1 <?xml version=
"1.0" encoding=
"utf-8"?>
2 <rss version='
2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/
1.0/' xmlns:
atom=
"http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
4 <title>Petter Reinholdtsen
</title>
5 <description></description>
6 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/
</link>
7 <atom:link href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/index.rss" rel=
"self" type=
"application/rss+xml" />
10 <title>Inspirerende fra en ukjent Skolelinux-skole
</title>
11 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Inspirerende_fra_en_ukjent_Skolelinux_skole.html
</link>
12 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Inspirerende_fra_en_ukjent_Skolelinux_skole.html
</guid>
13 <pubDate>Tue,
4 Jan
2011 07:
50:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
15 <p
>Følgende inspirerende historie fant jeg i
16 <a href=
"http://www.digi.no/php/ny_debatt.php?id=
858869#innlegg_770926
">kommentarfeltet
17 hos digi.no
</a
> i forbindelse med en trist sak om hvordan
18 <a href=
"http://www.digi.no/
858869/datakaos-etter-linux-satsing
">skolen
19 i Hemsedal har fått ødelagt
</a
> sin Skolelinux-installasjon. Jeg har
20 fikset endel åpenbare skrivefeil for lesbarhetens skyld.
</p
>
23 <p
><strong
>Lignende situasjon i annen kommune, se bare her:
</strong
>
24 <br
>av Inspektør Siri (gjest)
26 <p
>Kommunen min har to omtrent jevnstore tettsteder, og en
27 ungdomsskole i hvert av tettstedene. Den minste av disse har ca
300
28 elever og til denne sogner det
3 barneskoler. Den største har ca
350
29 elever og til denne sogner det
4 barneskoler.
</p
>
33 <li
>Kommunen har i veldig lang tid forsømt IKT i skolen, og det har
34 bare blitt gitt smuler i ny og ne. Det er kun den største av
35 ungdomsskolene som har hatt en skikkelig datapark, og dette takket
36 være en naturfaglærer som ble lei av å vente på kommunen. Det gjorde
37 at vi bestemte oss for å ta ting i egne hender, og da vha
38 skolelinux. En testinstallasjon med
10 gamle PCer ble gjort, og vi så
39 raskt at dette var veldig lovende. Neste etappe var å gi alle lærere
40 egen PC på arbeidsplassene sine (
2004), og så sette opp
16 PCer på to
41 datarom. Vi har kun basert oss på å kjøpe inn brukte maskiner, og
42 aldri dyrere enn
1000 kr pr klient. For to år siden så hadde vi
43 klienter i alle klasserom, og totalt hadde vi da rundt
250 stk. Rundt
44 40 klienter brukes av lærerne og kjører på en egen server. Elvene har
45 resten, og kjører også en egen server. Servere har vi også kjøpt
46 brukt,
2 år gamle servere koster
6-
7000 kroner.
</li
>
48 <li
>Skolen vår er et relativt gammelt bygg, men en meget dyktig
49 vaktmester har sammen med IKT-ansvarlig/Naturfaglærer lagt kabler til alle
50 rom. Gradvis har vi byttet ut billige svitsjer med mer solide saker
51 som er mulig å fjernstyre.
</li
>
53 <li
>Vi har i all hovedsak greid å få dette til over eget budsjett, men
54 vi har også passet på å få penger når de andre skolene har fått
55 bærbare PCer til lærere osv.
</li
>
57 <li
>Vår IKT-ansvarlig har gjort (og gjør) en fenomenal jobb, og vi har
58 en maskinpark som de andre av kommunens skoler bare kan drømme
63 <p
>Så skjer det som ofte skjer. Det kommer en eller annen
64 selger/blåruss og skal fikse ALT. I vårt tilfelle betyr dette også
65 sentralisering av drift. Den ny-ansatte på kommunens IT-avdelingen
66 skal også ha jobb, og ser for seg å ta over skoledriften. Kommunen
67 kjøper inn eksterne driftstjenester, og nekter i samme slengen å ta
68 hensyn til skolen vår. Dette til tross for at vi alene har like mange
69 datamaskiner som de andre til sammen.
</p
>
73 <li
>Det blir krevd at vi skal innlemmes i de kommunale systemet, og
74 det er VI som får ansvar for at dette kommer på plass. Og det er her
75 de horrible tingene begynner å skje.
</li
>
77 <li
>Det settes opp en lukket Exchange server som gjør av vi ikke kan
78 hente epost for våre ansatte. Og det kreves at vi finner løsning på
81 <li
>Det velges sak arkivsystem som vi pålegges å bruke, noe som gjør
82 at vi må bruke en terminalløsning mot kommunal server. Ikke i seg selv
83 et problem i følge IKT-ansvarlig hos oss. Men kommunens IT-avd nektet
84 faktisk å åpne de porter OSV som vi måtte bruke.
</li
>
86 <li
>Vi blir pålagt å flytte på innsiden av det kommunale
87 nettverket. Dette gjorde at vi mistet hjemmekontor for lærere og
88 elever. Å få åpnet porter i kommunal brannmur var ikke
89 aktuelt. Mulighet for fjerndrift ble også vekk i samme slengen.
