blog/tags/standard/standard.rss

   1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
   2 <rss version='2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/1.0/'>
   3         <channel>
   4                 <title>Petter Reinholdtsen - Entries tagged standard</title>
   5                 <description>Entries tagged standard</description>
   6                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/</link>
   7
   8
   9         <item>
  10                 <title>Mer oppfølging fra MPEG-LA om avtale med dem for å kringkaste og publisere H.264-video</title>
  11                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_oppf_lging_fra_MPEG_LA_om_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</link>
  12                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_oppf_lging_fra_MPEG_LA_om_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</guid>
  13                 <pubDate>Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
  14                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I føljetongen om H.264
  15 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html&quot;&gt;forlot
  16 jeg leserne i undring&lt;/a&gt; om hvor pakken fra MPEG-LA tok veien, og om
  17 hvilke selskaper i Norge som har avtale med MPEG-LA.  Da Ryan hos
  18 MPEG-LA dro på ferie sendte jeg min melding videre til hans kollega,
  19 og dagen etter fikk jeg følgende svar derfra:&lt;/p&gt;
  20
  21 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
  22 &lt;p&gt;Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:32:34 +0000
  23 &lt;br&gt;From: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
  24 &lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
  25 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
  26 &lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
  27
  28 &lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;
  29
  30 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message. As you know, Ryan is currently our of the
  31 office, so it will be my pleasure to assist you.&lt;/p&gt;
  32
  33 &lt;p&gt;Per your request, attached please find an electronic copy of the
  34 AVC Patent Portfolio License. Please note that the electronic copy of
  35 the License is provided as a convenience and for informational
  36 purposes only. When concluding the Licenses, only the hard copies
  37 provided by MPEG LA may be used.&lt;/p&gt;
  38
  39 &lt;p&gt;To your question, MPEG LA lists our Licensees on our website
  40 according to each program.  The lists are in alphabetical order, so it
  41 is very easy to search.&lt;/p&gt;
  42
  43 &lt;p&gt;I hope that this was helpful. If we can be of additional
  44 assistance, please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;
  45
  46 &lt;p&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/p&gt;
  47
  48 &lt;p&gt;Sidney A. Wolf
  49 &lt;br&gt;Manager, Global Licensing
  50 &lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;
  51 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
  52
  53 &lt;p&gt;Selv om et epostvedlegg er nyttig for mottakeren, så håpet jeg å få
  54 et dokument jeg kunne dele med alle leserne av bloggen min, og ikke et
  55 som må deles på individuell basis.  Opphavsretten krever godkjenning
  56 fra rettighetsinnehaver før en kan gjøre slikt, så dermed fulgte jeg
  57 opp med et spørsmål om dette var greit.&lt;/p&gt;
  58
  59 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
  60 &lt;p&gt;Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 20:25:06 +0200
  61 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
  62 &lt;br&gt;To: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
  63 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
  64 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
  65
  66 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your reply.&lt;/p&gt;
  67
  68 &lt;p&gt;[Sidney Wolf]
  69 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Per your request, attached please find an electronic copy of the AVC
  70 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Patent Portfolio License. Please note that the electronic copy of
  71 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; the License is provided as a convenience and for informational
  72 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; purposes only. When concluding the Licenses, only the hard copies
  73 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; provided by MPEG LA may be used.&lt;/p&gt;
  74
  75 &lt;p&gt;This is useful for me to learn, but the reason I asked for the
  76 Internet address of the licensing document was to ensure I could
  77 publish a link to it when I discuss the topic of H.264 licensing here
  78 in Norway, and allow others to verify my observations.  I can not do
  79 the same with an email attachment.  Thus I would like to ask you if it
  80 is OK with MPEG LA that I publish this document on the Internet for
  81 others to read?&lt;/p&gt;
  82
  83 &lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; To your question, MPEG LA lists our Licensees on our website
  84 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; according to each program. The lists are in alphabetical order, so
  85 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; it is very easy to search.&lt;/p&gt;
  86
  87 &lt;p&gt;I am afraid this do not help me locate Norwegian companies in the
  88 list of Licensees.  I do not know the name of all companies and
  89 organisations in Norway, and thus do not know how to locate the
  90 Norwegian ones on that list.&lt;/p&gt;
  91
  92 &lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I hope that this was helpful. If we can be of additional assistance,
  93 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;
  94
  95 &lt;p&gt;Absoutely helpful to learn more about how MPEG LA handle licensing.&lt;/p&gt;
  96
  97 &lt;p&gt;--
  98 &lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
  99 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
 100 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 101
 102 &lt;p&gt;Jeg håpet også at det skulle være mulig å få vite hvilke av de
 103 mange hundre som har avtale med MPEG-LA om bruk av H.264 som holdt til
 104 i Norge.  Begge mine håp falt i grus med svaret fra MPEG-LA.
 105
 106 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 107 &lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:42:39 +0000
 108 &lt;br&gt;From: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
 109 &lt;br&gt;To: &#39;Petter Reinholdtsen&#39; &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
 110 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
 111 &lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
 112
 113 &lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;
 114
 115 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your reply.&lt;/p&gt;
 116
 117 &lt;p&gt;We appreciate the additional explanation you have provided and for
 118 asking our permission to publish the electronic copy of the License in
 119 advance of doing so.  Typically, MPEG LA prefers to distribute the
 120 electronic copies of our Licenses to interested parties. Therefore,
 121 please feel free to send interested parties to the AVC portion of our
 122 website, http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Intro.aspx for
 123 their further reference.&lt;/p&gt;
 124
 125 &lt;p&gt;As previously mentioned, MPEG LA maintains a list of Licensees in good
 126 standing on our website according to each program. Due to the large
 127 volume of Licensees, it would be administratively impractical to
 128 provide this level of detail to interested parties.  Therefore, I am
 129 afraid we are not in a position to assist you with your request.&lt;/p&gt;
 130
 131 &lt;p&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/p&gt;
 132
 133 &lt;p&gt;Sidney A. Wolf
 134 &lt;br&gt;Manager, Global Licensing
 135 &lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;
 136 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 137
 138 &lt;p&gt;Men takket være epostvedlegget kunne jeg søke på Google etter
 139 setningen &quot;WHEREAS, a video standard commonly referred to as AVC has
 140 been defined and is referred to in this Agreement as the “AVC
 141 Standard” (as more fully defined herein below)&quot; som finnes i avtalen,
 142 og lokalisere en kopi fra 2007 av
 143 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1342960/000119312509050004/dex1024.htm&quot;&gt;lisensavtalen
 144 mellom MPEG-LA og DivX, Inc.&lt;/a&gt;, slik at mine lesere kan se hvordan
 145 avtalen så ut da.  Jeg har ikke sammenlignet tekstene for å se om noe
 146 har endret seg siden den tid, men satser på at teksten er representativ.&lt;/p&gt;
 147
 148 &lt;p&gt;Jeg aner fortsatt ikke hvor FedEx tok veien med pakken fra
 149 MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;
 150
 151 &lt;p&gt;Update 2012-07-06: Jeg er visst ikke den første som forsøker å få
 152 klarhet i problemstillinger rundt H.264, og kom nettopp over en veldig
 153 interessant bloggpost fra 2010 hos LibreVideo med tittelen
 154 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA
 155 answers some questions about AVC/H.264 licensing&lt;/a&gt;.  Anbefales!&lt;/p&gt;
 156 </description>
 157         </item>
 158
 159         <item>
 160                 <title>DIFI foreslår å kaste ut ODF og ta inn OOXML fra statens standardkatalog</title>
 161                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html</link>
 162                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html</guid>
 163                 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
 164                 <description>&lt;p&gt;DIFI har nettopp annonsert høring om revisjon av
 165 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder&quot;&gt;standardkatalogen&lt;/a&gt;,
 166 og endelig har Microsoft fått viljen sin.  Se
 167 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/forslag-om-endring-av-forskrift-om-it-standarder-i-offentlig-forvaltning&quot;&gt;høringssiden&lt;/a&gt;
 168 for hele teksten.&lt;/p&gt;
 169
 170 &lt;p&gt;Her er forslaget i sin helhet:&lt;/p&gt;
 171
 172 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 173 &lt;p&gt;3.2 Revisjon av krav til redigerbare dokumenter&lt;/p&gt;
 174
 175 &lt;p&gt;I første versjon av referansekatalogen i 2007 ble det satt krav om
 176 Open Document Format (ODF), versjon 1.1 (OASIS, 1.2.2007) for
 177 redigerbare dokumenter. Kravet var obligatorisk for stat og sterkt
 178 anbefalt for kommunal sektor. I 2009 ble kravet gjort obligatorisk for
 179 hele offentlig sektor i
 180 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/fa/xa-20090925-1222.html&quot;&gt;forskrift
 181 om IT-standarder i forvaltningen&lt;/a&gt;. Anvendelsesområdet for kravet
 182 har vært begrenset til publisering av dokumenter som skal bearbeides
 183 videre (§ 4 nr. 1 andre ledd). I 2011 ble anvendelsesområdet utvidet
 184 til å omfatte utveksling av dokumenter beregnet for redigering som
 185 vedlegg til e-post (§4 nr.  2).&lt;/p&gt;
 186
 187 &lt;p&gt;Office Open XML ISO/IEC 29500:2011 (OOXML) er et dokumentformat
 188 opprinnelig utviklet av Microsoft med tilsvarende anvendelsesområde
 189 som ODF. Formatet er blant annet tatt i bruk i nyere versjoner av
 190 kontorstøtteprogamvaren MS Office.  Difi har foretatt en
 191 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/filearchive/revisjonsvurdering-standarder-for-redigerbare-dokumenter-v1-0.pdf&quot;&gt;revisjonsvurdering&lt;/a&gt;
 192 av krav som stilles til redigerbare dokumenter i Forskrift om
 193 IT-standarder i forvaltningen, og anbefaler at kravet til ODF
 194 fjernes. Dette innebærer at det ikke stilles krav til dokumentformater
 195 for redigerbare dokumenter ved publisering på offentlige virksomheters
 196 nettsider og for redigerbare vedlegg til e-post som sendes fra
 197 offentlige virksomheter til innbyggere og næringsliv. Offentlige
 198 virksomheter vil dermed stå fritt til å publisere eller sende
 199 redigerbare dokumenter i det format som ivaretar brukernes behov
 200 best.&lt;/p&gt;
 201
 202 &lt;p&gt;Forslaget innebærer at krav til ODF utgår § 4 nr. 1 tredje ledd og
 203 § 4 nr. 2 første ledd&lt;/p&gt;
 204
 205 &lt;P&gt;Imidlertid bør det stilles strengere krav til hvilke formater
 206 offentlige virksomheter plikter å motta redigerbare dokumenter. Vi
 207 mener at det ikke bør skilles mellom mottak av redigerbare dokumenter
 208 som sendes i ODF eller OOXML3, som begge er åpne standarder. Dette
 209 medfører at innbyggere og næringsliv skal kunne basere sitt valg av
 210 programvare på egne behov og ikke på de valg offentlige virksomheter
 211 tar. Kravet vil omfatte hele offentlig sektor, herunder
 212 utdanningssektoren, hvor det kanskje er størst bruk av ODF. Kravet er
 213 foreslått som ny § 4 nr.2 andre ledd&lt;/p&gt;
 214 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 215
 216 &lt;P&gt;De satser vel på at det hele blir glemt over sommeren, og at de
 217 fleste har glemt Standard Norge og ISOs fallitt fra da OOXML ble
 218 jukset igjennom som ISO-standard.  Jeg håper mine lesere sender inn
 219 høringsuttalelser til høringen.&lt;/p&gt;
 220
 221 &lt;p&gt;Anbefaler alle å friske opp sine argumenter ved å lese
 222 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html&quot;&gt;svaret
 223 fra senator Edgar Villanueva til Microsoft i Peru&lt;/a&gt;.  Det er en
 224 klassisk tekst som er like gyldig i dag som da det ble skrevet.&lt;/p&gt;
 225
 226 </description>
 227         </item>
 228
 229         <item>
 230                 <title>Departementenes servicesenter har ingen avtale om bruk av H.264 med MPEG-LA</title>
 231                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Departementenes_servicesenter_har_ingen_avtale_om_bruk_av_H_264_med_MPEG_LA.html</link>
 232                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Departementenes_servicesenter_har_ingen_avtale_om_bruk_av_H_264_med_MPEG_LA.html</guid>
 233                 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
 234                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Da fikk jeg nettopp svar fra
 235 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dss.dep.no/&quot;&gt;Departementenes servicesenter&lt;/a&gt;
