnevnte standardene skal websidene fungere i nettleserne (fyll inn
3865 relevant liste for organisasjonen) Firefox
3.5, Internet Explorer
8,
3867 </blockquote
></p
>
3869 <p
>Vil et slikt avsnitt være konkret nok til å få leverandørene til å
3870 lage nettsider som følger standardene og fungerer i flere
3871 nettlesere?
</p
>
3873 <p
>Tar svært gjerne imot innspill på dette temaet til aktive (at)
3874 nuug.no, og er spesielt interessert i hva andre skriver i sine anbud
3875 for å oppmuntre leverandører til å følge standardene. Kanskje NUUG
3876 burde lage et dokument med forslag til standardformuleringer å ta med
3877 i anbudsutlysninger?
</p
>
3879 <p
>Oppdatering
2010-
12-
03: I følge Wikipedias oppføring om
3880 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code
">ANSI escape
3881 code
</a
>, så bruker VT100-terminaler ECMA-
48-spesifikasjonen som
3882 basis for sin oppførsel. Det kan dermed være et alternativ når en
3883 skal spesifisere hvordan seriell-konsoll skal fungere.
</p
>
3888 <title>Terms of use for video produced by a Canon IXUS
130 digital camera
</title>
3889 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html
</link>
3890 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html
</guid>
3891 <pubDate>Thu,
9 Sep
2010 23:
55:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
3892 <description><p
>A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital
3893 camera, a Canon IXUS
130. It was instructive and very disturbing to
3894 be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to
3895 specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera.
3896 Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras
3897 are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway. What is the
3898 problem, you might ask? It is software patents, MPEG-
4, H
.264 and the
3899 MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences
3900 without asking for permissions that is at risk.
3902 <p
>On page
27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is
3906 <p
>This product is licensed under AT
&T patents for the MPEG-
4 standard
3907 and may be used for encoding MPEG-
4 compliant video and/or decoding
3908 MPEG-
4 compliant video that was encoded only (
1) for a personal and
3909 non-commercial purpose or (
2) by a video provider licensed under the
3910 AT
&T patents to provide MPEG-
4 compliant video.
</p
>
3912 <p
>No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-
4
3916 <p
>In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology
3917 (MPEG-
4/H
.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and
3918 non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations
3919 holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.
</p
>
3921 <p
>This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to
3923 "<a href=
"http://www.osnews.com/story/
23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA
">Why
3924 Our Civilization
's Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the
3925 MPEG-LA
</a
>" by Eugenia Loli-Queru and
3926 "<a href=
"http://webmink.com/
2010/
09/
03/h-
264-and-foss/
">H
.264 Is Not
3927 The Sort Of Free That Matters
</a
>" by Simon Phipps to learn more about
3928 the issue. The solution is to support the
3929 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">free and
3930 open standards
</a
> for video, like
<a href=
"http://www.theora.org/
">Ogg
3931 Theora
</a
>, and avoid MPEG-
4 and H
.264 if you can.
</p
>
3936 <title>Officeshots taking shape
</title>
3937 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html
</link>
3938 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html
</guid>
3939 <pubDate>Sun,
13 Jun
2010 11:
40:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
3940 <description><p
>For those of us caring about document exchange and
3941 interoperability,
<a href=
"http://www.officeshots.org/
">OfficeShots
</a
>
3942 is a great service. It is to ODF documents what
3943 <a href=
"http://browsershots.org/
">BrowserShots
</a
> is for web
3946 <p
>A while back, I was contacted by Knut Yrvin at the part of Nokia
3947 that used to be Trolltech, who wanted to help the OfficeShots project
3948 and wondered if the University of Oslo where I work would be
3949 interested in supporting the project. I helped him to navigate his
3950 request to the right people at work, and his request was answered with
3951 a spot in the machine room with power and network connected, and Knut
3952 arranged funding for a machine to fill the spot. The machine is
3953 administrated by the OfficeShots people, so I do not have daily
3954 contact with its progress, and thus from time to time check back to
3955 see how the project is doing.
</p
>
3957 <p
>Today I had a look, and was happy to see that the Dell box in our
3958 machine room now is the host for several virtual machines running as
3959 OfficeShots factories, and the project is able to render ODF documents
3960 in
17 different document processing implementation on Linux and
3961 Windows. This is great.
</p
>
3966 <title>A manual for standards wars...