</li
>
91 <li
>Vår LMS Moodle er ikke mulig å nå for elevene og lærerne.
95 <p
>Den andre ungdomsskolen i kommunen begynner så å kreve at de skal
96 få bedre datatetthet, og komme opp på et nivå som ligner det vi
97 har. De ser at vi kan avholde eksamen hvor alle
10. klassingene får
98 sitte ved hver sin PC. Og de har fått tilbakemelding (klager) fra VGS
99 om manglende datakompetanse på elevene som kommer fra dem. Dette fører
100 videre til at kommunen endelig innser at de må ta grep.
</p
>
102 <p
>Grepet betyr sentralisering, og farvel til vår plattform får vi
103 høre. Det blir gjort en rekke bestemmelser og vedtak som vi ikke får
104 være en del av. Det blir helt klart at vi må redusere antall maskiner,
105 og det skal satses på bærbare maskiner. Siden vi ikke har fått tatt
106 del i prosessene som angår oss, så bruker vi fagforening. Vi har ikke
107 blitt hørt i forbindelse med endringer som er betydelig for vår
108 hverdag, og greier å stoppe omlegging. I tillegg så har vi et politisk
109 vedtak i kommunen på at vi skal kjøre Linux på elevnett, og dette
110 vedtaket kan ikke administrasjonen i kommunene helt uten videre
111 tilsidesette.
</p
>
113 <p
>I sum har dette gjort at vi har fått jobbe videre i fred. Og en del
114 runder i kommunens kontrollutvalg har gjort det tydelig at vi har blitt
115 systematisk motarbeidet.
</p
>
117 <p
>I dag har de andre skolene fått sine bærbare maskiner til elever og
118 lærere, men etter
2 år med innkjøring er det fremdeles problemer
123 <li
>Ungdomsskolen med windows kan ikke kjøre eksamen med sine bærbare,
124 det er for mye arbeid å renske disse for innhold slik at juks ikke er
127 <li
>Utskrift er et mareritt, etter sigende pga at utskrift først
128 sendes til sentral server, og så sendes ut til rett skriver. I snitt
129 så tar det
7-
8 minutter før utskrift starter på enkelte av
132 <li
>Trådløst skaper store problemer, og det er i perioder helt umulig
133 å komme seg på nett. Og lagring på felles server er bare å glemme i
138 <p
>Vi har slitt mye, kranglet og sloss. Ikke med tekniske problemer,
139 men med omgivelsene rundt som vil oss til livs. Men det har vært verdt
140 hver dråpe med svette, og timer med irritasjon. Men vi har begynt å få
141 rutine her nå.
</p
>
145 <li
>Vi har fremdeles et system som vi styrer helt selv.
</li
>
146 <li
>Vi har vist at argumentet med at vår IKT-ansvarlig kan finne seg annen jobb ikke holder mål. Vi har kjøpt driftskonto hos et firma i tilfelle krise, og vi har kjørt opplæring på flere av de yngre lærerne.
</li
>
147 <li
>Vi har til enhver tid en lærling IKT driftsfag, og velger selvsagt ut dem som satser på Linux. Vi har nå begynt å få tilbake av våre tidligere elever som vil til oss nettopp fordi vi har Linux.
</li
>
148 <li
>Vi har vist at vi greier å opprettholde en dobbelt så stor datapark som naboskolen, og det til en billigere penge.
</li
>
149 <li
>Vi har datastøtte og support på huset, ALLTID tilgjengelig. De andre skolene må vente flere dager hvis det ikke er noe kritisk.
</li
>
150 <li
>Vår IKT-ansvarlig har
50% stilling som lærer og
50% som IKT-ansvarlig.
</li
>
151 <li
>Vi har en lærer på hvert trinn som har
3 timer i uka til å drive support/støtte til de andre lærerne.
</li
>
152 <li
>Vi opplever at de yngste lærerne ved den andre ungdomsskolen ønsker seg over til oss.
</li
>
156 <p
>Vi skal i løpet av året starte prosess med å planlegge ny skole, og vi har fått gjennomslag for at jeg (inspektør) og IKT-ansvarlig skal ha det fulle og hele ansvar for IKT/Infrastruktur. Begrunnelsen vår som ble avgjørende her, var at IT-avd i kommunen ikke kan noe om data i skolen.
</p
>
158 <p
>Beklager hvis dette ble litt usammenhengende, men det ble tastet i
159 fei, og jeg har ikke lest gjennom
</p
>
162 <p
>Det kom raskt et lite svar:
</p
>
165 <p
><strong
>SV: Lignende situasjon i annen kommune, se bare her:
</strong
>
166 <br
>av captain_obvious
</p
>
168 <p
>Inspirerende å lese. Har dere gjort noe for å fortelle denne
169 historien videre?