 236 (DSS) på
 237 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;mitt
 238 spørsmål om avtale rundt bruk av H.264&lt;/a&gt;.  De har ingen avtale med
 239 MPEG LA eller dets representanter.  Her er svaret.
 240
 241 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 242
 243 &lt;p&gt;Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:04:42 +0000
 244 &lt;br&gt;From: Nielsen Mette Haga &amp;lt;Mette-Haga.Nielsen (at) dss.dep.no&amp;gt;
 245 &lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;petter.reinholdtsen (at) ...&amp;gt;
 246 &lt;br&gt;CC: Postmottak &amp;lt;Postmottak (at) dss.dep.no&amp;gt;
 247 &lt;br&gt;Subject: SV: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H.264-relaterte avtaler&lt;/p&gt;
 248
 249 &lt;p&gt;DSS har ikke inngått noen egen lisensavtale med MPEG-LA eller noen som
 250 representerer MPEG-LA i Norge. Videoløsningen på regjeringen.no er
 251 levert av Smartcom:tv. Lisensforholdet rundt H.264 er ikke omtalt i
 252 vår avtale med Smartcom.&lt;/p&gt;
 253
 254 &lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen&lt;/p&gt;
 255
 256 &lt;p&gt;Mette Haga Nielsen
 257 &lt;br&gt;Fung. seksjonssjef&lt;/p&gt;
 258
 259 &lt;p&gt;Departementenes servicesenter&lt;/p&gt;
 260
 261 &lt;p&gt;Informasjonsforvaltning
 262
 263 &lt;p&gt;Mobil 93 09 83 51
 264 &lt;br&gt;E-post mette-haga.nielsen (at) dss.dep.no&lt;/p&gt;
 265 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 266
 267 &lt;p&gt;Hvis den norske regjeringen representert ved DSS ikke har slik
 268 avtale, så kan en kanskje konkludere med at det ikke trengs?  Jeg er
 269 ikke trygg på at det er god juridisk grunn å stå på, men det er i det
 270 minste interessant å vite at hverken NRK eller DSS har funnet det
 271 nødvendig å ha avtale om bruk av H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
 272
 273 &lt;p&gt;Det forklarer ikke hvordan de kan ignorere bruksvilkårene knyttet
 274 til bruk av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale de bruker til
 275 videoproduksjon, med mindre slike vilkår kan ignoreres av selskaper og
 276 privatpersoner i Norge.  Har de lov til å bryte vilkårene, eller har
 277 de brutt dem og så langt sluppet unna med det?  Jeg aner ikke.&lt;/p&gt;
 278 </description>
 279         </item>
 280
 281         <item>
 282                 <title>MPEG-LA mener NRK må ha avtale med dem for å kringkaste og publisere H.264-video</title>
 283                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</link>
 284                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</guid>
 285                 <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
 286                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Etter at NRK
 287 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html&quot;&gt;nektet
 288 å spore opp eventuell avtale med MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt; eller andre om bruk av
 289 MPEG/H.264-video etter at jeg &lt;a
 290 href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;ba
 291 om innsyn i slike avtaler&lt;/a&gt;, tenkte jeg at i stedet for å forsøke å
 292 få NRK til å finne en slik avtale, så burde det være like enkelt å
 293 spørre MPEG-LA om de hadde avtale med NRK.  Spørsmålet ble sendt før
 294 jeg fikk tips fra Kieran Kunhya om hvor listen over lisensinnehavere
 295 &quot;in Good Standing&quot; befant seg.  MPEG-LA svarte meg i dag, og kan
 296 fortelle at NRK ikke har noen avtale med dem, så da er i det minste det
 297 slått fast.  Ikke overraskende mener MPEG-LA at det trengs en avtale
 298 med MPEG-LA for å streame H.264, men deres rammer er jo
 299 rettstilstanden i USA og ikke Norge.  Jeg tar dermed den delen av
 300 svaret med en klype salt.  Jeg er dermed fortsatt ikke klok på om det
 301 trengs en avtale, og hvis det trengs en avtale her i Norge, heller
 302 ikke sikker på om NRK har en avtale med noen andre enn MPEG-LA som
 303 gjør at de ikke trenger avtale direkte med MPEG-LA.  Jeg håper NRKs
 304 jurister har vurdert dette, og at det er mulig å få tilgang til
 305 vurderingen uansett om de trenger en avtale eller ikke.&lt;/p&gt;
 306
 307 &lt;p&gt;Her er epostutvekslingen med MPEG-LA så langt.  Håper ikke
 308 utvekslingen fører til NRK plutselig får en litt uventet pakke fra
 309 MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;
 310
 311 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 312 &lt;p&gt;Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:29:37 +0200
 313 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
 314 &lt;br&gt;To: licensing-web (at) mpegla.com
 315 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
 316
 317 &lt;p&gt;Hi.  I have a small question for you, that I hope it is OK that I
 318 ask.&lt;/p&gt;
 319
 320 &lt;p&gt;Is there any license agreements between MPEG-LA and NRK, &amp;lt;URL:
 321 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/&quot;&gt;http://www.nrk.no/&lt;/a&gt; &amp;gt;, the
 322 Norwegian national broadcasting cooperation?  I am not sure if they
 323 need one, and am just curious if such agreeement exist.&lt;/p&gt;
 324
 325 &lt;p&gt;The postal address is&lt;/p&gt;
 326
 327 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 328   NRK
 329   &lt;br&gt;Postbox 8500, Majorstuen
 330   &lt;br&gt;0340 Oslo
 331   &lt;br&gt;Norway
 332 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 333
 334 &lt;p&gt;if it make it easier for you to locate such agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
 335
 336 &lt;p&gt;Can you tell me how many entities in Norway have an agreement with
 337 MPEG-LA, and the name of these entities?&lt;/p&gt;
 338
 339 &lt;p&gt;--
 340 &lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
 341 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen
 342 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 343
 344 &lt;p&gt;I dag, to dager senere, fikk jeg følgende svar:&lt;/p&gt;
 345
 346 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 347 &lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:11:17 +0000
 348 &lt;br&gt;From: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&gt;
 349 &lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&gt;
 350 &lt;br&gt;CC: MD Administration &amp;lt;MDAdministration (at) mpegla.com&gt;
 351 &lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
 352
 353 &lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;
 354
 355 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We
 356 appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.&lt;/p&gt;
 357
 358 &lt;p&gt;To begin, I will assume that you are referring to AVC/H.264
 359 technology in your message below, as this technology is commonly used
 360 in the transmission of video content.  In that case, please allow me
 361 to briefly summarize the coverage provided by our AVC Patent Portfolio
 362 License.&lt;/p&gt;
 363
 364 &lt;P&gt;Our AVC License provides coverage for end products and video
 365 services that make use of AVC/H.264 technology.  Accordingly, the
 366 party offering such end products and video to End Users concludes the
 367 AVC License and is responsible for paying the applicable royalties
 368 associated with the end products/video they offer.&lt;/p&gt;
 369
 370 &lt;p&gt;While the Norwegian Broadcast Corporation (NRK) is not currently a
 371 Licensee to MPEG LA&#39;s AVC License (or any other Portfolio License
 372 offered by MPEG LA), if NRK offers AVC Video to End Users for
 373 remuneration (for example, Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
 374 Television, or Internet Broadcast AVC Video), then NRK will need to
 375 conclude the AVC License and may be responsible for paying applicable
 376 royalties associated with the AVC Video it distributes.&lt;/p&gt;
 377
 378 &lt;p&gt;Today I will send you a FedEx package containing a copy of our AVC
 379 License for your review.  You should receive the License document
 380 within the next few days.&lt;/p&gt;
 381
 382 &lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, MPEG LA currently has several Norwegian Licensees that
 383 can be found under the &quot;Licensees&quot; header within the respective
 384 portion of our website.  For example, you may find our list of
 385 Licensees in Good Standing to our AVC License in the AVC portion of
 386 our website,
 387 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 388
 389 &lt;p&gt;I hope the above information is helpful.  If you have additional
 390 questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
 391 free to contact me directly.  I look forward to hearing from you again
 392 soon.&lt;/p&gt;
 393
 394 &lt;p&gt;Best regards,&lt;/p&gt;
 395
 396 &lt;p&gt;Ryan&lt;/p&gt;
 397
 398 &lt;p&gt;Ryan M. Rodriguez
 399 &lt;br&gt;Licensing Associate
 400 &lt;br&gt;MPEG LA
 401 &lt;br&gt;5425 Wisconsin Avenue
 402 &lt;br&gt;Suite 801
 403 &lt;br&gt;Chevy Chase, MD 20815
 404 &lt;br&gt;U.S.A.
 405 &lt;br&gt;Phone:  +1 (301) 986-6660 x211
 406 &lt;br&gt;Fax:    +1 (301) 986-8575
 407 &lt;br&gt;Email: rrodriguez (at) mpegla.com&lt;/p&gt;
 408
 409 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 410
 411 &lt;p&gt;Meldingen om utsendt FedEx-pakke var så merkelig at jeg
 412 øyeblikkelig sendte svar tilbake og spurte hva i alle dager han mente,
 413 da han jo ikke hadde fått noen postadresse som nådde meg.&lt;/p&gt;
 414
 415 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 416
 417 &lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:36:15 +0200
 418 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
 419 &lt;br&gt;To: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
 420 &lt;br&gt;Cc: MD Administration &amp;lt;MDAdministration (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
 421 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
 422
 423 &lt;p&gt;[Ryan Rodriguez]
 424 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;
 425
 426 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your quick reply.&lt;/p&gt;
 427
 428 &lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Today I will send you a FedEx package containing a copy of our AVC
 429 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; License for your review.  You should receive the License document
 430 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; within the next few days.&lt;/p&gt;
 431
 432 &lt;p&gt;The part about sending a FedEx package confused me, though.  I did not
 433 &lt;br&gt;give you my address, nor am I associated with NRK in any way, so I hope
 434 &lt;br&gt;you did not try to send me a package using the address of NRK.  If you
 435 &lt;br&gt;would send me the Internet address of to the document, it would be more
 436 &lt;br&gt;useful to me to be able to download it as an electronic document.&lt;/p&gt;
 437
 438 &lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Meanwhile, MPEG LA currently has several Norwegian Licensees that can
 439 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; be found under the &quot;Licensees&quot; header within the respective portion
 440 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; of our website.  For example, you may find our list of Licensees in
 441 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Good Standing to our AVC License in the AVC portion of our website,
 442 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&lt;/p&gt;
 443
 444 &lt;p&gt;How can I recognize the Norwegian licensees?&lt;/p&gt;
 445
 446 &lt;p&gt;--
 447 &lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
 448 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
 449 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 450
 451 &lt;p&gt;Selv om jeg svarte kun noen minutter etter at jeg fikk eposten fra
 452 MPEG-LA, fikk jeg eposten under som automatisk var beskjed på min
 453 siste epost.  Får håpe noen likevel følger opp &quot;FedEx-pakken&quot;.  For å
 454 øke sjansen for at noen revurderer utsending av pakke uten mottaker,
 455 videresendte jeg min epost til swolf (at) mpegla.com, så får vi se.
 456 Har ikke hørt noe mer 3 timer senere, så jeg mistenker at ingen leste
 457 min epost tidsnok.&lt;/p&gt;
 458
 459 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 460
 461 &lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:36:20 +0000
 462 &lt;br&gt;From: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
 463 &lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
 464 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Automatic reply: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
 465
 466 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message.&lt;/p&gt;
 467
 468 &lt;p&gt;I will be out of the office until Thursday, July 5 and will respond
 469 to all messages upon my return.  If this is a matter that requires
 470 immediate attention, please contact Sidney Wolf (swolf (at)
 471 mpegla.com)&lt;/p&gt;
 472
 473 &lt;p&gt;Best regards,&lt;/p&gt;
 474
 475 &lt;p&gt;Ryan&lt;/p&gt;
 476
 477 &lt;p&gt;Ryan M. Rodriguez
 478 &lt;br&gt;Licensing Associate
 479 &lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;
 480
 481 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 482
 483 &lt;p&gt;Litt klokere, men fortsatt ikke klok på mitt opprinnelige spørsmål,
 484 som er om en trenger avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere eller
 485 kringkaste H.264-video i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
 486 </description>
 487         </item>
 488
 489         <item>
 490                 <title>NRK nekter å finne og utlevere eventuell avtale med MPEG-LA</title>
 491                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html</link>
 492                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html</guid>
 493                 <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:10:00 +0200</pubDate>
 494                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg fikk nettopp svar fra NRK på
 495 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;min
 496 forespørsel om kopi av avtale&lt;/a&gt; med MPEG-LA eller andre om bruk av
 497 MPEG og/eller H.264.  Svaret har fått saksreferanse 2011/371 (mon tro
 498 hva slags sak fra 2011 dette er?) hos NRK og lyder som følger:&lt;/p&gt;
 499
 500 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 501
 502 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Svar på innsynsbegjæring i MPEG / H.264-relaterte
 503 avtaler&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 504
 505 &lt;p&gt;Viser til innsynsbegjæring av 19. juni 2012. Kravet om innsyn
 506 gjelder avtale som gjør at NRK «ikke er begrenset av de generelle
 507 bruksvilkårene som gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller
 508 H.264».&lt;/p&gt;
 509
 510 &lt;p&gt;I henhold til offentleglova § 28 annet ledd må innsynskravet gjelde
 511 en bestemt sak eller i rimelig utstrekning saker av en bestemt
 512 sak. Det er på det rene at det aktuelle innsynskravet ikke gjelder en
 513 bestemt sak. Spørsmålet som reiser seg er om identifiseringsgraden er
 514 tilstrekkelig. I Justisdepartementets «Rettleiar til offentleglova»
 515 står følgende:&lt;/p&gt;
 516
 517 &lt;p&gt;«Kravet om at innsynskravet må gjelde ei bestemt sak er til hinder
 518 for at eit innsynskrav kan gjelde alle saker av ein bestemt art, utan
 519 at den enkelte saka blir identifisert.  Ein kan med andre ord i
 520 utgangspunktet ikkje krevje innsyn i til dømes alle saker om
 521 utsleppsløyve hos Statens forureiningstilsyn frå dei siste tre åra,
 522 med mindre ein identifiserer kvar enkelt sak, til dømes med tilvising
 523 til dato, partar eller liknande.»&lt;/p&gt;
 524
 525 &lt;p&gt;Vedrørende denne begrensningen har Justisdepartementet uttalt
 526 følgende (Lovavdelingens uttalelser JDLOV-2010-3295):&lt;/p&gt;
 527
 528 &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;«Bakgrunnen for avgrensinga av kva innsynskravet kan gjelde,
 529 er fyrst og fremst at meir generelle innsynskrav, utan noka form for
 530 identifikasjon av kva ein eigentleg ynskjer, ville vere svært
 531 vanskelege å handsame for forvaltninga.»&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 532
 533 &lt;p&gt;I samme sak uttaler Lovavdelingen følgende:&lt;/p&gt;
 534
 535 &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;«Det følgjer vidare av offentleglova § 28 andre ledd at det `i
 536 rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan krevjast innsyn i `saker av ein bestemt
 537 art&#39;. Vilkåret om at eit innsynskrav berre `i rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan
 538 gjelde saker av ein bestemt art, er i hovudsak knytt til kor
 539 arbeidskrevjande det vil vere å finne fram til dei aktuelle
 540 dokumenta. I tillegg reknar vi med at vilkåret kan gje grunnlag for å
 541 nekte innsyn i tilfelle der innsynskravet er så omfattande (gjeld så
 542 mange dokument) at arbeidsmengda som ville gått med til å handsame
 543 det, er større enn det ein `i rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan krevje (sjølv
 544 om det nok skal mykje til).»&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 545
 546 &lt;p&gt;NRK har ikke noen egen sammenstilling over avtaler innenfor
 547 bestemte områder som omtales i innsynsbegjæringen. De måtte søkes på
 548 vanlig måte. I tillegg finnes ikke noen automatisert måte å finne
 549 avtaler som «ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som
 550 gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H.264». En slik
 551 gjennomgang av avtaler måtte gjøres manuelt av en person med
 552 spesialistkunnskap. Dette vil kreve at NRK avsetter omfattende
 553 ressurser for å finne frem relevante avtaler og for deretter å vurdere
 554 om de dekkes av det innsynsbegjæringen omfattes.&lt;/p&gt;
 555
 556 &lt;p&gt;På bakgrunn av dette nekter NRK innsyn, med den begrunnelsen at
 557 innsynskravet er så omfattende at arbeidsmengden for å håndtere kravet
 558 vil være langt større enn det som i rimelig utstrekning kan kreves i
 559 henhold til offentleglova § 28 annet ledd.&lt;/p&gt;
 560
 561 &lt;p&gt;Avslag på deres innsynsbegjæring kan påklages til Kultur- og
 562 kirkedepartementet innen tre uker fra det tidspunkt avslaget kommer
 563 frem til mottakeren, i henhold til reglene i offentleglova § 32,
 564 jf. forvaltningsloven kapittel VI. Klagen skal stiles til Kultur- og
 565 kirkedepartementet, og sendes til NRK.&lt;/p&gt;
 566
 567 &lt;p&gt;NRK er imidlertid etter Offentleglova forpliktet å gi ut journaler,
 568 slik at en eventuell søknad om innsyn kan tydeligere identifisere
 569 hvilke dokumenter som det ønskes innsyn i. NRKs offentlige journaler
 570 for inneværende og forrige måned ligger ute på
 571 NRK.no/innsyn. Journaler som går lengre tilbake i tid, kan sendes ut
 572 på forespørsel til innsyn (at) nrk.no.&lt;/p&gt;
 573
 574 &lt;p&gt;Med hilsen
 575 &lt;br&gt;Dokumentarkivet i NRK
 576 &lt;br&gt;v/ Elin Brandsrud
 577 &lt;br&gt;Tel. direkte: 23 04 29 29
 578 &lt;br&gt;Post: RBM3, Postboks 8500 Majorstuen, 0340 Oslo
 579 &lt;br&gt;innsyn (at) nrk.no&lt;/p&gt;
 580
 581 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 582
 583 &lt;p&gt;Svaret kom
 584 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2012-06-25-video-mpegla-nrk.pdf&quot;&gt;i
 585 PDF-form som vedlegg på epost&lt;/a&gt;.  Jeg er litt usikker på hvordan jeg
 586 best går videre for å bli klok, men jeg har jo i hvert fall tre uker
 587 på å vurdere om jeg skal klage.  Enten må nok forespørselen
 588 reformuleres eller så må jeg vel klage.  Synes jo det er merkelig at
 589 NRK ikke har bedre kontroll med hvilke avtaler de har inngått.  Det
 590 burde jo være noen i ledelsen som vet om de har signert en avtale med
 591 MPEG-LA eller ikke...&lt;/p&gt;
 592
 593 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-25 20:20: Et google-søk på &quot;2011/371 nrk&quot;
 594 sendte meg til postjournalen for
 595 &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.8212365!offentligjournal19062012.pdf&quot;&gt;2012-06-19&lt;/a&gt;
 596 og
 597 &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.8214156!offentligjournal20062012.pdf&quot;&gt;2012-06-20&lt;/a&gt;
 598 hos NRK som viser mine forespørsler og viser at sakens tittel hos NRK
 599 er &quot;Graphic Systems Regions MA 2378/10E&quot;.  Videre søk etter &quot;Graphic
 600 Systems Regions&quot; viser at dette er saken til et anbud om
 601 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://no.mercell.com/m/mts/Tender/27179412.aspx&quot;&gt;a graphics
 602 system for 12 or 13 sites broadcasting regional news&lt;/a&gt;&quot; hos Mercell
 603 Sourcing Service, også omtalt på
 604 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publictenders.net/tender/595705&quot;&gt;Public
 605 Tenders&lt;/a&gt; og
 606 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.doffin.no/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JAN155521&quot;&gt;Doffin&lt;/a&gt;.