</title>
3967 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html
</link>
3968 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html
</guid>
3969 <pubDate>Sun,
6 Jun
2010 14:
15:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
3970 <description><p
>Via the
3971 <a href=
"http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/robweir/antic-atom/~
3/QzU4RgoAGMg/weekly-links-
10.html
">blog
3972 of Rob Weir
</a
> I came across the very interesting essay named
3973 <a href=
"http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/wars.pdf
">The Art of
3974 Standards Wars
</a
> (PDF
25 pages). I recommend it for everyone
3975 following the standards wars of today.
</p
>
3980 <title>Danmark går for ODF?
</title>
3981 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Danmark_g_r_for_ODF_.html
</link>
3982 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Danmark_g_r_for_ODF_.html
</guid>
3983 <pubDate>Fri,
29 Jan
2010 12:
00:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
3984 <description><p
>Ble nettopp gjort oppmerksom på en
3985 <a href=
"http://www.version2.dk/artikel/
13690-breaking-odf-vinder-dokumentformat-krigen
">nyhet fra Version2
</a
>
3986 fra Danmark, der det hevdes at Folketinget har vedtatt at ODF skal
3987 brukes som dokumentutvekslingsformat i Staten.
</p
>
3989 <p
>Hyggelig lesning, spesielt hvis det viser seg at de av vedtatt
3990 kravlisten for hva som skal aksepteres som referert i kommentarfeltet
3992 <a href=
"http://www.version2.dk/artikel/
13693-er-ooxml-doemt-ude-her-er-kravene-til-en-offentlig-dokumentstandard
">en
3993 annen artikkel
</a
> i samme nett-avis. Liker spesielt godt denne:
</p
>
3995 <p
><blockquote
> Det skal demonstreres, at standarden i sin helhed kan
3996 implementeres af alle direkte i sin helhed på flere
3997 platforme.
</blockquote
></p
>
3999 <p
>Noe slikt burde være et krav også i Norge.
</p
>
4004 <title>Relative popularity of document formats (MS Office vs. ODF)
</title>
4005 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html
</link>
4006 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html
</guid>
4007 <pubDate>Wed,
12 Aug
2009 15:
50:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
4008 <description><p
>Just for fun, I did a search right now on Google for a few file ODF
4009 and MS Office based formats (not to be mistaken for ISO or ECMA
4010 OOXML), to get an idea of their relative usage. I searched using
4011 'filetype:odt
' and equvalent terms, and got these results:
</P
>
4014 <tr
><th
>Type
</th
><th
>ODF
</th
><th
>MS Office
</th
></tr
>
4015 <tr
><td
>Tekst
</td
> <td
>odt:
282000</td
> <td
>docx:
308000</td
></tr
>
4016 <tr
><td
>Presentasjon
</td
> <td
>odp:
75600</td
> <td
>pptx:
183000</td
></tr
>
4017 <tr
><td
>Regneark
</td
> <td
>ods:
26500 </td
> <td
>xlsx:
145000</td
></tr
>
4020 <p
>Next, I added a
'site:no
' limit to get the numbers for Norway, and
4021 got these numbers:
</p
>
4024 <tr
><th
>Type
</th
><th
>ODF
</th
><th
>MS Office
</th
></tr
>
4025 <tr
><td
>Tekst
</td
> <td
>odt:
2480 </td
> <td
>docx:
4460</td
></tr
>
4026 <tr
><td
>Presentasjon
</td
> <td
>odp:
299 </td
> <td
>pptx:
741</td
></tr
>
4027 <tr
><td
>Regneark
</td
> <td
>ods:
187 </td
> <td
>xlsx:
372</td
></tr
>
4030 <p
>I wonder how these numbers change over time.
</p
>
4032 <p
>I am aware of Google returning different results and numbers based
4033 on where the search is done, so I guess these numbers will differ if
4034 they are conduced in another country. Because of this, I did the same
4035 search from a machine in California, USA, a few minutes after the
4036 search done from a machine here in Norway.