</p
>
171 <p
>Hadde vært svært interessant om dere tok kontakt med dokument
2 eller
172 lignende for å fortelle hvordan det egentlig står til med
173 IT-satsningen i kommune-Norge. Om ikke annet kan du begynner med å
174 raffinere innlegget ditt og få en gjesteartikkel på digi.no
</p
>
177 <p
>Og deretter en lengre oppfølging.
</p
>
180 <p
><strong
>SV: Lignende situasjon i annen kommune, se bare her:
</strong
>
181 <br
>av Inspektør Siri (gjest)
183 <p
>Joda, vi har lekt med tanken, og vi har t.o.m skrevet flere lengre
184 leserinnlegg myntet på aviser. Disse er ikke sendt til aviser, men
185 brukt internt i forbindelse med møter med kommune. Vår IKT-ansvarlig
186 har også truet med å si opp jobben sin hvis det ikke ble tatt hensyn i
187 større grad enn hva som har vært tilfelle. VI kan også dokumentere
188 flere brudd på anbudsregler, og vi kjenner til at relativt store
189 IT-leverandører som ikke har fått tatt del i disse anbudene, rett og
190 slett ikke tør melde fra av redsel for å få et dårlig rykte.
</p
>
192 <p
>Alt ser ut til å roe seg ned, og vi har fått opp øynene på
193 politikerne. I sum gjør dette at vi ikke ønsker for mye publisitet nå,
194 det vil bare rote til igjen.
</p
>
196 <p
>Jeg glemte å nevne at vi nå nesten ikke bruker tid på å drifte
197 systemet vårt, noe som gjør at det aller meste av tid blir brukt til å
198 støtte lærerne og elevene. F.eks så bruker vår IKT-ansvarlig den
199 første timen på jobb,
0730-
0830 kun til å gå ute på arbeidsplassene
200 til læreren. Dette for å kunne svare på små og store problem, gi tips
201 og råd, eller bare for å plukke opp hva som er behovet ute i
202 undervisningsarealene. Det er dessverre ikke slik at alle lærerne har
203 nok digital kompetanse til å kunne formulere alle spørsmålene de har,
204 men ved å kunne få vise eller lufte tanker med IKT-ansvarlig så er det
205 utrolig hva som kommer fram.
</p
>
209 <li
>Jeg ser at mange bruker økonomi som argument i forhold til å bruke
210 SkoleLinux, og jeg skal ikke legge skjul på at det var dette som i
211 utgangspunktet var årsaken til vårt valg. Men diskusjonene og kampen
212 med kommunens IT-avdeling har gjort at vi har fått et noe annet
213 fokus. Fordelene med drift og stabilitet, gjør at vi ville ha valgt
214 samme løsning selv om den var dyrere. At vi slipper langt billigere
215 unna, som følge av
0,- lisenskostnader og lave maskinvarekostnader, er
216 bare en bonus.
</li
>
218 <li
>Etter å ha kranglet oss til å få skikkelig oversikt over hva de
219 andre skolene i kommunen bruker på IT, så har vi fått gehør for å få
220 samme midler til innkjøp. Dette har gjort at vi nå kan kjøpe inn
221 utstyr som de andre skolene bare kan se langt etter. Vi har nettopp
222 kjøpt inn
3 videokamera i semiproff-klassen for å kunne lage film,
223 samt sende live fra skoleteater/konserter. Vi har kjøpt inn digitale
224 kompaktkamera til alle klassene. Vi har et team av lærere som skal i
225 gang med å teste ut tablets på svake elever. Håpet et at teknologien
226 kan være med på å gi noen av elevene litt mer motivasjon. Vi har kjøpt
227 inn et halvt klassesett med pulsklokker, noe som har vist seg å være
228 overraskende inspirerende for en del av elevene. Vi har også oss på
229 fag på en høyskole litt lengre sør for oss, slik at
3 av oss nå skal
230 ta faget
"Linux tjenestedrift
". Som inspektør og en del av skolens
231 administrasjon er det veldig praktisk å kunne trå til hvis det
232 kniper. Men IKT-ansvarlig har vært UTROLIG flink til å lage rene
233 smørbrødlister for hvordan de mest vanlige driftsproblem løses, så det
234 er lett for flere av oss å ta del i den daglige driften. Vi har svært
235 stor nytte av lærling (som også hjelper to av naboskolene), men det er
236 nesten blitt slik at det er om å gjøre å komme til først for å få løse
237 problem. Det å få fingrene på problem og utfordringer er den aller
238 beste læremester.
</li
>
242 <p
>Når vi nå tar til med planlegging av ny skole, så vil det være med
243 tanke på at det skal være mulig med datautstyr på alle plasser. Vi
244 kommer i all hovedsak til å legge kabel til alle tenkelige og
245 utenkelige plasser. WiFi koster tilnærmet NULL å sette opp i
248 <p
>Vi har ikke vært noe flink til å bidra til SkoleLinux-prosjektet,
249 vi har rett og slett vært for opptatt med vår egen kamp. Vi har hentet
250 mye inspirasjon fra diskusjoner som har gått i det miljøet, og vi
251 håper at vi nå framover kan få tid til å bidra. Vi er i ferd med å
252 bytte ut en av serverne våre, og da vil denne trolig bli satt opp som
253 testserver for neste versjon av Skolelinux. På den måten vil vi i alle
254 fall kunne gi tilbakemeldinger og rapportere feil. I tillegg så vil
255 det kanskje gi oss noen nye utfordringer, for som lærlingen vår sier:
256 "Skolelinux er noe herk, det skjer jo ikke noe galt og hvordan skal
257 jeg da lære?