 607 Jeg er dog usikker på hvordan dette er relatert til min
 608 forespørsel.&lt;/p&gt;
 609
 610 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-25 22:40: Ble tipset av Kieran Kunhya, fra
 611 miljøet rundt
 612 &lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/p/open-broadcast-encoder/&quot;&gt;Open
 613 Broadcast Encoder&lt;/a&gt;, at listen over de som har lisensavtale med
 614 MPEG-LA er
 615 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpeg-la.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&quot;&gt;tilgjengelig
 616 på web&lt;/a&gt;.  Veldig fint å oppdage hvor den finnes, da jeg må ha lett
 617 etter feil ting da jeg forsøke å finne den.  Der står ikke NRK, men
 618 flere andre &quot;Broadcasting Company&quot;-oppføringer.  Lurer på om det betyr
 619 at NRK ikke trenger avtale, eller noe helt annet?&lt;/p&gt;
 620 </description>
 621         </item>
 622
 623         <item>
 624                 <title>Trenger en avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere og kringkaste H.264-video?</title>
 625                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html</link>
 626                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html</guid>
 627                 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
 628                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Trengs det avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lovlig rett til å
 629 distribuere og kringkaste video i MPEG4 eller med videokodingen H.264?
 630 &lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 og MPEG4 er jo ikke en
 631 fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt; i henhold til
 632 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html&quot;&gt;definisjonen
 633 til Digistan&lt;/a&gt;, så i enkelte land er det ingen tvil om at du må ha
 634 en slik avtale, men jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke vet om det også
 635 gjelder Norge.  Det ser uansett ut til å være en juridisk interessant
 636 problemstilling.  Men jeg tenkte her om dagen som så, at hvis det er
 637 nødvendig, så har store aktører som
 638 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/&quot;&gt;NRK&lt;/a&gt; og
 639 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/&quot;&gt;regjeringen&lt;/a&gt; skaffet seg en
 640 slik avtale.  Jeg har derfor sendt forespørsel til begge (for
 641 regjeringen sin del er det Departementenes Servicesenter som gjør
 642 jobben), og bedt om kopi av eventuelle avtaler de har om bruk av MPEG
 643 og/eller H.264 med MPEG-LA eller andre aktører som opererer på vegne
 644 av MPEG-LA.  Her er kopi av eposten jeg har sendt til
 645 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dss.dep.no/&quot;&gt;Departementenes Servicesenter&lt;/a&gt;.
 646 Forespørselen til NRK er veldig lik.&lt;/p&gt;
 647
 648 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 649
 650 &lt;p&gt;Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:18:33 +0200
 651 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen
 652 &lt;br&gt;To: postmottak@dss.dep.no
 653 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H.264-relaterte avtaler
 654
 655 &lt;p&gt;Hei.  Jeg ber herved om innsyn og kopi av dokumenter i DSS relatert
 656 til avtaler rundt bruk av videoformatene MPEG og H.264.  Jeg er
 657 spesielt interessert i å vite om DSS har lisensavtale med MPEG-LA
 658 eller noen som representerer MPEG-LA i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
 659
 660 &lt;p&gt;MPEG og H.264 er videoformater som brukes både til kringkasting
 661 (f.eks. i bakkenett og kabel-TV) og videopublisering på web, deriblant
 662 via Adobe Flash.  MPEG-LA, &amp;lt;URL:
 663 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpeg-la.com/&quot;&gt;http://www.mpeg-la.com/&lt;/a&gt; &amp;gt;, er
 664 en organisasjon som har fått oppgaven, av de kjente rettighetshavere
 665 av immaterielle rettigheter knyttet til MPEG og H.264, å selge
 666 bruksrett for MPEG og H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
 667
 668 &lt;p&gt;Via regjeringen.no kringkastes med MPEG og H.264-baserte
 669 videoformater, og dette ser ut til å være organisert av DSS.  Jeg
 670 antar dermed at DSS har avtale med en eller annen aktør om dette.&lt;/p&gt;
 671
 672 &lt;p&gt;F.eks. har Adobe Premiere Pro har følgende klausul i følge &amp;lt;URL:
 673 &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html&quot;&gt;http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html&lt;/a&gt;
 674 &amp;gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
 675
 676 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 677
 678   &lt;p&gt;6.17. AVC DISTRIBUTION. The following notice applies to software
 679   containing AVC import and export functionality: THIS PRODUCT IS
 680   LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND
 681   NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (a) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE
 682   WITH THE AVC STANDARD (&quot;AVC VIDEO&quot;) AND/OR (b) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT
 683   WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL
 684   ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER
 685   LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE
 686   IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED
 687   FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE
 688   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 689
 690 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 691
 692 &lt;p&gt;Her er det kun &quot;non-commercial&quot; og &quot;personal and non-commercial&quot;
 693 aktivitet som er tillatt uten ekstra avtale med MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;
 694
 695 &lt;p&gt;Et annet tilsvarende eksempel er Apple Final Cut Pro, som har
 696 følgende klausul i følge &amp;lt;URL:
 697 &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf&quot;&gt;http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
 698 &amp;gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
 699
 700 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 701
 702   &lt;p&gt;15. Merknad om H.264/AVC. Hvis Apple-programvaren inneholder
 703   funksjonalitet for AVC-koding og/eller AVC-dekoding, krever
 704   kommersiell bruk ekstra lisensiering og følgende gjelder:
 705   AVC-FUNKSJONALITETEN I DETTE PRODUKTET KAN KUN ANVENDES AV
 706   FORBRUKERE OG KUN FOR PERSONLIG OG IKKE- KOMMERSIELL BRUK TIL (i)
 707   KODING AV VIDEO I OVERENSSTEMMELSE MED AVC-STANDARDEN (&quot;AVC-VIDEO&quot;)
 708   OG/ELLER (ii) DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO SOM ER KODET AV EN FORBRUKER TIL
 709   PERSONLIG OG IKKE-KOMMERSIELL BRUK OG/ELLER DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO
 710   FRA EN VIDEOLEVERANDØR SOM HAR LISENS TIL Å TILBY
 711   AVC-VIDEO. INFORMASJON OM ANNEN BRUK OG LISENSIERING KAN INNHENTES
 712   FRA MPEG LA L.L.C. SE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.&lt;/p&gt;
 713 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 714
 715 &lt;p&gt;Tilsvarende gjelder for andre programvarepakker, kamera, etc som
 716 bruker MPEG og H.264, at en må ha en avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lov
 717 til å bruke programmet/utstyret hvis en skal lage noe annet enn
 718 private filmer og i ikke-kommersiell virksomhet.&lt;/p&gt;
 719
 720 &lt;p&gt;Jeg er altså interessert i kopi av avtaler DSS har som gjør at en
 721 ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som gjelder for
 722 utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
 723 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 724
 725 &lt;p&gt;Nå venter jeg spent på svaret.  Jeg planlegger å blogge om svaret
 726 her.&lt;/p&gt;
 727 </description>
 728         </item>
 729
 730         <item>
 731                 <title>The cost of ODF and OOXML</title>
 732                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html</link>
 733                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html</guid>
 734                 <pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 18:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
 735                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I just come across a blog post from Glyn Moody reporting the
 736 claimed cost from Microsoft on requiring ODF to be used by the UK
 737 government.  I just sent him an email to let him know that his
 738 assumption are most likely wrong.  Sharing it here in case some of my
 739 blog readers have seem the same numbers float around in the UK.&lt;/p&gt;
 740
 741 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt; &lt;p&gt;Hi.  I just noted your
 742 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/does-microsoft-office-lock-in-cost-the-uk-government-500-million/index.htm&quot;&gt;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/does-microsoft-office-lock-in-cost-the-uk-government-500-million/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;
 743 comment:&lt;/p&gt;
 744
 745 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;They&#39;re all in Danish, not unreasonably, but even
 746 with the help of Google Translate I can&#39;t find any figures about the
 747 savings of &quot;moving to a flexible two standard&quot; as claimed by the
 748 Microsoft email. But I assume it is backed up somewhere, so let&#39;s take
 749 it, and the £500 million figure for the UK, on trust.&quot;
 750 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 751
 752 &lt;p&gt;I can tell you that the Danish reports are inflated.  I believe it is
 753 the same reports that were used in the Norwegian debate around 2007,
 754 and Gisle Hannemyr (a well known IT commentator in Norway) had a look
 755 at the content.  In short, the reason it is claimed that using ODF
 756 will be so costly, is based on the assumption that this mean every
 757 existing document need to be converted from one of the MS Office
 758 formats to ODF, transferred to the receiver, and converted back from
 759 ODF to one of the MS Office formats, and that the conversion will cost
 760 10 minutes of work time for both the sender and the receiver.  In
 761 reality the sender would have a tool capable of saving to ODF, and the
 762 receiver would have a tool capable of reading it, and the time spent
 763 would at most be a few seconds for saving and loading, not 20 minutes
 764 of wasted effort.&lt;/p&gt;
 765
 766 &lt;p&gt;Microsoft claimed all these costs were saved by allowing people to
 767 transfer the original files from MS Office instead of spending 10
 768 minutes converting to ODF. :)&lt;/p&gt;
 769
 770 &lt;p&gt;See
 771 &lt;a href=&quot;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12_vl02.php&quot;&gt;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12_vl02.php&lt;/a&gt;
 772 and
 773 &lt;a href=&quot;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12.php&quot;&gt;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12.php&lt;/a&gt;
 774 for background information.  Norwegian only, sorry. :)&lt;/p&gt;
 775 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 776 </description>
 777         </item>
 778
 779         <item>
 780                 <title>OpenOffice.org fungerer da fint for blinde?</title>
 781                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OpenOffice_org_fungerer_da_fint_for_blinde_.html</link>
 782                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OpenOffice_org_fungerer_da_fint_for_blinde_.html</guid>
 783                 <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 23:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
 784                 <description>&lt;p&gt;De siste dagene har høringsuttalelsene om DIFIs forslag til
 785 standardkatalog v3.1 blitt
 786 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder?tab=comments&quot;&gt;publisert
 787 på DIFIs nettside&lt;/a&gt;, og jeg kunne der glede meg over at
 788 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/201204-standardkatalog-v3.1&quot;&gt;NUUGs&lt;/a&gt;
 789 uttalelse er kommet med.  En uttalelse som overrasker og forvirrer meg
 790 er
 791 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/filearchive/norges-blindeforbund.pdf&quot;&gt;den
 792 fra Norges Blindeforbund&lt;/a&gt;, som 5 år etter at Klaus Knopper sammen
 793 med sin blinde kone blant annet
 794 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20071211-accessibility/&quot;&gt;demonstrerte
 795 høyttalende OpenOffice.org på nynorsk for blinde&lt;/a&gt; på et NUUG-møte.&lt;/p&gt;
 796
 797 &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blindeforbundet.no/&quot;&gt;Norges Blindeforbund&lt;/a&gt;
 798 skriver følgende, som for meg virker å være formulert på sviktende
 799 grunnlag:&lt;/p&gt;
 800
 801 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 802 &lt;p&gt;Bruk av fri programvare
 803
 804 &lt;p&gt;I FRIPROGSENTERET, RAPPORT 2009-02: Universell utforming
 805 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kunnskapsbazaren.no/filer/Friprogsenteret-Rapport-Universell_utforming.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.kunnskapsbazaren.no/filer/Friprogsenteret-Rapport-Universell_utforming.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
 806 sies det &quot;Det finnes i dag ikke mange fri programvare-rammeverk eller
 807 generelle løsninger som støtter tilgjengelighet eller som er
 808 universelt utformet.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
 809
 810 &lt;p&gt;Til tross for at det gjennom prinsippene i fri programvare åpnes
 811 for større frihet til selv å påvirke programvareløsninger i retning av
 812 universell utforming viser praksis at virkeligheten er en annen.