</p
>
4040 <tr
><th
>Type
</th
><th
>ODF
</th
><th
>MS Office
</th
></tr
>
4041 <tr
><td
>Tekst
</td
> <td
>odt:
129000</td
> <td
>docx:
308000</td
></tr
>
4042 <tr
><td
>Presentasjon
</td
> <td
>odp:
44200</td
> <td
>pptx:
93900</td
></tr
>
4043 <tr
><td
>Regneark
</td
> <td
>ods:
26500 </td
> <td
>xlsx:
82400</td
></tr
>
4046 <p
>And with
'site:no
':
4049 <tr
><th
>Type
</th
><th
>ODF
</th
><th
>MS Office
</th
></tr
>
4050 <tr
><td
>Tekst
</td
> <td
>odt:
2480</td
> <td
>docx:
3410</td
></tr
>
4051 <tr
><td
>Presentasjon
</td
> <td
>odp:
175</td
> <td
>pptx:
604</td
></tr
>
4052 <tr
><td
>Regneark
</td
> <td
>ods:
186 </td
> <td
>xlsx:
296</td
></tr
>
4055 <p
>Interesting difference, not sure what to conclude from these
4061 <title>ISO still hope to fix OOXML
</title>
4062 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html
</link>
4063 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html
</guid>
4064 <pubDate>Sat,
8 Aug
2009 14:
00:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
4065 <description><p
>According to
<a
4066 href=
"http://twerner.blogspot.com/
2009/
08/defects-of-office-open-xml.html
">a
4067 blog post from Torsten Werner
</a
>, the current defect report for ISO
4068 29500 (ISO OOXML) is
809 pages. His interesting point is that the
4069 defect report is
71 pages more than the full ODF
1.1 specification.
4070 Personally I find it more interesting that ISO still believe ISO OOXML
4071 can be fixed in ISO. Personally, I believe it is broken beyon repair,
4072 and I completely lack any trust in ISO for being able to get anywhere
4073 close to solving the problems. I was part of the Norwegian committee
4074 involved in the OOXML fast track process, and was not impressed with
4075 Standard Norway and ISO in how they handled it.
</p
>
4077 <p
>These days I focus on ODF instead, which seem like a specification
4078 with the future ahead of it. We are working in NUUG to organise a ODF
4079 seminar this autumn.
</p
>
4084 <title>Regjerningens oppsummering av høringen om standardkatalogen versjon
2</title>
4085 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h_ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html
</link>
4086 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h_ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html
</guid>
4087 <pubDate>Thu,
9 Jul
2009 14:
40:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
4088 <description><p
>For å forstå mer om hvorfor standardkatalogens versjon
2 ble som
4089 den ble, har jeg bedt om kopi fra FAD av dokumentene som ble lagt frem
4090 for regjeringen da de tok sin avgjørelse. De er nå lagt ut på NUUGs
4091 wiki, direkte tilgjengelig via
"<a
4092 href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/
200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile
&do=get
&target=kongelig-resolusjon.pdf
">Referansekatalogen
4093 v2.0 - Oppsummering av høring
</a
>" og
"<a
4094 href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/
200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile
&do=get
&target=kongelig-resolusjon-katalogutkast.pdf
">Referansekatalog
4095 for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor Versjon
2.0, dd.mm.åååå -
4096 UTKAST
</a
>".
</p
>
4098 <p
>Det er tre ting jeg merker meg i oppsummeringen fra
4099 høringsuttalelsen da jeg skummet igjennom den. Det første er at
4100 forståelsen av hvordan programvarepatenter påvirker fri
4101 programvareutvikling også i Norge når en argumenterer med at
4102 royalty-betaling ikke er et relevant problem i Norge. Det andre er at
4103 FAD ikke har en prinsipiell forståelse av verdien av en enkelt
4104 standard innenfor hvert område. Det siste er at påstander i
4105 høringsuttalelsene ikke blir etterprøvd (f.eks. påstanden fra
4106 Microsoft om hvordan Ogg blir standardisert og påstanden fra
4107 politidirektoratet om patentproblemer i Theora).
</p
>
4112 <title>Regjerningen forlater prinsippet om ingen royalty-betaling i standardkatalogen versjon
2</title>
4113 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html
</link>
4114 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html
</guid>
4115 <pubDate>Mon,
6 Jul
2009 21:
00:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
4116 <description><p
>Jeg ble glad da regjeringen
4117 <a href=
"http://www.digi.no/
817635/her-er-statens-nye-it-standarder
">annonserte
</a
>
4119 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Referansekatalogen_versjon2.pdf
">statens
4120 referansekatalog over standarder
</a
>, men trist da jeg leste hva som
4121 faktisk var vedtatt etter
4122 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/
2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-
2.html
">høringen
</a
>.