"</p
>
261 <p
>Det er veldig hyggelig å høre at
262 <a href=
"http://www.skolelinux.org/
">Skolelinux
</a
> fungerer så bra i
263 skoleverdagen etter å ha jobbet med det i
10 år.
</p
>
268 <title>Støtte for forskjellige kamera-ikoner på overvåkningskamerakartet
</title>
269 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/St__tte_for_forskjellige_kamera_ikoner_p___overv__kningskamerakartet.html
</link>
270 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/St__tte_for_forskjellige_kamera_ikoner_p___overv__kningskamerakartet.html
</guid>
271 <pubDate>Sun,
2 Jan
2011 11:
05:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
273 <p
>I dag har jeg justert litt på kartet over overvåkningskamera, og
274 laget støtte for å gi fotobokser (automatisk trafikk-kontroll) og
275 andre overvåkningskamera forskjellige symboler på kartet, slik at det
276 er enklere å se forskjell på kamera som vegvesenet kontrollerer og
277 andre kamera. Resultatet er lagt ut på
278 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/surveillance-norway/
">kartet
279 over overvåkningskamera i Norge
</a
>. Det er nå
93 fotobokser av
380
281 <a href=
"http://www.vegvesen.no/Fag/Fokusomrader/Trafikksikkerhet/Automatisk+trafikkontroll+ATK
">i
282 følge vegvesenet
</a
> og
80 andre kamera på kartet, totalt
173 kamera.
283 Takk til de
26 stykkene som har bidratt til kamerainformasjonen så
289 <title>What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?
</title>
290 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html
</link>
291 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html
</guid>
292 <pubDate>Thu,
30 Dec
2010 23:
15:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
294 <p
>After trying to
295 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
">compare
296 Ogg Theora
</a
> to
297 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">the Digistan
298 definition
</a
> of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
299 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
300 this. As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
301 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-
8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
302 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others. But to be able to complete this in a
303 reasonable time frame, I will need help.
</p
>
305 <p
>If you want to help out with this work, please visit
306 <a href=
"http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse
">the
307 wiki pages I have set up for this
</a
>, and let me know that you want
308 to help out. The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
309 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
310 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
311 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).
</p
>
313 <p
>The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do. Do not be
314 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)
</p
>
319 <title>The many definitions of a open standard
</title>
320 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html
</link>
321 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html
</guid>
322 <pubDate>Mon,
27 Dec
2010 14:
45:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
324 <p
>One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
325 "<a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">Free and
326 Open Standard
</a
>" is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
327 the term has been decided by Digistan. The term
"Open Standard
" has
328 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
329 about standards. One end up discussing which definition is the best
330 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
331 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.
</p
>
333 <p
>But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
334 standards, here are a few that I know about. This list is not
335 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
336 complete survey. More definitions are available on the
337 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard
">wikipedia
338 page
</a
>.
</p
>
340 <p
>First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
341 Interoperability Framework version
1.0. Really sad to notice that BSA
342 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version
2.0 of the
343 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
344 their own people. Anyway, the definition is still available and it
345 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
346 specification on equal terms.
</p
>
350 <p
>The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
351 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
352 open standard:
</p
>
356 <li
>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
357 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
358 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
359 (consensus or majority decision etc.).
</li
>
361 <li
>The standard has been published and the standard specification
362 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
363 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
364 nominal fee.
</li
>
366 <li
>The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
367 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
368 free basis.
</li
>
370 <li
>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
</li
>
375 <p
>Another one originates from my friends over at
376 <a href=
"http://www.dkuug.dk/
">DKUUG
</a
>, who coined and gathered
377 support for
<a href=
"http://www.aaben-standard.dk/
">this
378 definition
</a
> in
2004. It even made it into the Danish parlament as
379 <a href=
"http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/
20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm
">their
380 definition of a open standard
</a
>. Another from a different part of
381 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.
</p
>
385 <p
>En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:
</p
>
389 <li
>Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
390 tilgængelig.
</li
>
392 <li
>Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
393 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.
</li
>
395 <li
>Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
396 "standardiseringsorganisation
") via en åben proces.
</li
>
402 <p
>Then there is
<a href=
"http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html
">the
403 definition
</a
> from Free Software Foundation Europe.
</p
>
407 <p
>An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is
</p
>
411 <li
>subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
412 manner equally available to all parties;
</li
>
414 <li
>without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
415 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
416 Standard themselves;
</li
>
418 <li
>free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
419 any party or in any business model;
</li
>
421 <li
>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
422 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
425 <li
>available in multiple complete implementations by competing
426 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
433 <p
>A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
435 <a href=
"http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%
20Standard%
20Definition.pdf
">Open
436 Standards Checklist
</a
> with a fairly detailed description.