 813 Mange av de mest alminnelige frie programvarepakkene mangler delvis
 814 eller fullstendig tilgjengelighet for mennesker med nedsatt
 815 syn. Eksempler på dette er OpenOffice og LibreOffice m.fl.&lt;/p&gt;
 816
 817 &lt;p&gt;En annen utfordring ved bruk av fri programvare kan være manglende
 818 kundestøtte og muligheter til opplæring i bruk av løsningen. Svaksynte
 819 og blinde har et høyere behov for denne typen støtte enn andre brukere
 820 ettersom mange av dem har behov for tilleggsprogramvare som skal
 821 fungere sammen med den opprinnelige programvaren, og ettersom man ikke
 822 har de samme muligheter for overblikk over grensesnittet som en seende
 823 bruker. I tillegg til dette kommer de mer tilgjengelighetstekniske
 824 utfordringene som ofte må løses i samarbeid med
 825 programvareleverandør/produsent.&lt;/p&gt;
 826
 827 &lt;p&gt;Fri programvare er ikke på samme måte underlagt lovgivning gjennom
 828 for eksempel diskriminerings og tilgjengelighetsloven ettersom det
 829 ikke alltid finnes en produsent/tilbyder av tjenesten eller produktet.&lt;/p&gt;
 830
 831 &lt;p&gt;Norges Blindeforbund krever at universell utforming og
 832 brukskvalitet tas med som viktige hensyn i utredninger som ligger til
 833 grunn for valg av standarder som primært leder brukeren mot fri
 834 programvare. Et eksempel på dette er bruk av dokumentformatet ODF som
 835 leder brukeren i retning av OpenOffice, som er helt eller delvis
 836 utilgjengelig for svaksynte og blinde – noe avhengig av plattform og
 837 hjelpemiddelprogramvare.&lt;/p&gt;
 838
 839 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 840
 841 &lt;p&gt;Jeg håper noen involvert i OpenOffice.org og/eller LibreOffice tar
 842 kontakt med Norges Blindeforbund og oppklarer det som for meg virker å
 843 være en misforståelse, i og med at OpenOffice.org så vidt jeg vet
 844 fungerer fint også for blinde.&lt;/p&gt;
 845
 846 &lt;p&gt;Jeg ble minnet på problemstillingen da jeg leste Slashdot-saken om
 847 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/05/21/1417221/the-state-of-linux-accessibility&quot;&gt;The
 848 State of Linux Accessibility&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, som også hevder at Linux fungerer
 849 utmerket for blinde.&lt;/p&gt;
 850 </description>
 851         </item>
 852
 853         <item>
 854                 <title>NUUGs leverer høringsuttalelse om v3.1 av statens referansekatalog</title>
 855                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_leverer_h_ringsuttalelse_om_v3_1_av_statens_referansekatalog.html</link>
 856                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_leverer_h_ringsuttalelse_om_v3_1_av_statens_referansekatalog.html</guid>
 857                 <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
 858                 <description>&lt;p&gt;NUUG-styremedlem Hans-Petter Fjeld
 859 &lt;a href=&quot;https://plus.google.com/u/0/110394259537201279374/posts/AGzRmAuFdW1&quot;&gt;meldte
 860 nettopp&lt;/a&gt; at han har sendt inn &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/&quot;&gt;NUUG&lt;/a&gt;s
 861 høringsuttalelse angående Difi sin standardkatalog v3.1.  Jeg er veldig
 862 glad for at så mange bidro og sikret at vår stemme blir hørt i denne
 863 høringen.  Anbefaler alle å lese våre
 864 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/201204-standardkatalog-v3.1&quot;&gt;to
 865 sider med innspill&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 866 </description>
 867         </item>
 868
 869         <item>
 870                 <title>HTC One X - Your video?  What do you mean?</title>
 871                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html</link>
 872                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html</guid>
 873                 <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
 874                 <description>&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article243690.ece&quot;&gt;an
 875 article today&lt;/a&gt; published by Computerworld Norway, the photographer
 876 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urke.com/eirik/&quot;&gt;Eirik Helland Urke&lt;/a&gt; reports
 877 that the video editor application included with
 878 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/htc-one-x/#specs&quot;&gt;HTC One
 879 X&lt;/a&gt; have some quite surprising terms of use.  The article is mostly
 880 based on the twitter message from mister Urke, stating:
 881
 882 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 883 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/urke/status/194062269724897280&quot;&gt;Drøy
 884 brukeravtale: HTC kan bruke MINE redigerte videoer kommersielt. Selv
 885 kan jeg KUN bruke dem privat.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;
 886 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 887
 888 &lt;p&gt;I quickly translated it to this English message:&lt;/p&gt;
 889
 890 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 891 &quot;Arrogant user agreement: HTC can use MY edited videos
 892 commercially.  Although I can ONLY use them privately.&quot;
 893 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 894
 895 &lt;p&gt;I&#39;ve been unable to find the text of the license term myself, but
 896 suspect it is a variation of the MPEG-LA terms I
 897 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&quot;&gt;discovered
 898 with my Canon IXUS 130&lt;/a&gt;.  The HTC One X specification specifies that
 899 the recording format of the phone is .amr for audio and .mp3 for
 900 video.  AMR is
 901 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Multi-Rate_audio_codec#Licensing_and_patent_issues&quot;&gt;Adaptive
 902 Multi-Rate audio codec&lt;/a&gt; with patents which according to the
 903 Wikipedia article require an license agreement with
 904 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.voiceage.com/&quot;&gt;VoiceAge&lt;/a&gt;.  MP4 is
 905 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing&quot;&gt;MPEG4 with
 906 H.264&lt;/a&gt;, which according to Wikipedia require a licence agreement
 907 with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 908
 909 &lt;p&gt;I know why I prefer
 910 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;free and open
 911 standards&lt;/a&gt; also for video.&lt;/p&gt;
 912 </description>
 913         </item>
 914
 915         <item>
 916                 <title>RAND terms - non-reasonable and discriminatory</title>
 917                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/RAND_terms___non_reasonable_and_discriminatory.html</link>
 918                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/RAND_terms___non_reasonable_and_discriminatory.html</guid>
 919                 <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
 920                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Here in Norway, the
 921 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad.html?id=339&quot;&gt; Ministry of
 922 Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs&lt;/a&gt; is behind
 923 a &lt;a href=&quot;http://standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder&quot;&gt;directory of
 924 standards&lt;/a&gt; that are recommended or mandatory for use by the
 925 government.  When the directory was created, the people behind it made
 926 an effort to ensure that everyone would be able to implement the
 927 standards and compete on equal terms to supply software and solutions
 928 to the government.  Free software and non-free software could compete
 929 on the same level.&lt;/p&gt;
 930
 931 &lt;p&gt;But recently, some standards with RAND
 932 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing&quot;&gt;Reasonable
 933 And Non-Discriminatory&lt;/a&gt;) terms have made their way into the
 934 directory.  And while this might not sound too bad, the fact is that
 935 standard specifications with RAND terms often block free software from
 936 implementing them.  The reasonable part of RAND mean that the cost per
 937 user/unit is low,and the non-discriminatory part mean that everyone
 938 willing to pay will get a license.  Both sound great in theory.  In
 939 practice, to get such license one need to be able to count users, and
 940 be able to pay a small amount of money per unit or user.  By
 941 definition, users of free software do not need to register their use.
 942 So counting users or units is not possible for free software projects.
 943 And given that people will use the software without handing any money
 944 to the author, it is not really economically possible for a free
 945 software author to pay a small amount of money to license the rights
 946 to implement a standard when the income available is zero.  The result
 947 in these situations is that free software are locked out from
 948 implementing standards with RAND terms.&lt;/p&gt;
 949
 950 &lt;p&gt;Because of this, when I see someone claiming the terms of a
 951 standard is reasonable and non-discriminatory, all I can think of is
 952 how this really is non-reasonable and discriminatory.  Because free
 953 software developers are working in a global market, it does not really
 954 help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable
 955 in Norway.  The patent regimes in other countries affect us even here.
 956 I really hope the people behind the standard directory will pay more
 957 attention to these issues in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
 958
 959 &lt;p&gt;You can find more on the issues with RAND, FRAND and RAND-Z terms
 960 from Simon Phipps
 961 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/rand-not-so-reasonable/&quot;&gt;RAND:
 962 Not So Reasonable?&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
 963
 964 &lt;p&gt;Update 2012-04-21: Just came across a
 965 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/of-microsoft-netscape-patents-and-open-standards/index.htm&quot;&gt;blog
 966 post from Glyn Moody&lt;/a&gt; over at Computer World UK warning about the
 967 same issue, and urging people to speak out to the UK government.  I
 968 can only urge Norwegian users to do the same for
 969 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder&quot;&gt;the
 970 hearing taking place at the moment&lt;/a&gt; (respond before 2012-04-27).
 971 It proposes to require video conferencing standards including
 972 specifications with RAND terms.&lt;/p&gt;
 973 </description>
 974         </item>
 975
 976         <item>
 977                 <title>The video format most supported in web browsers?</title>
 978                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html</link>
 979                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html</guid>
 980                 <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
 981                 <description>&lt;p&gt;The video format struggle on the web continues, and the three
 982 contenders seem to be Ogg Theora, H.264 and WebM.  Most video sites
 983 seem to use H.264, while others use Ogg Theora.  Interestingly enough,
 984 the comments I see give me the feeling that a lot of people believe
 985 H.264 is the most supported video format in browsers, but according to
 986 the Wikipedia article on
 987 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video&quot;&gt;HTML5 video&lt;/a&gt;,
 988 this is not true.  Check out the nice table of supprted formats in
 989 different browsers there.  The format supported by most browsers is
 990 Ogg Theora, supported by released versions of Mozilla Firefox, Google
 991 Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Origyn Web Browser and
 992 BOLT browser, while not supported by Internet Explorer nor Safari.
 993 The runner up is WebM supported by released versions of Google Chrome
 994 Chromium Opera and Origyn Web Browser, and test versions of Mozilla
 995 Firefox.  H.264 is supported by released versions of Safari, Origyn
 996 Web Browser and BOLT browser, and the test version of Internet
 997 Explorer.  Those wanting Ogg Theora support in Internet Explorer and
 998 Safari can install plugins to get it.&lt;/p&gt;
 999
1000 &lt;p&gt;To me, the simple conclusion from this is that to reach most users
1001 without any extra software installed, one uses Ogg Theora with the
1002 HTML5 video tag.   Of course to reach all those without a browser
1003 handling HTML5, one need fallback mechanisms.  In
1004 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/&quot;&gt;NUUG&lt;/a&gt;, we provide first fallback to a
1005 plugin capable of playing MPEG1 video, and those without such support
1006 we have a second fallback to the Cortado java applet playing Ogg
1007 Theora.  This seem to work quite well, as can be seen in an &lt;a
1008 href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20110111-semantic-web/&quot;&gt;example
1009 from last week&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
1010
1011 &lt;p&gt;The reason Ogg Theora is the most supported format, and H.264 is
1012 the least supported is simple.  Implementing and using H.264
1013 require royalty payment to MPEG-LA, and the terms of use from MPEG-LA
1014 are incompatible with free software licensing.  If you believed H.264
1015 was without royalties and license terms, check out
1016 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 – Not The Kind Of
1017 Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Simon Phipps.&lt;/p&gt;
1018
1019 &lt;p&gt;A incomplete list of sites providing video in Ogg Theora is
1020 available from
1021 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/List_of_Theora_videos&quot;&gt;the
1022 Xiph.org wiki&lt;/a&gt;, if you want to have a look.  I&#39;m not aware of a
1023 similar list for WebM nor H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
1024
1025 &lt;p&gt;Update 2011-01-16 09:40: A question from Tollef on IRC made me
1026 realise that I failed to make it clear enough this text is about the
1027 &amp;lt;video&amp;gt; tag support in browsers and not the video support
1028 provided by external plugins like the Flash plugins.&lt;/p&gt;
1029 </description>
1030         </item>
1031
1032         <item>
1033                 <title>Chrome plan to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &amp;lt;video&amp;gt;</title>
1034                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html</link>
1035                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html</guid>
1036                 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
1037                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Today I discovered
1038 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digi.no/860070/google-dropper-h264-stotten-i-chrome&quot;&gt;via
1039 digi.no&lt;/a&gt; that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement,
1040 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html&quot;&gt;yesterday
1041 announced&lt;/a&gt; plans to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &amp;lt;video&amp;gt; in
1042 the browser.  The argument used is that H.264 is not a &quot;completely
1043 open&quot; codec technology.  If you believe H.264 was free for everyone
1044 to use, I recommend having a look at the essay
1045 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 – Not The Kind Of
1046 Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  It is not free of cost for creators of video
1047 tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the
1048 terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from
1049 licensing the patents needed for H.264.  Some background information
1050 on the Google announcement is available from
1051 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/24243/Google_To_Drop_H264_Support_from_Chrome&quot;&gt;OSnews&lt;/a&gt;.
1052 A good read. :)&lt;/p&gt;
1053
1054 &lt;p&gt;Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to
1055 promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on
1056 the Internet.  This can only be done by publishing using free and open
1057 standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support
1058 for these free and open standards.  At the moment there seem to be two
1059 camps in the web browser world when it come to video support.  Some
1060 browsers support H.264, and others support
1061 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theora.org/&quot;&gt;Ogg Theora&lt;/a&gt; and
1062 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.webmproject.org/&quot;&gt;WebM&lt;/a&gt;
1063 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diracvideo.org/&quot;&gt;Dirac&lt;/a&gt; is not really an option
1064 yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet
1065 and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for
1066 H.264 to not reach all potential viewers.
1067 Wikipedia keep &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video&quot;&gt;an
1068 updated summary&lt;/a&gt; of the current browser support.&lt;/p&gt;
1069
1070 &lt;p&gt;Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep
1071 promoting H.264, and John Gruber
1072 &lt;a href=&quot;http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions&quot;&gt;presents
1073 the mind set&lt;/a&gt; of these people quite well.  His rhetorical questions
1074 provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions
1075 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM&quot;&gt;presenting
1076 the issues with H.264&lt;/a&gt;. Both are worth a read.&lt;/p&gt;
1077
1078 &lt;p&gt;Some argue that if Google is dropping H.264 because it isn&#39;t free,
1079 they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin.  This
1080 argument was covered by Simon Phipps in
1081 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/01/google-and-h264---far-from-hypocritical/index.htm&quot;&gt;todays
1082 blog post&lt;/a&gt;, which I find to put the issue in context.  To me it
1083 make perfect sense to drop native H.264 support for HTML5 in the
1084 browser while still allowing plugins.&lt;/p&gt;
1085
1086 &lt;p&gt;I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest,
1087 is that all the users and promoters of H.264 suddenly get an uneasy
1088 feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse.  A lot of TV
1089 broadcasters have been moving to H.264 the last few years, and a lot
1090 of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they
1091 could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web
1092 publishing.  Suddenly this belief is shaken.&lt;/p&gt;
1093
1094 &lt;p&gt;An interesting question is why Google is doing this.  While the
1095 presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only
1096 present the argument if the change make sense from a business
1097 perspective.  One reason might be that they are currently negotiating
1098 with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the
1099 feeling that dropping H.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and
1100 Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google.
1101 Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having
1102 to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a
1103 video format not requiring royalties at all.  A third reason might be
1104 that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the
1105 Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome.
