-<p><a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">The
-Digistan definition</a> of a free and open standard reads like this:</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-
-<p>The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
-as follows:</p>
-
-<ol>
-
-<li>A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
-in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
-freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.</li>
-
-<li>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
-organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
-open decision-making procedure available to all interested
-parties.</li>
-
-<li>The standard has been published and the standard specification
-document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
-distribute, and use it freely.</li>
-
-<li>The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
-irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.</li>
-
-<li>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.</li>
-
-</ol>
-
-<p>The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
-measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
-products based on the standard.</p>
-</blockquote>
-
-<p>For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
-and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short
-writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the
-topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
-<a href="http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html">in
-July 2009</a>, for those that want to see some background information.
-According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
-the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Free from vendor capture?</strong></p>
-
-<p>As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
-Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the
-<a href="http://www.xiph.org/">Xiph foundation</A> is such vendor, but
-given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
-making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
-obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph
-foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
-control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I've
-been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
-seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
-where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an
-external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
-it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
-specification. But it seem unlikely.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?</strong></p>
-
-<p>Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
-claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is
-controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any
-documentation indicating this.</p>
-
-<p>According to
-<a href="http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf">a report</a>
-prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
-government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
-the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
-Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
-report is correct.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Specification freely available?</strong></p>
-
-<p>The specification for the <a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/">Ogg
-container format</a> and both the
-<a href="http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/">Vorbis</a> and
-<a href="http://theora.org/doc/">Theora</a> codeces are available on
-the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
-
-<blockquote>
-
-Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
-specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
-capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
-the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
-specification compliance.
-
-</blockquote>
-
-<p>The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
-<a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt">RFC 3533</a>, and
-this is the term:<p>
-
-<blockquote>
-
-<p>This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
-others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
-or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
-distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
-provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
-included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
-document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
-the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
-Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
-Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
-in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
-translate it into languages other than English.</p>
-
-<p>The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
-revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.</p>
-</blockquote>
-
-<p>All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
-this term seem to be fulfilled. There might be a problem with the
-missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
-thus reuse it in other specifications. Not quite sure if that is a
-requirement for the Digistan definition.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Royalty-free?</strong></p>
-
-<p>There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
-Theora format.
-<a href="http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782">MPEG-LA</a>
-and
-<a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit">Steve
-Jobs</a> in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
-patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
-them. Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
-this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
-without paying any royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
-Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
-than any real problem with Ogg Theora.</p>
-
-<p><strong>No constraints on re-use?</strong></p>
-
-<p>I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.</p>
-
-<p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
-
-<p>3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
-depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the
-background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
-safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
-would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
-this.</p>
-
-<p>It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
-see if they are free and open standards.</p>
-</div>
- <div class="tags">
-
-
-
- Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
-
- </div>
- </div>
- <div class="padding"></div>
-
- <div class="entry">
- <div class="title"><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html">The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru</a></div>
- <div class="date">2010-12-25 10:50</div>
- <div class="body">
-<p>A few days ago
-<a href="http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece">an
-article</a> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
-2.0 of
-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework">European
-Interoperability Framework</a> has been successfully lobbied by the
-proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
-Nothing very surprising there, given
-<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe">earlier
-reports</a> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
-this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of
-<a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">an
-open standard from version 1</a> was very good, and something I
-believe should be used also in the future, alongside
-<a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the
-definition from Digistan</A>. Version 2 have removed the open
-standard definition from its content.</p>
-
-<p>Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
-Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
-to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
-in the public sector in Peru. As the text was not available from a
-few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
-<a href="http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html">my
-source</a> to ensure it is available also in the future. Some
-background information about that story is available in
-<a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099">an article</a> from
-Linux Journal in 2002.</p>
-
-<blockquote>
-<p>Lima, 8th of April, 2002<br>
-To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ<br>
-General Manager of Microsoft Perú</p>
-
-<p>Dear Sir:</p>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<p>
-<ul>
-<li>Free access to public information by the citizen. </li>
-<li>Permanence of public data. </li>
-<li>Security of the State and citizens.</li>
-</ul>
-</p>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-
-<p>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:<br>
-<li>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software</li>
-<li>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software</li>
-<li>the law does not specify which concrete software to use</li>
-<li>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought</li>
-<li>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.</li>
-
-</p>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<p>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:</p>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
-
-<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>
projects / homepage.git / blobdiff