</p
>
439 <p
>Creation and Management of an Open Standard
443 <li
>Its development and management process must be collaborative and
448 <li
>Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
449 participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
450 imposed by the organization under which it is developed
451 and managed.
</li
>
453 <li
>The processes must be documented and, through a known
454 method, can be changed through input from all
455 participants.
</li
>
457 <li
>The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
458 the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.
</li
>
460 <li
>Development and management should strive for consensus,
461 and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.
</li
>
463 <li
>The standard specification must be open to extensive
464 public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
465 comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.
</li
>
473 <p
>Use and Licensing of an Open Standard
</p
>
476 <li
>The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
477 and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
478 implementations to the interface described in the standard without
479 undue or restrictive constraints. Interfaces include APIs,
480 protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.
</li
>
482 <li
> The standard must not contain any proprietary
"hooks
" that create
483 a technical or economic barriers
</li
>
485 <li
>Faithful implementations of the standard must
486 interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
487 program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
488 programs and mutually to use the information which has been
489 exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
490 file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
491 conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
492 computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
493 intended to function.
</li
>
495 <li
>It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
496 standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
497 must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.
</li
>
499 <li
>It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
500 fees; also known as
"royalty free
"), worldwide, non-exclusive and
501 perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
502 sell products based on the standard. The only exceptions are
503 terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
504 outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
505 patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
506 only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
510 <li
> May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
511 licensees
' patent claims essential to practice that standard
512 (also known as a reciprocity clause)
</li
>
514 <li
> May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
515 or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
516 essential to practice that standard (also known as a
517 "defensive suspension
" clause)
</li
>
519 <li
> The same licensing terms are available to every potential
525 <li
>The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
526 implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
527 or restricted licensing terms
</li
>
533 <p
>It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
534 there are so many of them. As you can see, the same holds true for
535 open standard definitions. Most of the definitions have a lot in
536 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
537 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
538 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
539 competition to downplay the significance of open standards. I hope we
540 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
546 <title>Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?
</title>
547 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
</link>
548 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html
</guid>
549 <pubDate>Sat,
25 Dec
2010 20:
25:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
551 <p
><a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">The
552 Digistan definition
</a
> of a free and open standard reads like this:
</p
>
556 <p
>The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
557 as follows:
</p
>
561 <li
>A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
562 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
563 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.
</li
>
565 <li
>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
566 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
567 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
570 <li
>The standard has been published and the standard specification
571 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
572 distribute, and use it freely.
</li
>
574 <li
>The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
575 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
</li
>
577 <li
>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
</li
>
581 <p
>The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
582 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
583 products based on the standard.
</p
>
586 <p
>For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
587 and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short
588 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the
589 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
590 <a href=
"http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/
2009-July/
001632.html
">in
591 July
2009</a
>, for those that want to see some background information.
592 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
593 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.
</p
>
595 <p
><strong
>Free from vendor capture?
</strong
></p
>
597 <p
>As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
598 Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the
599 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/
">Xiph foundation
</A
> is such vendor, but
600 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
601 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
602 obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph
603 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
604 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I
've
605 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
606 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
607 where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an
608 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
609 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
610 specification. But it seem unlikely.
</p
>
612 <p
><strong
>Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?
</strong
></p
>
614 <p
>Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
615 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is
616 controlled by a single vendor, it isn
't, but I have not found any
617 documentation indicating this.
</p
>
619 <p
>According to
620 <a href=
"http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf
">a report
</a
>
621 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
622 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
623 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
624 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
625 report is correct.
</p
>
627 <p
><strong
>Specification freely available?
</strong
></p
>
629 <p
>The specification for the
<a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/
">Ogg
630 container format
</a
> and both the
631 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/
">Vorbis
</a
> and
632 <a href=
"http://theora.org/doc/
">Theora
</a
> codeces are available on
633 the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
637 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
638 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
639 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
640 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
641 specification compliance.
645 <p
>The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
646 <a href=
"http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt
">RFC
3533</a
>, and
647 this is the term:
<p
>
651 <p
>This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
652 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
653 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
654 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
655 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
656 included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this
657 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
658 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
659 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
660 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
661 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
662 translate it into languages other than English.
</p
>
664 <p
>The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
665 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.
</p
>
668 <p
>All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
669 this term seem to be fulfilled. There might be a problem with the
670 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
671 thus reuse it in other specifications. Not quite sure if that is a
672 requirement for the Digistan definition.
</p
>
674 <p
><strong
>Royalty-free?
</strong
></p
>
676 <p
>There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
678 <a href=
"http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=
65782">MPEG-LA
</a
>
680 <a href=
"http://yro.slashdot.org/story/
10/
04/
30/
237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit
">Steve
681 Jobs
</a
> in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
682 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
683 them. Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
684 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
685 without paying any royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
686 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H
.264 codec
687 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.
</p
>
689 <p
><strong
>No constraints on re-use?