1106 I guess time will tell.&lt;/p&gt;
1107
1108 &lt;p&gt;Update 2011-01-15: The Google Chrome team provided
1109 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html&quot;&gt;more
1110 background and information on the move&lt;/a&gt; it a blog post yesterday.&lt;/p&gt;
1111 </description>
1112         </item>
1113
1114         <item>
1115                 <title>What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?</title>
1116                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html</link>
1117                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html</guid>
1118                 <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:15:00 +0100</pubDate>
1119                 <description>&lt;p&gt;After trying to
1120 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html&quot;&gt;compare
1121 Ogg Theora&lt;/a&gt; to
1122 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;the Digistan
1123 definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
1124 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
1125 this.  As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
1126 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
1127 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others.  But to be able to complete this in a
1128 reasonable time frame, I will need help.&lt;/p&gt;
1129
1130 &lt;p&gt;If you want to help out with this work, please visit
1131 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse&quot;&gt;the
1132 wiki pages I have set up for this&lt;/a&gt;, and let me know that you want
1133 to help out.  The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
1134 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
1135 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
1136 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).&lt;/p&gt;
1137
1138 &lt;p&gt;The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do.  Do not be
1139 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)&lt;/p&gt;
1140 </description>
1141         </item>
1142
1143         <item>
1144                 <title>The many definitions of a open standard</title>
1145                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html</link>
1146                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html</guid>
1147                 <pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:45:00 +0100</pubDate>
1148                 <description>&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
1149 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;Free and
1150 Open Standard&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
1151 the term has been decided by Digistan.  The term &quot;Open Standard&quot; has
1152 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
1153 about standards.  One end up discussing which definition is the best
1154 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
1155 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.&lt;/p&gt;
1156
1157 &lt;p&gt;But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
1158 standards, here are a few that I know about.  This list is not
1159 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
1160 complete survey.  More definitions are available on the
1161 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard&quot;&gt;wikipedia
1162 page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
1163
1164 &lt;p&gt;First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
1165 Interoperability Framework version 1.0.  Really sad to notice that BSA
1166 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the
1167 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
1168 their own people.  Anyway, the definition is still available and it
1169 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
1170 specification on equal terms.&lt;/p&gt;
1171
1172 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1173
1174 &lt;p&gt;The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
1175 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
1176 open standard:&lt;/p&gt;
1177
1178 &lt;ul&gt;
1179
1180 &lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
1181 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
1182 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
1183 (consensus or majority decision etc.).&lt;/li&gt;
1184
1185 &lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
1186 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
1187 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
1188 nominal fee.&lt;/li&gt;
1189
1190 &lt;li&gt;The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
1191 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
1192 free basis.&lt;/li&gt;
1193
1194 &lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;
1195
1196 &lt;/ul&gt;
1197 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1198
1199 &lt;p&gt;Another one originates from my friends over at
1200 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dkuug.dk/&quot;&gt;DKUUG&lt;/a&gt;, who coined and gathered
1201 support for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aaben-standard.dk/&quot;&gt;this
1202 definition&lt;/a&gt; in 2004.  It even made it into the Danish parlament as
1203 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm&quot;&gt;their
1204 definition of a open standard&lt;/a&gt;.  Another from a different part of
1205 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.&lt;/p&gt;
1206
1207 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1208
1209 &lt;p&gt;En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:&lt;/p&gt;
1210
1211 &lt;ol&gt;
1212
1213 &lt;li&gt;Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
1214 tilgængelig.&lt;/li&gt;
1215
1216 &lt;li&gt;Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
1217 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.&lt;/li&gt;
1218
1219 &lt;li&gt;Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
1220 &quot;standardiseringsorganisation&quot;) via en åben proces.&lt;/li&gt;
1221
1222 &lt;/ol&gt;
1223
1224 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1225
1226 &lt;p&gt;Then there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html&quot;&gt;the
1227 definition&lt;/a&gt; from Free Software Foundation Europe.&lt;/p&gt;
1228
1229 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1230
1231 &lt;p&gt;An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is&lt;/p&gt;
1232
1233 &lt;ol&gt;
1234
1235 &lt;li&gt;subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
1236 manner equally available to all parties;&lt;/li&gt;
1237
1238 &lt;li&gt;without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
1239 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
1240 Standard themselves;&lt;/li&gt;
1241
1242 &lt;li&gt;free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
1243 any party or in any business model;&lt;/li&gt;
1244
1245 &lt;li&gt;managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
1246 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
1247 parties;&lt;/li&gt;
1248
1249 &lt;li&gt;available in multiple complete implementations by competing
1250 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
1251 parties.&lt;/li&gt;
1252
1253 &lt;/ol&gt;
1254
1255 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1256
1257 &lt;p&gt;A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
1258 its
1259 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf&quot;&gt;Open
1260 Standards Checklist&lt;/a&gt; with a fairly detailed description.&lt;/p&gt;
1261
1262 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1263 &lt;p&gt;Creation and Management of an Open Standard
1264
1265 &lt;ul&gt;
1266
1267 &lt;li&gt;Its development and management process must be collaborative and
1268   democratic:
1269
1270          &lt;ul&gt;
1271
1272          &lt;li&gt;Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
1273             participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
1274             imposed by the organization under which it is developed
1275             and managed.&lt;/li&gt;
1276
1277          &lt;li&gt;The processes must be documented and, through a known
1278             method, can be changed through input from all
1279             participants.&lt;/li&gt;
1280
1281          &lt;li&gt;The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
1282             the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.&lt;/li&gt;
1283
1284          &lt;li&gt;Development and management should strive for consensus,
1285             and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.&lt;/li&gt;
1286
1287          &lt;li&gt;The standard specification must be open to extensive
1288             public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
1289             comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.&lt;/li&gt;
1290
1291          &lt;/ul&gt;
1292
1293 &lt;/li&gt;
1294
1295 &lt;/ul&gt;
1296
1297 &lt;p&gt;Use and Licensing of an Open Standard&lt;/p&gt;
1298 &lt;ul&gt;
1299
1300 &lt;li&gt;The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
1301   and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
1302   implementations to the interface described in the standard without
1303   undue or restrictive constraints.  Interfaces include APIs,
1304   protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.&lt;/li&gt;
1305
1306 &lt;li&gt; The standard must not contain any proprietary &quot;hooks&quot; that create
1307   a technical or economic barriers&lt;/li&gt;
1308
1309 &lt;li&gt;Faithful implementations of the standard must
1310   interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
1311   program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
1312   programs and mutually to use the information which has been
1313   exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
1314   file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
1315   conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
1316   computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
1317   intended to function.&lt;/li&gt;
1318
1319 &lt;li&gt;It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
1320   standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
1321   must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.&lt;/li&gt;
1322
1323 &lt;li&gt;It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
1324   fees; also known as &quot;royalty free&quot;), worldwide, non-exclusive and
1325   perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
1326   sell products based on the standard.  The only exceptions are
1327   terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
1328   outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
1329   patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
1330   only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
1331
1332       &lt;ul&gt;
1333
1334       &lt;li&gt; May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
1335         licensees&#39; patent claims essential to practice that standard
1336         (also known as a reciprocity clause)&lt;/li&gt;
1337
1338       &lt;li&gt; May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
1339         or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
1340         essential to practice that standard (also known as a
1341         &quot;defensive suspension&quot; clause)&lt;/li&gt;
1342
1343       &lt;li&gt; The same licensing terms are available to every potential
1344         licensor&lt;/li&gt;
1345
1346       &lt;/ul&gt;
1347 &lt;/li&gt;
1348
1349 &lt;li&gt;The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
1350   implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
1351   or restricted licensing terms&lt;/li&gt;
1352
1353 &lt;/ul&gt;
1354
1355 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1356
1357 &lt;p&gt;It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
1358 there are so many of them.  As you can see, the same holds true for
1359 open standard definitions.  Most of the definitions have a lot in
1360 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
1361 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
1362 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
1363 competition to downplay the significance of open standards.  I hope we
1364 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
1365 Standards.&lt;/p&gt;
1366 </description>
1367         </item>
1368
1369         <item>
1370                 <title>Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?</title>
1371                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</link>
1372                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</guid>
1373                 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
1374                 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;The
1375 Digistan definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard reads like this:&lt;/p&gt;
1376
1377 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1378
1379 &lt;p&gt;The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
1380 as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
1381
1382 &lt;ol&gt;
1383
1384 &lt;li&gt;A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
1385 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
1386 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.&lt;/li&gt;
1387
1388 &lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
1389 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
1390 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
1391 parties.&lt;/li&gt;
1392
1393 &lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
1394 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
1395 distribute, and use it freely.&lt;/li&gt;
1396
1397 &lt;li&gt;The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
1398 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.&lt;/li&gt;
1399
1400 &lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;
1401
1402 &lt;/ol&gt;
1403
1404 &lt;p&gt;The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
1405 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
1406 products based on the standard.&lt;/p&gt;
1407 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1408
1409 &lt;p&gt;For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
1410 and open standard according to this definition.  Here is a short
1411 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far.  I brought up the
1412 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
1413 &lt;a href=&quot;http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html&quot;&gt;in
1414 July 2009&lt;/a&gt;, for those that want to see some background information.
1415 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
1416 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;
1417
1418 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free from vendor capture?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1419
1420 &lt;p&gt;As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
1421 Ogg Theora specification.  It can be argued that the
1422 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/&quot;&gt;Xiph foundation&lt;/A&gt; is such vendor, but
1423 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
1424 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
1425 obvious that this is a real risk.  One issue with the Xiph
1426 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
1427 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web.  I&#39;ve
1428 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
1429 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
1430 where is is spent in the foundation.  It is thus not obvious for an
1431 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
1432 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
1433 specification.  But it seem unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;
1434
1435 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1436
1437 &lt;p&gt;Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
1438 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled.  If Xiph foundation is
1439 controlled by a single vendor, it isn&#39;t, but I have not found any
1440 documentation indicating this.&lt;/p&gt;
1441
1442 &lt;p&gt;According to
1443 &lt;a href=&quot;http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf&quot;&gt;a report&lt;/a&gt;
1444 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
1445 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
1446 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
1447 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
1448 report is correct.&lt;/p&gt;
1449
1450 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Specification freely available?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1451
1452 &lt;p&gt;The specification for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/&quot;&gt;Ogg
1453 container format&lt;/a&gt; and both the
1454 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/&quot;&gt;Vorbis&lt;/a&gt; and
1455 &lt;a href=&quot;http://theora.org/doc/&quot;&gt;Theora&lt;/a&gt; codeces are available on
1456 the web.  This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
1457
1458 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1459
1460 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
1461 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
1462 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
1463 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
1464 specification compliance.
1465
1466 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1467
1468 &lt;p&gt;The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
1469 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 3533&lt;/a&gt;, and
1470 this is the term:&lt;p&gt;
1471
1472 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1473
1474 &lt;p&gt;This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
1475 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
1476 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
1477 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
1478 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
1479 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
1480 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
1481 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
1482 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
1483 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
1484 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
1485 translate it into languages other than English.&lt;/p&gt;
1486
1487 &lt;p&gt;The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
1488 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.&lt;/p&gt;
1489 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1490
1491 &lt;p&gt;All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
1492 this term seem to be fulfilled.  There might be a problem with the
1493 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
1494 thus reuse it in other specifications.  Not quite sure if that is a
1495 requirement for the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;
1496
1497 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Royalty-free?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1498
1499 &lt;p&gt;There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
1500 Theora format.
1501 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;
1502 and
1503 &lt;a href=&quot;http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit&quot;&gt;Steve
1504 Jobs&lt;/a&gt; in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
1505 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
1506 them.  Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
1507 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
1508 without paying any royalties.  For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
1509 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
1510 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.&lt;/p&gt;
1511
1512 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No constraints on re-use?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1513
1514 &lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.&lt;/p&gt;
1515
1516 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1517
1518 &lt;p&gt;3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
1519 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation.  Given the
1520 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
1521 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
1522 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
1523 this.&lt;/p&gt;
1524
1525 &lt;p&gt;It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
1526 see if they are free and open standards.&lt;/p&gt;
1527 </description>
1528         </item>
1529
1530         <item>
1531                 <title>The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru</title>
1532                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html</link>
1533                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html</guid>
1534                 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
1535                 <description>&lt;p&gt;A few days ago
1536 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece&quot;&gt;an
1537 article&lt;/a&gt; in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
1538 2.0 of
1539 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework&quot;&gt;European
1540 Interoperability Framework&lt;/a&gt; has been successfully lobbied by the
1541 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
1542 Nothing very surprising there, given
1543 &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe&quot;&gt;earlier
1544 reports&lt;/a&gt; on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
1545 this work.  But I find this very sad.   The definition of
1546 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt&quot;&gt;an
1547 open standard from version 1&lt;/a&gt; was very good, and something I
1548 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
1549 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;the
1550 definition from Digistan&lt;/A&gt;.  Version 2 have removed the open
1551 standard definition from its content.&lt;/p&gt;
1552
1553 &lt;p&gt;Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
1554 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
1555 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
1556 in the public sector in Peru.  As the text was not available from a
1557 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
1558 &lt;a href=&quot;http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html&quot;&gt;my
1559 source&lt;/a&gt; to ensure it is available also in the future.  Some
1560 background information about that story is available in
1561 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099&quot;&gt;an article&lt;/a&gt; from
1562 Linux Journal in 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
1563
1564 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1565 &lt;p&gt;Lima, 8th of April, 2002&lt;br&gt;
1566 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ&lt;br&gt;
1567 General Manager of Microsoft Perú&lt;/p&gt;
1568
1569 &lt;p&gt;Dear Sir:&lt;/p&gt;
1570
1571 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1572
1573 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1574
1575 &lt;p&gt;With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call &quot;open source software&quot; is what the Bill defines as &quot;free software&quot;, 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 &quot;commercial software&quot; is what the Bill defines as &quot;proprietary&quot; or &quot;unfree&quot;, given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.&lt;/p&gt;
1576
1577 &lt;p&gt;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:&lt;/p&gt;
1578
1579 &lt;p&gt;
1580 &lt;ul&gt;
1581 &lt;li&gt;Free access to public information by the citizen. &lt;/li&gt;
1582 &lt;li&gt;Permanence of public data. &lt;/li&gt;
1583 &lt;li&gt;Security of the State and citizens.&lt;/li&gt;
1584 &lt;/ul&gt;
1585 &lt;/p&gt;
1586
1587 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1588
1589 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1590
1591 &lt;p&gt;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*. &lt;/p&gt;
1592
1593 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1594
1595 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1596
1597
1598 &lt;p&gt;From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:&lt;br&gt;
1599 &lt;li&gt;the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software&lt;/li&gt;
1600 &lt;li&gt;the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software&lt;/li&gt;
1601 &lt;li&gt;the law does not specify which concrete software to use&lt;/li&gt;
1602 &lt;li&gt;the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought&lt;/li&gt;
1603 &lt;li&gt;the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.&lt;/li&gt;
1604
1605 &lt;/p&gt;
1606
1607 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1608
1609 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1610
1611 &lt;p&gt;As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:&lt;/p&gt;
1612
1613 &lt;p&gt;Firstly, you point out that: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1614
1615 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1616
1617 &lt;p&gt;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).&lt;/p&gt;
1618
1619 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1620
1621 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1622
1623 &lt;p&gt;By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office &quot;suite&quot;, 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1624
1625 &lt;p&gt;To continue; you note that:&quot; 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...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1626
1627 &lt;p&gt;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 &quot;non-competitive ... practices.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1628
1629 &lt;p&gt;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 &quot;a priori&quot;, 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1630
1631 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1632
1633 &lt;p&gt;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&#39; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1634
1635 &lt;p&gt;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: &quot;update your software to the new version&quot; (at the user&#39;s expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider&#39;s judgment alone, are &quot;old&quot;; 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 &quot;trapped&quot; 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).&lt;/p&gt;
1636
1637 &lt;p&gt;You add: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1638
1639 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1640
1641 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1642
1643 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1644
1645 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1646
1647 &lt;p&gt;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 &quot;ad hoc&quot; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1648
1649 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1650
1651 &lt;p&gt;Your letter continues: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1652
1653 &lt;p&gt;Alluding in an abstract way to &quot;the dangers this can bring&quot;, 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1654
1655 &lt;p&gt;On security:&lt;/p&gt;
1656
1657 &lt;p&gt;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 &quot;bugs&quot; (in programmers&#39; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1658
1659 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1660
1661 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1662
1663 &lt;p&gt;In respect of the guarantee:&lt;/p&gt;
1664
1665 &lt;p&gt;As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the &quot;End User License Agreement&quot; 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&#39;&#39;, 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1666
1667 &lt;p&gt;On Intellectual Property:&lt;/p&gt;
1668
1669 &lt;p&gt;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&#39;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).&lt;/p&gt;
1670
1671 &lt;p&gt;You go on to say that: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1672
1673 &lt;p&gt;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).&lt;/p&gt;
1674
1675 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1676
1677 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1678
1679 &lt;p&gt;You continue: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1680
1681 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1682
1683 &lt;p&gt;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 (&quot;blue screens of death&quot;, 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1684
1685 &lt;p&gt;You further state that: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1686
1687 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1688
1689 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1690
1691 &lt;p&gt;You continue: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1692
1693 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1694
1695 &lt;p&gt;The second argument refers to &quot;problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector&quot; 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.&lt;/p&gt;
1696
1697 &lt;p&gt;You then say that: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1698
1699 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1700
1701 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1702
1703 &lt;p&gt;You continue by observing that: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1704
1705 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1706
1707 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1708
1709 &lt;p&gt;You go on to say that: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1710
1711 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1712
1713 &lt;p&gt;You then state that: &quot;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.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1714
1715 &lt;p&gt;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&#39;t have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That&#39;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1716
1717 &lt;p&gt;You end with a rhetorical question: &quot;13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn&#39;t it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1718
1719 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1720
1721 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1722
1723 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1724
1725 &lt;p&gt;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.&lt;/p&gt;
1726
1727 &lt;p&gt;Cordially,&lt;br&gt;
1728 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ&lt;br&gt;
1729 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.&lt;/p&gt;
1730 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1731 </description>
1732         </item>
1733
1734         <item>
1735                 <title>Officeshots still going strong</title>
1736                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html</link>
1737                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html</guid>
1738                 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:40:00 +0100</pubDate>
1739                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Half a year ago I
1740 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html&quot;&gt;wrote
1741 a bit&lt;/a&gt; about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.officeshots.org/&quot;&gt;OfficeShots&lt;/a&gt;,
1742 a web service to allow anyone to test how ODF documents are handled by
1743 the different programs reading and writing the ODF format.&lt;/p&gt;
1744
1745 &lt;p&gt;I just had a look at the service, and it seem to be going strong.