4123 De fleste av de valgte åpne standardene er gode og vil bidra til at
4124 alle kan delta på like vilkår i å lage løsninger for staten, men
4125 noen av dem blokkerer for de som ikke har anledning til å benytte
4126 spesifikasjoner som krever betaling for bruk (såkalt
4127 royalty-betaling). Det gjelder spesifikt for H
.264 for video og MP3
4128 for lyd. Så lenge bruk av disse var valgfritt mens Ogg Theora og Ogg
4129 Vorbis var påkrevd, kunne alle som ønsket å spille av video og lyd
4130 fra statens websider gjøre dette uten å måtte bruke programmer der
4131 betaling for bruk var nødvendig. Når det nå er gjort valgfritt for
4132 de statlige etatene å bruke enten H
.264 eller Theora (og MP3 eler
4133 Vorbis), så vil en bli tvunget til å forholde seg til
4134 royalty-belastede standarder for å få tilgang til videoen og
4137 <p
>Det gjør meg veldig trist at regjeringen har forlatt prinsippet om
4138 at alle standarder som ble valgt til å være påkrevd i katalogen skulle
4139 være uten royalty-betaling. Jeg håper det ikke betyr at en har mistet
4140 all forståelse for hvilke prinsipper som må følges for å oppnå
4141 likeverdig konkurranse mellom aktørene i IT-bransjen. NUUG advarte
4143 <a href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/
200901-standardkatalog-v2
">sin
4144 høringsuttalelse
</a
>, men ser ut til å ha blitt ignorert.
</p
>
4146 <p
>Oppdatering
2012-
06-
29: Kom over
<a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Refkat_v2.pdf
">en
4147 rapport til FAD
</a
> fra da versjon
1 av katalogen ble vedtatt, og der
4148 er det tydelig at problemstillingen var kjent og forstått.
</p
>
4153 <title>Microsofts misvisende argumentasjon rundt multimediaformater
</title>
4154 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html
</link>
4155 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html
</guid>
4156 <pubDate>Fri,
26 Jun
2009 13:
30:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
4157 <description><p
>I
4158 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/Hoeringer/Refkat_V2/MicrosoftNorge.pdf
">Microsoft
4159 sin høringsuttalelse
</a
> til
4160 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/
2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-
2.html?id=
549422">forslag
4161 til versjon
2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder
</a
>, lirer
4162 de av seg følgende FUD-perle:
</p
>
4164 <p
><blockquote
>"Vorbis, OGG, Theora og FLAC er alle tekniske
4165 spesifikasjoner overordnet styrt av xiph.org, som er en
4166 ikke-kommersiell organisasjon. Etablerte og anerkjente
4167 standardiseringsorganisasjoner, som Oasis, W3C og Ecma, har en godt
4168 innarbeidet vedlikeholds- og forvaltningsprosess av en standard.
4169 Det er derimot helt opp til hver enkelt organisasjon å bestemme
4170 hvordan tekniske spesifikasjoner videreutvikles og endres, og disse
4171 spesifikasjonene bør derfor ikke defineres som åpne
4172 standarder.
"</blockquote
></p
>
4174 <p
>De vokter seg vel for å nevne den anerkjente
4175 standardiseringsorganisasjonen IETF, som er organisasjonen bak HTTP,
4176 IP og det meste av protokoller på Internet, og RFC-standardene som
4177 IETF står bak. Ogg er spesifisert i
4178 <a href=
"http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3533.txt
">RFC
3533</a
>, og er uten
4179 tvil å anse som en åpen standard. Vorbis er
4180 <a href=
"http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc5215.txt
">RFC
5215</a
>. Theora er
4182 under standardisering via IETF, med
4183 <a href=
"http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/theora/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-theora-
00.txt
">siste
4184 utkast publisert
2006-
07-
21</a
> (riktignok er dermed teksten ikke
4185 skrevet i stein ennå, men det blir neppe endringer som ikke er
4186 bakoverkompatibel). De kan være inne på noe når det gjelder FLAC da
4187 jeg ikke finner tegn til at
<a
4188 href=
"http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html
">spesifikasjonen
4189 tilgjengelig på web
</a
> er på tur via noen
4190 standardiseringsorganisasjon, men i og med at folkene bak Ogg, Theora
4191 og Vorbis også har involvert seg i Flac siden
2003, så ser jeg ikke
4192 bort fra at også den organiseres via IETF. Jeg kjenner personlig lite
4195 <p
>Uredelig argumentasjon bør en holde seg for god til å komme med,
4196 spesielt når det er så enkelt i dagens Internet-hverdag å gå
4197 misvisende påstander etter i sømmene.