</strong
></p
>
691 <p
>I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.
</p
>
693 <p
><strong
>Conclusion
</strong
></p
>
695 <p
>3 of
5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining
2
696 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the
697 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
698 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
699 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
702 <p
>It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
703 see if they are free and open standards.
</p
>
708 <title>The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru
</title>
709 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html
</link>
710 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html
</guid>
711 <pubDate>Sat,
25 Dec
2010 10:
50:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
713 <p
>A few days ago
714 <a href=
"http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece
">an
715 article
</a
> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
717 <a href=
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework
">European
718 Interoperability Framework
</a
> has been successfully lobbied by the
719 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
720 Nothing very surprising there, given
721 <a href=
"http://news.slashdot.org/story/
10/
03/
29/
2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe
">earlier
722 reports
</a
> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
723 this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of
724 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-
200506.txt
">an
725 open standard from version
1</a
> was very good, and something I
726 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
727 <a href=
"http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition
">the
728 definition from Digistan
</A
>. Version
2 have removed the open
729 standard definition from its content.
</p
>
731 <p
>Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
732 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
733 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
734 in the public sector in Peru. As the text was not available from a
735 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
736 <a href=
"http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html
">my
737 source
</a
> to ensure it is available also in the future. Some
738 background information about that story is available in
739 <a href=
"http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/
6099">an article
</a
> from
740 Linux Journal in
2002.
</p
>
743 <p
>Lima,
8th of April,
2002<br
>
744 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
<br
>
745 General Manager of Microsoft Perú
</p
>
747 <p
>Dear Sir:
</p
>
749 <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
>
751 <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
>
753 <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
>
755 <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
>
759 <li
>Free access to public information by the citizen.
</li
>
760 <li
>Permanence of public data.
</li
>
761 <li
>Security of the State and citizens.
</li
>
765 <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
>
767 <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
>
769 <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
>
771 <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
>
773 <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
>
776 <p
>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:
<br
>
777 <li
>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
</li
>
778 <li
>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
</li
>
779 <li
>the law does not specify which concrete software to use
</li
>
780 <li
>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
</li
>
781 <li
>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
</li
>
785 <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
>
787 <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
>
789 <p
>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:
</p
>
791 <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
>
793 <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
>
795 <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
>
797 <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
>
799 <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
>
801 <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
>
803 <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
>
805 <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
>
807 <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
>
809 <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
>
811 <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
>
813 <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
>
815 <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
>
817 <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
>
819 <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
>
821 <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
>
823 <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
>
825 <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
>
827 <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
>
829 <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
>
831 <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
>
833 <p
>On security:
</p
>
835 <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
>
837 <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
>
839 <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
>
841 <p
>In respect of the guarantee:
</p
>
843 A
<p
>s 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
>
845 <p
>On Intellectual Property:
</p
>
847 <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
>
849 <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
>
851 <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
>
853 <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
>
855 <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
>
857 <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
>
859 <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
>
861 <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
>
863 <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
>
865 <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
>
867 <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
>
869 <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
>
871 <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
>
873 <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
>
875 <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
>
877 <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
>
879 <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
>
881 <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
>
883 <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
>
885 <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
>
887 <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
>
889 <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
>
891 <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
>
893 <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
>
895 <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
>
897 <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
>
899 <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
>
901 <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
>
903 <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
>
905 <p
>Cordially,
<br
>
906 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
<br
>
907 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.
</p
>
913 <title>Officeshots still going strong
</title>
914 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html
</link>
915 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html
</guid>
916 <pubDate>Sat,
25 Dec
2010 09:
40:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
918 <p
>Half a year ago I
919 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html
">wrote
920 a bit
</a
> about
<a href=
"http://www.officeshots.org/
">OfficeShots
</a
>,
921 a web service to allow anyone to test how ODF documents are handled by
922 the different programs reading and writing the ODF format.
</p
>
924 <p
>I just had a look at the service, and it seem to be going strong.
925 Very interesting to see the results reported in the gallery, how
926 different Office implementations handle different ODF features. Sad
927 to see that KOffice was not doing it very well, and happy to see that
928 LibreOffice has been tested already (but sadly not listed as a option
929 for OfficeShots users yet). I am glad to see that the ODF community
930 got such a great test tool available.
</p
>
935 <title>165 norske overvåkningskamera registert så langt i OpenStreetmap.org
</title>
936 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/
165_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_s___langt_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html
</link>
937 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/
165_norske_overv__kningskamera_registert_s___langt_i_OpenStreetmap_org.html
</guid>
938 <pubDate>Fri,
24 Dec
2010 11:
20:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
940 <p
>Jeg flikket litt på OpenStreetmap.org i går, og oppdaget ved en
941 tilfeldighet at det er en rekke noder som representerer
942 overvåkningskamera som ikke blir med på kartet med overvåkningskamera
944 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Kart_over_overv__kningskamera_i_Norge.html
">jeg
945 laget
</a
> for snart to år siden. Fra før tok jeg med noder merket med
946 man_made=surveillance, mens det er en rekke noder som kun er merket
947 med highway=speed_camera. Endret på koden som henter ut kameralisten
948 fra OSM, og vips er antall kamera økt til
165.