1746 Very interesting to see the results reported in the gallery, how
1747 different Office implementations handle different ODF features.  Sad
1748 to see that KOffice was not doing it very well, and happy to see that
1749 LibreOffice has been tested already (but sadly not listed as a option
1750 for OfficeShots users yet).  I am glad to see that the ODF community
1751 got such a great test tool available.&lt;/p&gt;
1752 </description>
1753         </item>
1754
1755         <item>
1756                 <title>Best å ikke fortelle noen at streaming er nedlasting...</title>
1757                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html</link>
1758                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html</guid>
1759                 <pubDate>Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
1760                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta
1761 &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrkbeta.no/2010/10/27/bakom-blindpassasjer-del-1/&quot;&gt;om
1762 hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget&lt;/a&gt; i forbindelse med at
1763 filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et
1764 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;fritt og
1765 åpent format&lt;/a&gt;.  Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der 07:39.&lt;/p&gt;
1766
1767 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1768 &lt;p&gt;&quot;Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra
1769 nedlasting.  Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer
1770 som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den
1771 nødvendige forkunnskapen.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
1772
1773 &lt;p&gt;Haha.  Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å
1774 beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig.  Å skrive noe slikt
1775 er å forlede leseren.&lt;/p&gt;
1776
1777 &lt;p&gt;Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun
1778 vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.&lt;/p&gt;
1779
1780 &lt;p&gt;Anbefaler forresten å lese
1781 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm&quot;&gt;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;
1782 om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer
1783 (DRM) fungerte.  Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo
1784 derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass,
1785 men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge
1786 opp under.&lt;/p&gt;
1787 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1788
1789 &lt;p&gt;Ca. 20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i
1790 NRKBeta:&lt;/p&gt;
1791
1792 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1793 &lt;p&gt;From: Anders Hofseth &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
1794 &lt;br&gt;To: &quot;pere@hungry.com&quot; &amp;lt;pere@hungry.com&gt;
1795 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Eirik Solheim &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;, Jon Ståle Carlsen &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;, Henrik Lied &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
1796 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: &quot;Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1&quot;
1797 &lt;br&gt;Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:58:44 +0200&lt;/p&gt;
1798
1799 &lt;p&gt;Hei Petter.
1800 &lt;br&gt;Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon,
1801 men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt
1802 om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
1803 særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.&lt;/p&gt;
1804
1805 &lt;p&gt;Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er
1806 fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
1807 konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...&lt;/p&gt;
1808
1809 &lt;p&gt;Med hilsen,
1810 &lt;br&gt;-anders&lt;/p&gt;
1811
1812 &lt;p&gt;Ring meg om noe er uklart: 95XXXXXXX&lt;/p&gt;
1813 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1814
1815 &lt;p&gt;Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte
1816 over følgende svar.  I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas
1817 kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet.
1818 Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å
1819 unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.&lt;/p&gt;
1820
1821 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1822 &lt;p&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere@hungry.com&gt;
1823 &lt;br&gt;To: Anders Hofseth &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
1824 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Eirik Solheim &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;,
1825 &lt;br&gt;        Jon Ståle Carlsen &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;,
1826 &lt;br&gt;        Henrik Lied &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
1827 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: &quot;Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1&quot;
1828 &lt;br&gt;Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:24:34 +0200&lt;/p&gt;
1829
1830 &lt;p&gt;[Anders Hofseth]
1831 &lt;br&gt;&gt; Hei Petter.&lt;/p&gt;
1832
1833 &lt;p&gt;Hei.&lt;/p&gt;
1834
1835 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
1836 &lt;br&gt;&gt; om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
1837 &lt;br&gt;&gt; å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
1838 &lt;br&gt;&gt; særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.&lt;/p&gt;
1839
1840 &lt;p&gt;Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon.  Den
1841 vil nok fortsette en stund til.  :)&lt;/p&gt;
1842
1843 &lt;p&gt;Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med
1844 vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne
1845 fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.&lt;/p&gt;
1846
1847 &lt;p&gt;Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke
1848 faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold
1849 som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker
1850 det.&lt;/p&gt;
1851
1852 &lt;p&gt;Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på
1853 web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta.
1854 Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)&lt;/p&gt;
1855
1856 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
1857 &lt;br&gt;&gt; og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
1858 &lt;br&gt;&gt; konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...&lt;/p&gt;
1859
1860 &lt;p&gt;Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og
1861 heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen
1862 mot de som vil låse kulturen inne.  Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK
1863 godtar å forlede publikum.  Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som
1864 skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i
1865 formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til
1866 H.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).&lt;/p&gt;
1867
1868 &lt;p&gt;At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive
1869 påstander om at &quot;streaming beskytter mot nedlasting&quot; som bare er egnet
1870 til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.&lt;/p&gt;
1871
1872 &lt;p&gt;Anbefaler &amp;lt;URL:&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&quot;&gt;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&lt;/a&gt;&gt; og en
1873 titt på
1874 &amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&quot;&gt;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&lt;/a&gt; &gt;.
1875 for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H.264 innebærer.&lt;/p&gt;
1876
1877 &lt;p&gt;Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke
1878 kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade
1879 samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall
1880 synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er
1881 langt på overtid.&lt;/p&gt;
1882
1883 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX&lt;/p&gt;
1884
1885 &lt;p&gt;Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på.
1886 Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en
1887 gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted
1888 for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med
1889 ryggraden på plass.&lt;/p&gt;
1890
1891 &lt;p&gt;PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.&lt;/p&gt;
1892
1893 &lt;p&gt;Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet.
1894 &amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft&quot;&gt;http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft&lt;/a&gt; &gt; og
1895 &amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://patentabsurdity.com/&quot;&gt;http://patentabsurdity.com/&lt;/a&gt; &gt; hadde vært noe å kringkaste på
1896 NRK1. :)&lt;/p&gt;
1897
1898 &lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen,
1899 &lt;br&gt;--
1900 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
1901 </description>
1902         </item>
1903
1904         <item>
1905                 <title>Standardkrav inn i anbudstekster?</title>
1906                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html</link>
1907                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html</guid>
1908                 <pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
1909                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Hvis det å følge standarder skal ha noen effekt overfor
1910 leverandører, så må slike krav og ønsker komme inn i anbudstekster når
1911 systemer kjøpes inn.  Har ikke sett noen slike formuleringer i anbud
1912 så langt, men har tenkt litt på hva som bør inn.  Her er noen ideer og
1913 forslag.  Min drøm er at en kan sette krav til slik støtte i
1914 anbudstekster, men så langt er det nok mer sannsynlig at en må nøye
1915 seg med å skrive at det er en fordel om slik støtte er tilstede i
1916 leveranser.&lt;/p&gt;
1917
1918 &lt;p&gt;Som systemadministrator på Universitetet er det typisk to områder
1919 som er problematiske for meg.  Det ene er admin-grensesnittene på
1920 tjenermaskiner, som vi ønsker å bruke via ssh.  Det andre er nettsider
1921 som vi ønsker å bruke via en nettleser.  For begge deler er det viktig
1922 at protokollene og formatene som brukes følger standarder våre verktøy
1923 støtter.&lt;/p&gt;
1924
1925 &lt;p&gt;De fleste har nå støtte for SSH som overføringsprotkoll for
1926 admin-grensesnittet, men det er ikke tilstrekkelig for å kunne stille
1927 inn f.eks BIOS og RAID-kontroller via ssh-forbindelsen.  Det er flere
1928 aktuelle protokoller for fremvisning av BIOS-oppsett og
1929 oppstartmeldinger, og min anbefaling ville være å kreve
1930 VT100-kompatibel protokoll, for å sikre at flest mulig
1931 terminalemulatorer kan forstå hva som kommer fra admin-grensesnittet
1932 via ssh.  Andre aktuelle alternativer er ANSI-terminalemulering og
1933 VT220.  Kanskje en formulering ala dette i anbudsutlysninger vil
1934 fungere:&lt;/p&gt;
1935
1936 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1937 BIOS og oppstartmeldinger i administrasjonsgrensesnittet til maskinen
1938 bør/skal være tilgjengelig via SSH-protokollen som definert av IETF
1939 (RFC 4251 mfl.) og følge terminalfremvisningprotokollen VT100 (ref?)
1940 når en kobler seg til oppstart via ssh.
1941 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1942
1943 &lt;p&gt;Har ikke lykkes med å finne en god referanse for
1944 VT100-spesifikasjonen.&lt;/p&gt;
1945
1946 &lt;p&gt;Når det gjelder nettsider, så er det det HTML, CSS og
1947 JavaScript-spesifikasjonen til W3C som gjelder.&lt;/p&gt;
1948
1949 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1950 Alle systemets nettsider bør/skal være i henhold til statens
1951 standardkatalogs krav om nettsider og følge HTML-standarden som
1952 definert av W3C, og validere uten feil hos W3Cs HTML-validator
1953 (http://validator.w3.org).  Hvis det brukes CSS så bør/skal denne
1954 validere uten feil hos W3Cs CSS-validator
1955 (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/).  Eventuelle JavaScript skal
1956 være i henhold til EcmaScript-standarden.  I tillegg til å følge de
1957 overnevnte standardene skal websidene fungere i nettleserne (fyll inn
1958 relevant liste for organisasjonen) Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer 8,
1959 Opera 9, etc.
1960 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1961
1962 &lt;p&gt;Vil et slikt avsnitt være konkret nok til å få leverandørene til å
1963 lage nettsider som følger standardene og fungerer i flere
1964 nettlesere?&lt;/p&gt;
1965
1966 &lt;p&gt;Tar svært gjerne imot innspill på dette temaet til aktive (at)
1967 nuug.no, og er spesielt interessert i hva andre skriver i sine anbud
1968 for å oppmuntre leverandører til å følge standardene.  Kanskje NUUG
1969 burde lage et dokument med forslag til standardformuleringer å ta med
1970 i anbudsutlysninger?&lt;/p&gt;
1971
1972 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2010-12-03: I følge Wikipedias oppføring om
1973 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code&quot;&gt;ANSI escape
1974 code&lt;/a&gt;, så bruker VT100-terminaler ECMA-48-spesifikasjonen som
1975 basis for sin oppførsel.  Det kan dermed være et alternativ når en
1976 skal spesifisere hvordan seriell-konsoll skal fungere.&lt;/p&gt;
1977 </description>
1978         </item>
1979
1980         <item>
1981                 <title>Terms of use for video produced by a Canon IXUS 130 digital camera</title>
1982                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</link>
1983                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</guid>
1984                 <pubDate>Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:55:00 +0200</pubDate>
1985                 <description>&lt;p&gt;A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital
1986 camera, a Canon IXUS 130.  It was instructive and very disturbing to
1987 be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to
1988 specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera.
1989 Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras
1990 are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway.  What is the
1991 problem, you might ask?  It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the
1992 MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences
1993 without asking for permissions that is at risk.