</p
>
4202 <title>Standarder fungerer best når en samler seg rundt dem
</title>
4203 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n_r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html
</link>
4204 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n_r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html
</guid>
4205 <pubDate>Tue,
19 May
2009 11:
30:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
4206 <description><p
>En standard er noe man samler seg rundt, ut fra ideen om at en får
4207 fordeler når mange står sammen. Jo flere som står sammen, jo
4208 bedre. Når en vet dette, blir det litt merkelig å lese noen av
4209 uttalelsene som er kommet inn til
4210 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/
2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-
2/horingsuttalelser.html?id=
549423">høringen
4211 om versjon
2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder
</a
>. Blant
4212 annet Abelia, NHO og Microsoft tror det er lurt med flere standarder
4213 innenfor samme område. Det blir som å si at det er fint om Norge
4214 standardiserte både på A4- og Letter-størrelser på arkene, ulik
4215 sporvidde på jernbaneskinnene, meter og fot som lengemål, eller
4216 høyre- og venstrekjøring - slik at en kan konkurrere på hvilken
4217 standard som er best. De fleste forstår heldigvis at dette ikke
4218 bidrar positivt.
</p
>
4223 <title>Hvorfor jeg ikke bruker eFaktura
</title>
4224 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html
</link>
4225 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html
</guid>
4226 <pubDate>Thu,
23 Apr
2009 23:
00:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
4227 <description><p
>Telenors annonsering om å kreve
35 kroner i gebyr fra alle som
4228 ønsker papirfaktura har satt sinnene i kok, og pressedekningen så
4229 langt snakker om at eldre og folk som ikke behersker data vil få en
4230 urimelig ekstrakostnad. Jeg tror ikke jeg passer inn i noen av de
4231 kategoriene, men velger å holde meg unna eFaktura - som er det
4232 Telenor ønsker å få folk over på - pga. systemets egenskaper.
</p
>
4234 <p
>Slik jeg har sett eFaktura til forbrukere så langt, så sender
4235 selger en elektronisk beskjed til kundens bank, som legger ut
4236 informasjon om fakturaen i nettbanken for godkjenning. Personlig
4237 ville jeg sett det som mer naturlig at det gikk en elektronisk beskjed
4238 fra selger til kunde, dvs meg, og at jeg så kunne bruke den videre
4239 mot banken eller andre hvis jeg ønsket dette. Mine innkjøp og
4240 regninger er jo en sak mellom meg og mine leverandører, ikke en sak
4241 mellom min bank og mine leverandører. Kun hvis jeg ønsker å betale
4242 fakturaen skal banken involveres. En faktura bør jo inn i
4243 regnskapet, og jeg ønsker mulighet til å legge det inn der. Når
4244 fakturaen sendes til banken i stedet for meg, blir det vanskeligere.
4245 Hele eFaktura-modellen virker på meg som en umyndiggjøring av meg
4246 som kunde.
</p
>
4248 <p
>I tillegg har jeg ikke vært i stand til å finne
4249 eFaktura-formatets spesifikasjon, og det ser ut til at utsending av
4250 slike krever dyre avtaler med bankene for å få lov til å sende ut
4251 eFaktura til kunder. Jeg ser vel helst at fakturering på
4252 elektroniske formater kan gjøres f.eks. via epost eller HTTP uten å
4253 måtte betale mellommenn for retten til å lever ut en faktura, og
4254 liker rett og slett ikke dagens faktureringsmodeller.
</p
>
4259 <title>Standardize on protocols and formats, not vendors and applications
</title>
4260 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html
</link>
4261 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html
</guid>
4262 <pubDate>Mon,
30 Mar
2009 11:
50:
00 +
0200</pubDate>
4263 <description><p
>Where I work at the University of Oslo, one decision stand out as a
4264 very good one to form a long lived computer infrastructure. It is the
4265 simple one, lost by many in todays computer industry: Standardize on
4266 open network protocols and open exchange/storage formats, not applications.
4267 Applications come and go, while protocols and files tend to stay, and
4268 thus one want to make it easy to change application and vendor, while
4269 avoiding conversion costs and locking users to a specific platform or
4270 application.