</p
>
950 <a href=
"http://people.skolelinux.no/pere/surveillance-norway/
">Kartet
</a
>
951 er fortsatt ikke komplett, så hvis du ser noen kamera som mangler,
952 legg inn ved å følge instruksene fra
953 <a href=
"http://personvern.no/wiki/index.php/Kameraovervåkning
">prosjektsiden
</a
>.
954 Hvis du vet om noen flere måter å merke overvåkningskamera i OSM, ta
955 kontakt slik at jeg kan få med også disse.
</p
>
960 <title>How to test if a laptop is working with Linux
</title>
961 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/How_to_test_if_a_laptop_is_working_with_Linux.html
</link>
962 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/How_to_test_if_a_laptop_is_working_with_Linux.html
</guid>
963 <pubDate>Wed,
22 Dec
2010 14:
55:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
965 <p
>The last few days I have spent at work here at the
<a
966 href=
"http://www.uio.no/
">University of oslo
</a
> testing if the new
967 batch of computers will work with Linux. Every year for the last few
968 years the university have organized shared bid of a few thousand
969 computers, and this year HP won the bid. Two different desktops and
970 five different laptops are on the list this year. We in the UNIX
971 group want to know which one of these computers work well with RHEL
972 and Ubuntu, the two Linux distributions we currently handle at the
973 university.
</p
>
975 <p
>My test method is simple, and I share it here to get feedback and
976 perhaps inspire others to test hardware as well. To test, I PXE
977 install the OS version of choice, and log in as my normal user and run
978 a few applications and plug in selected pieces of hardware. When
979 something fail, I make a note about this in the test matrix and move
980 on. If I have some spare time I try to report the bug to the OS
981 vendor, but as I only have the machines for a short time, I rarely
982 have the time to do this for all the problems I find.
</p
>
984 <p
>Anyway, to get to the point of this post. Here is the simple tests
985 I perform on a new model.
</p
>
989 <li
>Is PXE installation working? I
'm testing with RHEL6, Ubuntu Lucid
990 and Ubuntu Maverik at the moment. If I feel like it, I also test with
991 RHEL5 and Debian Edu/Squeeze.
</li
>
993 <li
>Is X.org working? If the graphical login screen show up after
994 installation, X.org is working.
</li
>
996 <li
>Is hardware accelerated OpenGL working? Running glxgears (in
997 package mesa-utils on Ubuntu) and writing down the frames per second
998 reported by the program.
</li
>
1000 <li
>Is sound working? With Gnome and KDE, a sound is played when
1001 logging in, and if I can hear this the test is successful. If there
1002 are several audio exits on the machine, I try them all and check if
1003 the Gnome/KDE audio mixer can control where to send the sound. I
1004 normally test this by playing
1005 <a href=
"http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/
20101012-chef/
">a HTML5
1006 video
</a
> in Firefox/Iceweasel.
</li
>
1008 <li
>Is the USB subsystem working? I test this by plugging in a USB
1009 memory stick and see if Gnome/KDE notices this.
</li
>
1011 <li
>Is the CD/DVD player working? I test this by inserting any CD/DVD
1012 I have lying around, and see if Gnome/KDE notices this.
</li
>
1014 <li
>Is any built in camera working? Test using cheese, and see if a
1015 picture from the v4l device show up.
</li
>
1017 <li
>Is bluetooth working? Use the Gnome/KDE browsing tool to see if
1018 any bluetooth devices are discovered. In my office, I normally see a
1021 <li
>For laptops, is the SD or Compaq Flash reader working. I have
1022 memory modules lying around, and stick them in and see if Gnome/KDE
1023 notice this.
</li
>
1025 <li
>For laptops, is suspecd/hibernate working? I
'm testing if the
1026 special button work, and if the laptop continue to work after
1029 <li
>For laptops, is the extra buttons working, like audio level,
1030 adjusting background light, switching on/off external video output,
1031 switching on/off wifi, bluetooth, etc? The set of buttons differ from
1032 laptop to laptop, so I just write down which are working and which are
1035 <li
>Some laptops have smart card readers, finger print readers,
1036 acceleration sensors etc. I rarely test these, as I do not know how
1037 to quickly test if they are working or not, so I only document their
1038 existence.
</li
>
1042 <p
>By now I suspect you are really curious what the test results are
1043 for the HP machines I am testing. I
'm not done yet, so I will report
1044 the test results later. For now I can report that HP
8100 Elite work
1045 fine, and hibernation fail with HP EliteBook
8440p on Ubuntu Lucid,
1046 and audio fail on RHEL6. Ubuntu Maverik worked with
8440p. As you
1047 can see, I have most machines left to test. One interesting
1048 observation is that Ubuntu Lucid has almost twice the framerate than
1049 RHEL6 with glxgears. No idea why.
</p
>
1054 <title>Some thoughts on BitCoins
</title>
1055 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Some_thoughts_on_BitCoins.html
</link>
1056 <guid isPermaLink=
"true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Some_thoughts_on_BitCoins.html
</guid>
1057 <pubDate>Sat,
11 Dec
2010 15:
10:
00 +
0100</pubDate>
1059 <p
>As I continue to explore
1060 <a href=
"http://www.bitcoin.org/
">BitCoin
</a
>, I
've starting to wonder
1061 what properties the system have, and how it will be affected by laws
1062 and regulations here in Norway. Here are some random notes.