1994
1995 &lt;p&gt;On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is
1996 written:&lt;/p&gt;
1997
1998 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1999 &lt;p&gt;This product is licensed under AT&amp;T patents for the MPEG-4 standard
2000 and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding
2001 MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and
2002 non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the
2003 AT&amp;T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.&lt;/p&gt;
2004
2005 &lt;p&gt;No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4
2006 standard.&lt;/p&gt;
2007 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
2008
2009 &lt;p&gt;In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology
2010 (MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and
2011 non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations
2012 holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.&lt;/p&gt;
2013
2014 &lt;p&gt;This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to
2015 read
2016 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA&quot;&gt;Why
2017 Our Civilization&#39;s Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the
2018 MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Eugenia Loli-Queru and
2019 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&quot;&gt;H.264 Is Not
2020 The Sort Of Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Simon Phipps to learn more about
2021 the issue.  The solution is to support the
2022 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;free and
2023 open standards&lt;/a&gt; for video, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theora.org/&quot;&gt;Ogg
2024 Theora&lt;/a&gt;, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.&lt;/p&gt;
2025 </description>
2026         </item>
2027
2028         <item>
2029                 <title>Officeshots taking shape</title>
2030                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html</link>
2031                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html</guid>
2032                 <pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
2033                 <description>&lt;p&gt;For those of us caring about document exchange and
2034 interoperability, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.officeshots.org/&quot;&gt;OfficeShots&lt;/a&gt;
2035 is a great service.  It is to ODF documents what
2036 &lt;a href=&quot;http://browsershots.org/&quot;&gt;BrowserShots&lt;/a&gt; is for web
2037 pages.&lt;/p&gt;
2038
2039 &lt;p&gt;A while back, I was contacted by Knut Yrvin at the part of Nokia
2040 that used to be Trolltech, who wanted to help the OfficeShots project
2041 and wondered if the University of Oslo where I work would be
2042 interested in supporting the project.  I helped him to navigate his
2043 request to the right people at work, and his request was answered with
2044 a spot in the machine room with power and network connected, and Knut
2045 arranged funding for a machine to fill the spot.  The machine is
2046 administrated by the OfficeShots people, so I do not have daily
2047 contact with its progress, and thus from time to time check back to
2048 see how the project is doing.&lt;/p&gt;
2049
2050 &lt;p&gt;Today I had a look, and was happy to see that the Dell box in our
2051 machine room now is the host for several virtual machines running as
2052 OfficeShots factories, and the project is able to render ODF documents
2053 in 17 different document processing implementation on Linux and
2054 Windows.  This is great.&lt;/p&gt;
2055 </description>
2056         </item>
2057
2058         <item>
2059                 <title>A manual for standards wars...</title>
2060                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html</link>
2061                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html</guid>
2062                 <pubDate>Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:15:00 +0200</pubDate>
2063                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Via the
2064 &lt;a href=&quot;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/robweir/antic-atom/~3/QzU4RgoAGMg/weekly-links-10.html&quot;&gt;blog
2065 of Rob Weir&lt;/a&gt; I came across the very interesting essay named
2066 &lt;a href=&quot;http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/wars.pdf&quot;&gt;The Art of
2067 Standards Wars&lt;/a&gt; (PDF 25 pages).  I recommend it for everyone
2068 following the standards wars of today.&lt;/p&gt;
2069 </description>
2070         </item>
2071
2072         <item>
2073                 <title>Danmark går for ODF?</title>
2074                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Danmark_g_r_for_ODF_.html</link>
2075                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Danmark_g_r_for_ODF_.html</guid>
2076                 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
2077                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Ble nettopp gjort oppmerksom på en
2078 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13690-breaking-odf-vinder-dokumentformat-krigen &quot;&gt;nyhet fra Version2&lt;/a&gt;
2079 fra Danmark, der det hevdes at Folketinget har vedtatt at ODF skal
2080 brukes som dokumentutvekslingsformat i Staten.&lt;/p&gt;
2081
2082 &lt;p&gt;Hyggelig lesning, spesielt hvis det viser seg at de av vedtatt
2083 kravlisten for hva som skal aksepteres som referert i kommentarfeltet
2084 til artikkelen og
2085 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13693-er-ooxml-doemt-ude-her-er-kravene-til-en-offentlig-dokumentstandard&quot;&gt;en
2086 annen artikkel&lt;/a&gt; i samme nett-avis.  Liker spesielt godt denne:&lt;/p&gt;
2087
2088 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt; Det skal demonstreres, at standarden i sin helhed kan
2089 implementeres af alle direkte i sin helhed på flere
2090 platforme.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2091
2092 &lt;p&gt;Noe slikt burde være et krav også i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
2093 </description>
2094         </item>
2095
2096         <item>
2097                 <title>Relative popularity of document formats (MS Office vs. ODF)</title>
2098                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html</link>
2099                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html</guid>
2100                 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
2101                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Just for fun, I did a search right now on Google for a few file ODF
2102 and MS Office based formats (not to be mistaken for ISO or ECMA
2103 OOXML), to get an idea of their relative usage.  I searched using
2104 &#39;filetype:odt&#39; and equvalent terms, and got these results:&lt;/P&gt;
2105
2106 &lt;table&gt;
2107 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2108 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:282000&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:308000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2109 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:75600&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:183000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2110 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:26500     &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:145000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2111 &lt;/table&gt;
2112
2113 &lt;p&gt;Next, I added a &#39;site:no&#39; limit to get the numbers for Norway, and
2114 got these numbers:&lt;/p&gt;
2115
2116 &lt;table&gt;
2117 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2118 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:2480 &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:4460&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2119 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:299   &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:741&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2120 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:187       &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:372&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2121 &lt;/table&gt;
2122
2123 &lt;p&gt;I wonder how these numbers change over time.&lt;/p&gt;
2124
2125 &lt;p&gt;I am aware of Google returning different results and numbers based
2126 on where the search is done, so I guess these numbers will differ if
2127 they are conduced in another country.  Because of this, I did the same
2128 search from a machine in California, USA, a few minutes after the
2129 search done from a machine here in Norway.&lt;/p&gt;
2130
2131
2132 &lt;table&gt;
2133 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2134 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:129000&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:308000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2135 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:44200&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:93900&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2136 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:26500     &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:82400&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2137 &lt;/table&gt;
2138
2139 &lt;p&gt;And with &#39;site:no&#39;:
2140
2141 &lt;table&gt;
2142 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2143 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:2480&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:3410&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2144 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:175&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:604&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2145 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:186       &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:296&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
2146 &lt;/table&gt;
2147
2148 &lt;p&gt;Interesting difference, not sure what to conclude from these
2149 numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
2150 </description>
2151         </item>
2152
2153         <item>
2154                 <title>ISO still hope to fix OOXML</title>
2155                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html</link>
2156                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html</guid>
2157                 <pubDate>Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
2158                 <description>&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a
2159 href=&quot;http://twerner.blogspot.com/2009/08/defects-of-office-open-xml.html&quot;&gt;a
2160 blog post from Torsten Werner&lt;/a&gt;, the current defect report for ISO
2161 29500 (ISO OOXML) is 809 pages.  His interesting point is that the
2162 defect report is 71 pages more than the full ODF 1.1 specification.
2163 Personally I find it more interesting that ISO still believe ISO OOXML
2164 can be fixed in ISO.  Personally, I believe it is broken beyon repair,
2165 and I completely lack any trust in ISO for being able to get anywhere
2166 close to solving the problems.  I was part of the Norwegian committee
2167 involved in the OOXML fast track process, and was not impressed with
2168 Standard Norway and ISO in how they handled it.&lt;/p&gt;
2169
2170 &lt;p&gt;These days I focus on ODF instead, which seem like a specification
2171 with the future ahead of it.  We are working in NUUG to organise a ODF
2172 seminar this autumn.&lt;/p&gt;
2173 </description>
2174         </item>
2175
2176         <item>
2177                 <title>Regjerningens oppsummering av høringen om standardkatalogen versjon 2</title>
2178                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h_ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</link>
2179                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h_ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</guid>
2180                 <pubDate>Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
2181                 <description>&lt;p&gt;For å forstå mer om hvorfor standardkatalogens versjon 2 ble som
2182 den ble, har jeg bedt om kopi fra FAD av dokumentene som ble lagt frem
2183 for regjeringen da de tok sin avgjørelse.  De er nå lagt ut på NUUGs
2184 wiki, direkte tilgjengelig via &quot;&lt;a
2185 href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&amp;do=get&amp;target=kongelig-resolusjon.pdf&quot;&gt;Referansekatalogen
2186 v2.0 - Oppsummering av høring&lt;/a&gt;&quot; og &quot;&lt;a
2187 href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&amp;do=get&amp;target=kongelig-resolusjon-katalogutkast.pdf&quot;&gt;Referansekatalog
2188 for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor Versjon 2.0, dd.mm.åååå -
2189 UTKAST&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;
2190
2191 &lt;p&gt;Det er tre ting jeg merker meg i oppsummeringen fra
2192 høringsuttalelsen da jeg skummet igjennom den.  Det første er at
2193 forståelsen av hvordan programvarepatenter påvirker fri
2194 programvareutvikling også i Norge når en argumenterer med at
2195 royalty-betaling ikke er et relevant problem i Norge.  Det andre er at
2196 FAD ikke har en prinsipiell forståelse av verdien av en enkelt
2197 standard innenfor hvert område.  Det siste er at påstander i
2198 høringsuttalelsene ikke blir etterprøvd (f.eks. påstanden fra
2199 Microsoft om hvordan Ogg blir standardisert og påstanden fra
2200 politidirektoratet om patentproblemer i Theora).&lt;/p&gt;
2201 </description>
2202         </item>
2203
2204         <item>
2205                 <title>Regjerningen forlater prinsippet om ingen royalty-betaling i standardkatalogen versjon 2</title>
2206                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</link>
2207                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</guid>
2208                 <pubDate>Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
2209                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg ble glad da regjeringen
2210 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digi.no/817635/her-er-statens-nye-it-standarder&quot;&gt;annonserte&lt;/a&gt;
2211 versjon 2 av
2212 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Referansekatalogen_versjon2.pdf&quot;&gt;statens
2213 referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;, men trist da jeg leste hva som
2214 faktisk var vedtatt etter
2215 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html&quot;&gt;høringen&lt;/a&gt;.
2216 De fleste av de valgte åpne standardene er gode og vil bidra til at
2217 alle kan delta på like vilkår i å lage løsninger for staten, men
2218 noen av dem blokkerer for de som ikke har anledning til å benytte
2219 spesifikasjoner som krever betaling for bruk (såkalt
2220 royalty-betaling).  Det gjelder spesifikt for H.264 for video og MP3
2221 for lyd.  Så lenge bruk av disse var valgfritt mens Ogg Theora og Ogg
2222 Vorbis var påkrevd, kunne alle som ønsket å spille av video og lyd
2223 fra statens websider gjøre dette uten å måtte bruke programmer der
2224 betaling for bruk var nødvendig.  Når det nå er gjort valgfritt for
2225 de statlige etatene å bruke enten H.264 eller Theora (og MP3 eler
2226 Vorbis), så vil en bli tvunget til å forholde seg til
2227 royalty-belastede standarder for å få tilgang til videoen og
2228 lyden.&lt;/p&gt;
2229
2230 &lt;p&gt;Det gjør meg veldig trist at regjeringen har forlatt prinsippet om
2231 at alle standarder som ble valgt til å være påkrevd i katalogen skulle
2232 være uten royalty-betaling.  Jeg håper det ikke betyr at en har mistet
2233 all forståelse for hvilke prinsipper som må følges for å oppnå
2234 likeverdig konkurranse mellom aktørene i IT-bransjen.  NUUG advarte
2235 mot dette i
2236 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2&quot;&gt;sin
2237 høringsuttalelse&lt;/a&gt;, men ser ut til å ha blitt ignorert.&lt;/p&gt;
2238
2239 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-29: Kom over &lt;ahref=&quot;
2240 http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Refkat_v2.pdf&quot;&gt;en
2241 rapport til FAD&lt;/a&gt; fra da versjon 1 av katalogen ble vedtatt, og der
2242 er det tydelig at problemstillingen var kjent og forstått.&lt;/p&gt;
2243 </description>
2244         </item>
2245
2246         <item>
2247                 <title>Microsofts misvisende argumentasjon rundt multimediaformater</title>
2248                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html</link>
2249                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html</guid>
2250                 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
2251                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I
2252 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/Hoeringer/Refkat_V2/MicrosoftNorge.pdf&quot;&gt;Microsoft
2253 sin høringsuttalelse&lt;/a&gt; til
2254 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html?id=549422&quot;&gt;forslag
2255 til versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;, lirer
2256 de av seg følgende FUD-perle:&lt;/p&gt;
2257
2258 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Vorbis, OGG, Theora og FLAC er alle tekniske
2259   spesifikasjoner overordnet styrt av xiph.org, som er en
2260   ikke-kommersiell organisasjon.  Etablerte og anerkjente
2261   standardiseringsorganisasjoner, som Oasis, W3C og Ecma, har en godt
2262   innarbeidet vedlikeholds- og forvaltningsprosess av en standard.
2263   Det er derimot helt opp til hver enkelt organisasjon å bestemme
2264   hvordan tekniske spesifikasjoner videreutvikles og endres, og disse
2265   spesifikasjonene bør derfor ikke defineres som åpne
2266   standarder.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2267
2268 &lt;p&gt;De vokter seg vel for å nevne den anerkjente
2269 standardiseringsorganisasjonen IETF, som er organisasjonen bak HTTP,
2270 IP og det meste av protokoller på Internet, og RFC-standardene som
2271 IETF står bak.  Ogg er spesifisert i
2272 &lt;a href=&quot;http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3533.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 3533&lt;/a&gt;, og er uten
2273 tvil å anse som en åpen standard.  Vorbis er
2274 &lt;a href=&quot;http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc5215.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 5215&lt;/a&gt;.  Theora er
2275
2276 under standardisering via IETF, med
2277 &lt;a href=&quot;http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/theora/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-theora-00.txt&quot;&gt;siste
2278 utkast publisert 2006-07-21&lt;/a&gt; (riktignok er dermed teksten ikke
2279 skrevet i stein ennå, men det blir neppe endringer som ikke er
2280 bakoverkompatibel).  De kan være inne på noe når det gjelder FLAC da
2281 jeg ikke finner tegn til at &lt;a
2282 href=&quot;http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html&quot;&gt;spesifikasjonen
2283 tilgjengelig på web&lt;/a&gt; er på tur via noen
2284 standardiseringsorganisasjon, men i og med at folkene bak Ogg, Theora
2285 og Vorbis også har involvert seg i Flac siden 2003, så ser jeg ikke
2286 bort fra at også den organiseres via IETF.  Jeg kjenner personlig lite
2287 til FLAC.&lt;/p&gt;
2288
2289 &lt;p&gt;Uredelig argumentasjon bør en holde seg for god til å komme med,
2290 spesielt når det er så enkelt i dagens Internet-hverdag å gå
2291 misvisende påstander etter i sømmene.&lt;/p&gt;
2292 </description>
2293         </item>
2294
2295         <item>
2296                 <title>Standarder fungerer best når en samler seg rundt dem</title>
2297                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n_r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html</link>
2298                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n_r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html</guid>
2299                 <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 11:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
2300                 <description>&lt;p&gt;En standard er noe man samler seg rundt, ut fra ideen om at en får
2301 fordeler når mange står sammen.  Jo flere som står sammen, jo
2302 bedre.  Når en vet dette, blir det litt merkelig å lese noen av
2303 uttalelsene som er kommet inn til
2304 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2/horingsuttalelser.html?id=549423&quot;&gt;høringen
2305 om versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;.  Blant
2306 annet Abelia, NHO og Microsoft tror det er lurt med flere standarder
2307 innenfor samme område.  Det blir som å si at det er fint om Norge
2308 standardiserte både på A4- og Letter-størrelser på arkene, ulik
2309 sporvidde på jernbaneskinnene, meter og fot som lengemål, eller
2310 høyre- og venstrekjøring - slik at en kan konkurrere på hvilken
2311 standard som er best.  De fleste forstår heldigvis at dette ikke
2312 bidrar positivt.&lt;/p&gt;
2313 </description>
2314         </item>
2315
2316         <item>
2317                 <title>Hvorfor jeg ikke bruker eFaktura</title>
2318                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html</link>
2319                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html</guid>
2320                 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
2321                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Telenors annonsering om å kreve 35 kroner i gebyr fra alle som
2322 ønsker papirfaktura har satt sinnene i kok, og pressedekningen så
2323 langt snakker om at eldre og folk som ikke behersker data vil få en
2324 urimelig ekstrakostnad.  Jeg tror ikke jeg passer inn i noen av de
2325 kategoriene, men velger å holde meg unna eFaktura - som er det
2326 Telenor ønsker å få folk over på - pga. systemets egenskaper.&lt;/p&gt;
2327
2328 &lt;p&gt;Slik jeg har sett eFaktura til forbrukere så langt, så sender
2329 selger en elektronisk beskjed til kundens bank, som legger ut
2330 informasjon om fakturaen i nettbanken for godkjenning.  Personlig
2331 ville jeg sett det som mer naturlig at det gikk en elektronisk beskjed
2332 fra selger til kunde, dvs meg, og at jeg så kunne bruke den videre
2333 mot banken eller andre hvis jeg ønsket dette.  Mine innkjøp og
2334 regninger er jo en sak mellom meg og mine leverandører, ikke en sak
2335 mellom min bank og mine leverandører.  Kun hvis jeg ønsker å betale
2336 fakturaen skal banken involveres.  En faktura bør jo inn i
2337 regnskapet, og jeg ønsker mulighet til å legge det inn der.  Når
2338 fakturaen sendes til banken i stedet for meg, blir det vanskeligere.