</p
>
4272 <p
>This approach make it possible to replace the client applications
4273 independently of the server applications. One can even allow users to
4274 use several different applications as long as they handle the selected
4275 protocol and format. In the normal case, only one client application
4276 is recommended and users only get help if they choose to use this
4277 application, but those that want to deviate from the easy path are not
4278 blocked from doing so.
</p
>
4280 <p
>It also allow us to replace the server side without forcing the
4281 users to replace their applications, and thus allow us to select the
4282 best server implementation at any moment, when scale and resouce
4283 requirements change.
</p
>
4285 <p
>I strongly recommend standardizing - on open network protocols and
4286 open formats, but I would never recommend standardizing on a single
4287 application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.
</p
>
4292 <title>Hva er egentlig en åpen standard?
</title>
4293 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en__pen_standard_.html
</link>
4294 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en__pen_standard_.html
</guid>
4295 <pubDate>Sat,
28 Mar
2009 10:
50:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
4296 <description><p
>Jeg møter alle slags interessante mennesker på min vei, og et møte
4297 jeg lærte mye av var å treffe på en svært kompetent IT-fyr som
4298 benektet ting jeg anser som åpenbart og selvfølgelig når det gjelder
4299 standarder. Det var interessant, da det fikk meg til å tenke litt
4300 nøyere på hvilke mekanismer som ligger til grunn for at noe oppfattes
4301 som en standard. Det hele startet med arbeid rundt integrering av NSS
4302 LDAP mot Active Directory, og problemer som oppstår pga. at Active
4303 Directory ikke følger LDAP-spesifikasjonen som dokumentert i RFCer fra
4304 IETF (konkret, AD returnerer kun et subset av attributter hvis det er
4305 mer enn
1500 atributter av en gitt type i et LDAP-objekt, og en må be
4306 om resten i bolker av
1500). Jeg hevdet måten dette ble gjort på brøt
4307 med LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og henviste til hvor i LDAP-spesifikasjonen
4308 fra IETF det sto at oppførselen til AD ikke fulgte
4309 LDAP-spesifikasjonen. AD-spesialisten overrasket meg da ved å
4310 fortelle at IETF var ikke de som definerte LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og at
4311 Active Directory ikke brøt den virkelige LDAP-spesifikasjonen som han
4312 mente lå til grunn. Jeg ble spesielt overrasket over denne
4313 tilnærmingen til problemstillingen, da til og med Microsoft så vidt
4314 jeg kan se anerkjenner IETF som organisasjonen som definerer
4315 LDAP-spesifikasjonen. Jeg fikk aldri spurt hvem han mente sto bak den
4316 egentlige LDAP-spesifikasjonen, da det var irrelevant for problemet vi
4317 måtte løse (få Linux og AD til å fungere sammen). Dette møtet
4318 fortalte meg uansett at det ikke er gitt at alle aktører er enige om
4319 hva en standard er, og hva som er kilden til en gitt standard. Det er
4320 vanskelig å enes om felles standarder før en først enes om hvem som
4321 bestemmer hva en gitt standard innebærer.
</p
>
4323 <p
>Hva er så en standard? I sin abstrakte form er det noe å samles
4324 om. På engelsk er en av betydningene fane brukt i krig, du vet, den
4325 type fane en samlet seg rundt på kamplassen i riddertiden. En
4326 standard definerer altså et felleskap, noen som har noe felles. Det
4327 er naturligvis mange måter å utgjøre et felleskap på. En kan
4328 f.eks. enes om å gjøre alt slik som Ole gjør det, og dermed si at Oles
4329 oppførsel er standard. Hver gang Ole endrer oppførsel endrer også
4330 standarden seg uten noe mer organisering og prosedyre. En variant av
4331 dette er å gjøre slik som Ole har gjort det i stedet for slik Ole til
4332 enhver til gjør noe. Dette er ofte litt enklere å forholde seg til,
4333 da en slipper å sjekke med Ole hver gang for å vite hvordan ting skal
4334 gjøres nå, men hvis det Ole gjorde noe dumt den gang en bestemte seg
4335 for å følge Ole, så er det vanskeligere å få endret oppførsel for å
4336 unngå dette dumme.