</p
>
1064 <p
>One interesting thing to note is that since the transactions are
1065 verified using a peer to peer network, all details about a transaction
1066 is known to everyone. This means that if a BitCoin address has been
1067 published like I did with mine in my initial post about BitCoin, it is
1068 possible for everyone to see how many BitCoins have been transfered to
1069 that address. There is even a web service to look at the details for
1070 all transactions. There I can see that my address
1071 <a href=
"http://blockexplorer.com/address/
15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b
">15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b
</a
>
1072 have received
16.06 Bitcoin, the
1073 <a href=
"http://blockexplorer.com/address/
1LfdGnGuWkpSJgbQySxxCWhv
8MHqvwst
3">1LfdGnGuWkpSJgbQySxxCWhv
8MHqvwst
3</a
>
1074 address of Simon Phipps have received
181.97 BitCoin and the address
1075 <a href=
"http://blockexplorer.com/address/
1MCwBbhNGp5hRm5rC1Aims2YFRe2SXPYKt
">1MCwBbhNGp5hRm5rC1Aims2YFRe2SXPYKt
</A
>
1076 of EFF have received
2447.38 BitCoins so far. Thank you to each and
1077 every one of you that donated bitcoins to support my activity. The
1078 fact that anyone can see how much money was transfered to a given
1079 address make it more obvious why the BitCoin community recommend to
1080 generate and hand out a new address for each transaction. I
'm told
1081 there is no way to track which addresses belong to a given person or
1082 organisation without the person or organisation revealing it
1083 themselves, as Simon, EFF and I have done.
</p
>
1085 <p
>In Norway, and in most other countries, there are laws and
1086 regulations limiting how much money one can transfer across the border
1087 without declaring it. There are money laundering, tax and accounting
1088 laws and regulations I would expect to apply to the use of BitCoin.
1089 If the Skolelinux foundation
1090 (
<a href=
"http://linuxiskolen.no/slxdebianlabs/donations.html
">SLX
1091 Debian Labs
</a
>) were to accept donations in BitCoin in addition to
1092 normal bank transfers like EFF is doing, how should this be accounted?
1093 Given that it is impossible to know if money can across the border or
1094 not, should everything or nothing be declared? What exchange rate
1095 should be used when calculating taxes? Would receivers have to pay
1096 income tax if the foundation were to pay Skolelinux contributors in
1097 BitCoin? I have no idea, but it would be interesting to know.
</p
>
1099 <p
>For a currency to be useful and successful, it must be trusted and
1100 accepted by a lot of users. It must be possible to get easy access to
1101 the currency (as a wage or using currency exchanges), and it must be
1102 easy to spend it. At the moment BitCoin seem fairly easy to get
1103 access to, but there are very few places to spend it. I am not really
1104 a regular user of any of the vendor types currently accepting BitCoin,
1105 so I wonder when my kind of shop would start accepting BitCoins. I
1106 would like to buy electronics, travels and subway tickets, not herbs
1107 and books. :) The currency is young, and this will improve over time
1108 if it become popular, but I suspect regular banks will start to lobby
1109 to get BitCoin declared illegal if it become popular. I
'm sure they
1110 will claim it is helping fund terrorism and money laundering (which
1111 probably would be true, as is any currency in existence), but I
1112 believe the problems should be solved elsewhere and not by blaming
1113 currencies.
</p
>
1115 <p
>The process of creating new BitCoins is called mining, and it is
1116 CPU intensive process that depend on a bit of luck as well (as one is
1117 competing against all the other miners currently spending CPU cycles
1118 to see which one get the next lump of cash). The
"winner
" get
50
1119 BitCoin when this happen. Yesterday I came across the obvious way to
1120 join forces to increase ones changes of getting at least some coins,
1121 by coordinating the work on mining BitCoins across several machines
1122 and people, and sharing the result if one is lucky and get the
50
1124 <a href=
"http://www.bluishcoder.co.nz/bitcoin-pool/
">BitCoin Pool
</a
>
1125 if this sounds interesting. I have not had time to try to set up a
1126 machine to participate there yet, but have seen that running on ones
1127 own for a few days have not yield any BitCoins througth mining
1130 <p
>Update
2010-
12-
15: Found an
<a
1131 href=
"http://inertia.posterous.com/reply-to-the-underground-economist-why-bitcoi
">interesting
1132 criticism
</a
> of bitcoin. Not quite sure how valid it is, but thought
1133 it was interesting to read. The arguments presented seem to be
1134 equally valid for gold, which was used as a currency for many years.
</p
>
projects / homepage.git / blob