2339 Hele eFaktura-modellen virker på meg som en umyndiggjøring av meg
2340 som kunde.&lt;/p&gt;
2341
2342 &lt;p&gt;I tillegg har jeg ikke vært i stand til å finne
2343 eFaktura-formatets spesifikasjon, og det ser ut til at utsending av
2344 slike krever dyre avtaler med bankene for å få lov til å sende ut
2345 eFaktura til kunder.  Jeg ser vel helst at fakturering på
2346 elektroniske formater kan gjøres f.eks. via epost eller HTTP uten å
2347 måtte betale mellommenn for retten til å lever ut en faktura, og
2348 liker rett og slett ikke dagens faktureringsmodeller.&lt;/p&gt;
2349 </description>
2350         </item>
2351
2352         <item>
2353                 <title>Standardize on protocols and formats, not vendors and applications</title>
2354                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html</link>
2355                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html</guid>
2356                 <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
2357                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Where I work at the University of Oslo, one decision stand out as a
2358 very good one to form a long lived computer infrastructure.  It is the
2359 simple one, lost by many in todays computer industry: Standardize on
2360 open network protocols and open exchange/storage formats, not applications.
2361 Applications come and go, while protocols and files tend to stay, and
2362 thus one want to make it easy to change application and vendor, while
2363 avoiding conversion costs and locking users to a specific platform or
2364 application.&lt;/p&gt;
2365
2366 &lt;p&gt;This approach make it possible to replace the client applications
2367 independently of the server applications.  One can even allow users to
2368 use several different applications as long as they handle the selected
2369 protocol and format.  In the normal case, only one client application
2370 is recommended and users only get help if they choose to use this
2371 application, but those that want to deviate from the easy path are not
2372 blocked from doing so.&lt;/p&gt;
2373
2374 &lt;p&gt;It also allow us to replace the server side without forcing the
2375 users to replace their applications, and thus allow us to select the
2376 best server implementation at any moment, when scale and resouce
2377 requirements change.&lt;/p&gt;
2378
2379 &lt;p&gt;I strongly recommend standardizing - on open network protocols and
2380 open formats, but I would never recommend standardizing on a single
2381 application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.&lt;/p&gt;
2382 </description>
2383         </item>
2384
2385         <item>
2386                 <title>Hva er egentlig en åpen standard?</title>
2387                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en__pen_standard_.html</link>
2388                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en__pen_standard_.html</guid>
2389                 <pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
2390                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg møter alle slags interessante mennesker på min vei, og et møte
2391 jeg lærte mye av var å treffe på en svært kompetent IT-fyr som
2392 benektet ting jeg anser som åpenbart og selvfølgelig når det gjelder
2393 standarder.  Det var interessant, da det fikk meg til å tenke litt
2394 nøyere på hvilke mekanismer som ligger til grunn for at noe oppfattes
2395 som en standard.  Det hele startet med arbeid rundt integrering av NSS
2396 LDAP mot Active Directory, og problemer som oppstår pga. at Active
2397 Directory ikke følger LDAP-spesifikasjonen som dokumentert i RFCer fra
2398 IETF (konkret, AD returnerer kun et subset av attributter hvis det er
2399 mer enn 1500 atributter av en gitt type i et LDAP-objekt, og en må be
2400 om resten i bolker av 1500).  Jeg hevdet måten dette ble gjort på brøt
2401 med LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og henviste til hvor i LDAP-spesifikasjonen
2402 fra IETF det sto at oppførselen til AD ikke fulgte
2403 LDAP-spesifikasjonen.  AD-spesialisten overrasket meg da ved å
2404 fortelle at IETF var ikke de som definerte LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og at
2405 Active Directory ikke brøt den virkelige LDAP-spesifikasjonen som han
2406 mente lå til grunn.  Jeg ble spesielt overrasket over denne
2407 tilnærmingen til problemstillingen, da til og med Microsoft så vidt
2408 jeg kan se anerkjenner IETF som organisasjonen som definerer
2409 LDAP-spesifikasjonen.  Jeg fikk aldri spurt hvem han mente sto bak den
2410 egentlige LDAP-spesifikasjonen, da det var irrelevant for problemet vi
2411 måtte løse (få Linux og AD til å fungere sammen).  Dette møtet
2412 fortalte meg uansett at det ikke er gitt at alle aktører er enige om
2413 hva en standard er, og hva som er kilden til en gitt standard.  Det er
2414 vanskelig å enes om felles standarder før en først enes om hvem som
2415 bestemmer hva en gitt standard innebærer.&lt;/p&gt;
2416
2417 &lt;p&gt;Hva er så en standard?  I sin abstrakte form er det noe å samles
2418 om.  På engelsk er en av betydningene fane brukt i krig, du vet, den
2419 type fane en samlet seg rundt på kamplassen i riddertiden.  En
2420 standard definerer altså et felleskap, noen som har noe felles.  Det
2421 er naturligvis mange måter å utgjøre et felleskap på.  En kan
2422 f.eks. enes om å gjøre alt slik som Ole gjør det, og dermed si at Oles
2423 oppførsel er standard.  Hver gang Ole endrer oppførsel endrer også
2424 standarden seg uten noe mer organisering og prosedyre.  En variant av
2425 dette er å gjøre slik som Ole har gjort det i stedet for slik Ole til
2426 enhver til gjør noe.  Dette er ofte litt enklere å forholde seg til,
2427 da en slipper å sjekke med Ole hver gang for å vite hvordan ting skal
2428 gjøres nå, men hvis det Ole gjorde noe dumt den gang en bestemte seg
2429 for å følge Ole, så er det vanskeligere å få endret oppførsel for å
2430 unngå dette dumme.&lt;/p&gt;
2431
2432 &lt;p&gt;En kan også ta det et skritt videre, og istedet for å basere seg på
2433 enkeltpersoners oppførsel sette seg ned og bli enige om hvordan en
2434 skal gjøre ting, dvs. lage et felleskap basert på konsensus.  Dette
2435 tar naturligvis litt mer tid (en må diskutere ting i forkant før en
2436 kan sette igang), men det kan bidra til at den oppførselen en
2437 planlegger å benytte seg av er mer gjennomtenkt.  Det ender også
2438 typisk opp med en beskrivelse av ønsket oppførsel som flere kan forstå
2439 - da flere har vært involvert i å utarbeide beskrivelsen.&lt;/p&gt;
2440
2441 &lt;p&gt;Dette er dessverre ikke alt som trengs for å forstå hva en åpen
2442 standard er for noe.  Der alle kan se på hvordan folk oppfører seg, og
2443 dermed har valget om de vil oppføre seg likt eller ikke, så er det
2444 endel juridiske faktorer som gjør det hele mer komplisert -
2445 opphavsretten og patentlovgivningen for å være helt konkret.  For å gi
2446 et eksempel. Hvis noen blir enige om å alltid plystre en bestemt
2447 melodi når de møtes, for å identifisere hverandre, så kan
2448 opphavsretten brukes til å styre hvem som får lov til å gjøre dette.
2449 De har standardisert hvordan de kjenner igjen alle som følger denne
2450 standarden, men ikke alle har nødvendigvis lov til å følge den.
2451 Musikk er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, og fremføring av musikk i
2452 offentligheten er opphavsmannens enerett (dvs. et monopol).  Det vil i
2453 sin ytterste konsekvens si at alle som skal plystre en
2454 opphavsrettsbeskyttet melodi i det offentlige rom må ha godkjenning
2455 fra opphavsmannen.  Har en ikke dette, så bryter en loven og kan
2456 straffes.  Det er dermed mulig for opphavsmannen å kontrollere hvem
2457 som får lov til å benytte seg av denne standarden.  En annen variant
2458 er hvis en standard er dokumentert, så er dokumentet som definerer
2459 standarden (spesifikasjonen) beskyttet av opphavsretten, og det er
2460 dermed mulig for rettighetsinnehaver å begrense tilgang til
2461 spesifikasjonen, og slik styre hvem som kan ta i bruk standarden på
2462 den måten.&lt;/p&gt;
2463
2464 &lt;p&gt;Der opphavsretten innvilger et monopol på kunstneriske uttrykk med
2465 verkshøyde, innvilger patentlovgivningen monopol på ideer.  Hvis en
2466 slik patentert idé (fortrinnsvis uttrykt i en teknisk innretning, men
2467 det er kompliserende faktorer som gjør at det ikke er et krav) trengs
2468 for å ta i bruk en standard, så vil den som innehar patent kunne styre
2469 hvem som får ta i bruk standarden.  Det er dermed ikke gitt at alle
2470 kan delta i et standard-felleskap, og hvis de kan delta, så er det
2471 ikke sikkert at det er på like vilkår.  F.eks. kan rettighetsinnehaver
2472 sette vilkår som gjør at noen faller utenfor, det være seg av
2473 finansielle, avtalemessige eller prinsipielle årsaker.  Vanlige slike
2474 vilkår er &quot;må betale litt for hver kunde/bruker&quot; som utelukker de som
2475 gir bort en løsning gratis og &quot;må gi fra seg retten til å håndheve
2476 sine egne patentrettigheter ovenfor rettighetshaver&quot; som utelukker
2477 alle som ønsker å beholde den muligheten.&lt;/p&gt;
2478
2479 &lt;p&gt;En åpen standard innebærer for meg at alle kan få innsikt i en
2480 komplett beskrivelse av oppførsel som standarden skal dekke, og at
2481 ingen kan nektes å benytte seg av standarden.  Noen mener at det
2482 holder at alle med tilstrekkelig finansiering kan få tilgang til
2483 spesifikasjonen og at en kun har finansielle krav til bruk.
2484 Pga. denne konflikten har et nytt begrep spredt seg de siste årene,
2485 nemlig fri og åpen standard, der en har gjort det klart at alle må ha
2486 komplett og lik tilgang til spesifikasjoner og retten til å gjøre bruk
2487 av en standard for at en standard skal kunne kalles fri og åpen.&lt;/p&gt;
2488 </description>
2489         </item>
2490
2491         <item>
2492                 <title>Fri og åpen standard, slik Digistan ser det</title>
2493                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html</link>
2494                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html</guid>
2495                 <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
2496                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Det er mange ulike definisjoner om hva en åpen standard er for noe,
2497 og NUUG hadde &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt&quot;&gt;en
2498 pressemelding om dette sommeren 2005&lt;/a&gt;.  Der ble definisjonen til
2499 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aaben-standard.dk/&quot;&gt;DKUUG&lt;/a&gt;,
2500 &lt;a href=&quot;http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=19529&quot;&gt;EU-kommissionens
2501 European Interoperability Framework ( side 9)&lt;/a&gt; og
2502 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.teknologiradet.no/files/7polert_copy.htm&quot;&gt;teknologirådet&lt;/a&gt; omtalt.&lt;/p&gt;
2503
2504 &lt;p&gt;Siden den gang har regjeringens standardiseringsråd dukket opp, og de
2505 ser ut til å har tatt utgangspunkt i EU-kommisjonens definisjon i
2506 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/kampanjer/standardiseringsradet/arbeidsmetodikk.html?id=476407&quot;&gt;sin
2507 arbeidsmetodikk&lt;/a&gt;.  Personlig synes jeg det er en god ide, da
2508 kravene som stilles der gjør at alle markedsaktører får like vilkår,
2509 noe som kommer kundene til gode ved hjelp av økt konkurranse.&lt;/p&gt;
2510
2511 &lt;p&gt;I sommer kom det en ny definisjon på banen.
2512 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/&quot;&gt;Digistan&lt;/a&gt; lanserte
2513 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;en
2514 definisjon på en fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt;.  Jeg liker måten de bryter
2515 ut av diskusjonen om hva som kreves for å kalle noe en åpen standard
2516 ved å legge på et ord og poengtere at en standard som er både åpen og
2517 fri har noen spesielle krav.  Her er den definisjonen etter rask
2518 oversettelse fra engelsk til norsk av meg:&lt;/p&gt;
2519
2520 &lt;blockquote&gt;
2521 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definisjonen av en fri og åpen standard&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2522
2523 &lt;p&gt;Den digitale standardorganisasjonen definierer fri og åpen standard
2524 som følger:&lt;/p&gt;
2525 &lt;ul&gt;
2526 &lt;li&gt;En fri og åpen standard er immun for leverandørinnlåsing i alle
2527 stadier av dens livssyklus.  Immuniteten fra leverandørinnlåsing gjør
2528 det mulig å fritt bruke, forbedre, stole på og utvide en standard over
2529 tid.&lt;/li&gt;
2530 &lt;li&gt;Standarden er adoptert og vil bli vedlikeholdt av en ikke-kommersiell
2531 organisasjon, og dens pågående utvikling gjøres med en åpen
2532 beslutningsprosedyre som er tilgjengelig for alle som er interessert i
2533 å delta.&lt;/li&gt;
2534 &lt;li&gt;Standarden er publisert og spesifikasjonsdokumentet er fritt
2535 tilgjengelig.  Det må være tillatt for alle å kopiere, distribuere og
2536 bruke den uten begresninger.&lt;/li&gt;
2537 &lt;li&gt;Patentene som muligens gjelder (deler av) standarden er gjort
2538 ugjenkallelig tilgjengelig uten krav om betaling.&lt;/li&gt;
2539 &lt;li&gt;Det er ingen begresninger i gjenbruk av standarden.&lt;/li&gt;
2540 &lt;/ul&gt;
2541 &lt;p&gt;Det økonomiske resultatet av en fri og åpen standard, som kan
2542 måles, er at det muliggjør perfekt konkurranse mellom leverandører av
2543 produkter basert på standarden.&lt;/p&gt;
2544 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
2545
2546 &lt;p&gt;(Tar gjerne imot forbedringer av oversettelsen.)&lt;/p&gt;
2547 </description>
2548         </item>
2549
2550         <item>
2551                 <title>ODF-bruk i staten, ikke helt på plass</title>
2552                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p__plass.html</link>
2553                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p__plass.html</guid>
2554                 <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
2555                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I går publiserte
2556 &lt;a href=&quot;http://universitas.no/nyhet/52776/&quot;&gt;Universitas&lt;/a&gt;,
2557 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dagensit.no/trender/article1588462.ece&quot;&gt;Dagens-IT&lt;/a&gt;
2558 og &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article118622.ece&quot;&gt;Computerworld
2559 Norge&lt;/a&gt; en sak om at de ansatte ved Universitetet i Oslo ikke følger
2560 regjeringens pålegg om å publisere i HTML, PDF eller ODF.  Det er bra
2561 at det kommer litt fokus på dette, og jeg håper noen journalister tar
2562 en titt på de andre statlige instansene også.&lt;/p&gt;
2563
2564 &lt;p&gt;Skulle ønske det var en enkel måte å sjekke om ODF-dokumenter er i
2565 henholdt til ODF-spesifikasjonen, og en måte å teste om programmer som
2566 hevder å støtte ODF forstår alle delene av ODF-spesifikasjonen.
2567 Kjenner kun til ufullstendige løsninger for slikt.&lt;/p&gt;
2568 </description>
2569         </item>
2570
2571         </channel>
2572 </rss>