</p
>
4338 <p
>En kan også ta det et skritt videre, og istedet for å basere seg på
4339 enkeltpersoners oppførsel sette seg ned og bli enige om hvordan en
4340 skal gjøre ting, dvs. lage et felleskap basert på konsensus. Dette
4341 tar naturligvis litt mer tid (en må diskutere ting i forkant før en
4342 kan sette igang), men det kan bidra til at den oppførselen en
4343 planlegger å benytte seg av er mer gjennomtenkt. Det ender også
4344 typisk opp med en beskrivelse av ønsket oppførsel som flere kan forstå
4345 - da flere har vært involvert i å utarbeide beskrivelsen.
</p
>
4347 <p
>Dette er dessverre ikke alt som trengs for å forstå hva en åpen
4348 standard er for noe. Der alle kan se på hvordan folk oppfører seg, og
4349 dermed har valget om de vil oppføre seg likt eller ikke, så er det
4350 endel juridiske faktorer som gjør det hele mer komplisert -
4351 opphavsretten og patentlovgivningen for å være helt konkret. For å gi
4352 et eksempel. Hvis noen blir enige om å alltid plystre en bestemt
4353 melodi når de møtes, for å identifisere hverandre, så kan
4354 opphavsretten brukes til å styre hvem som får lov til å gjøre dette.
4355 De har standardisert hvordan de kjenner igjen alle som følger denne
4356 standarden, men ikke alle har nødvendigvis lov til å følge den.
4357 Musikk er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, og fremføring av musikk i
4358 offentligheten er opphavsmannens enerett (dvs. et monopol). Det vil i
4359 sin ytterste konsekvens si at alle som skal plystre en
4360 opphavsrettsbeskyttet melodi i det offentlige rom må ha godkjenning
4361 fra opphavsmannen. Har en ikke dette, så bryter en loven og kan
4362 straffes. Det er dermed mulig for opphavsmannen å kontrollere hvem
4363 som får lov til å benytte seg av denne standarden. En annen variant
4364 er hvis en standard er dokumentert, så er dokumentet som definerer
4365 standarden (spesifikasjonen) beskyttet av opphavsretten, og det er
4366 dermed mulig for rettighetsinnehaver å begrense tilgang til
4367 spesifikasjonen, og slik styre hvem som kan ta i bruk standarden på
4368 den måten.
</p
>
4370 <p
>Der opphavsretten innvilger et monopol på kunstneriske uttrykk med
4371 verkshøyde, innvilger patentlovgivningen monopol på ideer. Hvis en
4372 slik patentert idé (fortrinnsvis uttrykt i en teknisk innretning, men
4373 det er kompliserende faktorer som gjør at det ikke er et krav) trengs
4374 for å ta i bruk en standard, så vil den som innehar patent kunne styre
4375 hvem som får ta i bruk standarden. Det er dermed ikke gitt at alle
4376 kan delta i et standard-felleskap, og hvis de kan delta, så er det
4377 ikke sikkert at det er på like vilkår. F.eks. kan rettighetsinnehaver
4378 sette vilkår som gjør at noen faller utenfor, det være seg av
4379 finansielle, avtalemessige eller prinsipielle årsaker. Vanlige slike
4380 vilkår er
"må betale litt for hver kunde/bruker
" som utelukker de som
4381 gir bort en løsning gratis og
"må gi fra seg retten til å håndheve
4382 sine egne patentrettigheter ovenfor rettighetshaver
" som utelukker
4383 alle som ønsker å beholde den muligheten.
</p
>
4385 <p
>En åpen standard innebærer for meg at alle kan få innsikt i en
4386 komplett beskrivelse av oppførsel som standarden skal dekke, og at
4387 ingen kan nektes å benytte seg av standarden. Noen mener at det
4388 holder at alle med tilstrekkelig finansiering kan få tilgang til
4389 spesifikasjonen og at en kun har finansielle krav til bruk.
4390 Pga. denne konflikten har et nytt begrep spredt seg de siste årene,
4391 nemlig fri og åpen standard, der en har gjort det klart at alle må ha
4392 komplett og lik tilgang til spesifikasjoner og retten til å gjøre bruk
4393 av en standard for at en standard skal kunne kalles fri og åpen.
</p
>
4398 <title>Fri og åpen standard, slik Digistan ser det
</title>
4399 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html
</link>
4400 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html
</guid>
4401 <pubDate>Sat,
31 Jan
2009 23:
10:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
4402 <description><p
>Det er mange ulike definisjoner om hva en åpen standard er for noe,
4403 og NUUG hadde
<a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-
200506.txt
">en
4404 pressemelding om dette sommeren
2005</a
>. Der ble definisjonen til
4405 <a href=
"http://www.aaben-standard.dk/
">DKUUG
</a
>,
4406 <a href=
"http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=
19529">EU-kommissionens
4407 European Interoperability Framework ( side
9)
</a
> og
4408 <a href=
"http://www.teknologiradet.no/files/
7polert_copy.htm
">teknologirådet
</a
> omtalt.
</p
>
4410 <p
>Siden den gang har regjeringens standardiseringsråd dukket opp, og de
4411 ser ut til å har tatt utgangspunkt i EU-kommisjonens definisjon i
4412 <a href=
"http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/kampanjer/standardiseringsradet/arbeidsmetodikk.html?id=
476407">sin
4413 arbeidsmetodikk
</a
>. Personlig synes jeg det er en god ide, da
4414 kravene som stilles der gjør at alle markedsaktører får like vilkår,
4415 noe som kommer kundene til gode ved hjelp av økt konkurranse.
</p
>
4417 <p
>I sommer kom det en ny definisjon på banen.
4418 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/
">Digistan
</a
> lanserte
4419 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">en
4420 definisjon på en fri og åpen standard
</a
>. Jeg liker måten de bryter
4421 ut av diskusjonen om hva som kreves for å kalle noe en åpen standard
4422 ved å legge på et ord og poengtere at en standard som er både åpen og
4423 fri har noen spesielle krav. Her er den definisjonen etter rask
4424 oversettelse fra engelsk til norsk av meg:
</p
>
4427 <p
><strong
>Definisjonen av en fri og åpen standard
</strong
></p
>
4429 <p
>Den digitale standardorganisasjonen definierer fri og åpen standard
4430 som følger:
</p
>
4432 <li
>En fri og åpen standard er immun for leverandørinnlåsing i alle
4433 stadier av dens livssyklus. Immuniteten fra leverandørinnlåsing gjør
4434 det mulig å fritt bruke, forbedre, stole på og utvide en standard over
4436 <li
>Standarden er adoptert og vil bli vedlikeholdt av en ikke-kommersiell
4437 organisasjon, og dens pågående utvikling gjøres med en åpen
4438 beslutningsprosedyre som er tilgjengelig for alle som er interessert i
4440 <li
>Standarden er publisert og spesifikasjonsdokumentet er fritt
4441 tilgjengelig. Det må være tillatt for alle å kopiere, distribuere og
4442 bruke den uten begresninger.
</li
>
4443 <li
>Patentene som muligens gjelder (deler av) standarden er gjort
4444 ugjenkallelig tilgjengelig uten krav om betaling.
</li
>
4445 <li
>Det er ingen begresninger i gjenbruk av standarden.
</li
>
4447 <p
>Det økonomiske resultatet av en fri og åpen standard, som kan
4448 måles, er at det muliggjør perfekt konkurranse mellom leverandører av
4449 produkter basert på standarden.
</p
>
4452 <p
>(Tar gjerne imot forbedringer av oversettelsen.)
</p
>
4457 <title>ODF-bruk i staten, ikke helt på plass
</title>
4458 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p__plass.html
</link>
4459 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p__plass.html
</guid>
4460 <pubDate>Thu,
22 Jan
2009 23:
00:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
4461 <description><p
>I går publiserte
4462 <a href=
"http://universitas.no/nyhet/
52776/
">Universitas
</a
>,
4463 <a href=
"http://www.dagensit.no/trender/article1588462.ece
">Dagens-IT
</a
>
4464 og
<a href=
"http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article118622.ece
">Computerworld
4465 Norge
</a
> en sak om at de ansatte ved Universitetet i Oslo ikke følger
4466 regjeringens pålegg om å publisere i HTML, PDF eller ODF. Det er bra
4467 at det kommer litt fokus på dette, og jeg håper noen journalister tar
4468 en titt på de andre statlige instansene også.
</p
>
4470 <p
>Skulle ønske det var en enkel måte å sjekke om ODF-dokumenter er i
4471 henholdt til ODF-spesifikasjonen, og en måte å teste om programmer som
4472 hevder å støtte ODF forstår alle delene av ODF-spesifikasjonen.
4473 Kjenner kun til ufullstendige løsninger for slikt.
</p
>
projects / homepage.git / blob