blog/tags/digistan/index.html

   1 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
   2         "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
   3 <html>
   4  <head>
   5   <title>Petter Reinholdtsen: Entries Tagged digistan</title>
   6   <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/style.css">
   7   <link rel="alternate" title="RSS Feed" href="digistan.rss" type="application/rss+xml">
   8  </head>
   9  <body>
  10
  11  <div class="title">
  12   <h1>
  13        <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/">Petter Reinholdtsen</a>
  14
  15   </h1>
  16
  17  </div>
  18
  19  <p>Entries tagged "digistan".</p>
  20
  21
  22
  23
  24 <div class="entry">
  25  <div class="title">
  26  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og___pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html">Fri og åpen standard, slik Digistan ser det</a>
  27  </div>
  28  <div class="date">
  29   2009-01-31 23:10
  30  </div>
  31
  32  <div class="body">
  33
  34 <p>Det er mange ulike definisjoner om hva en åpen standard er for noe,
  35 og NUUG hadde <a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">en
  36 pressemelding om dette sommeren 2005</a>.  Der ble definisjonen til
  37 <a href="http://www.aaben-standard.dk/">DKUUG</a>,
  38 <a href="http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=19529">EU-kommissionens
  39 European Interoperability Framework ( side 9)</a> og
  40 <a href="http://www.teknologiradet.no/files/7polert_copy.htm">teknologirådet</a> omtalt.
  41
  42 Siden den gang har regjeringens standardiseringsråd dukket opp, og de
  43 ser ut til å har tatt utgangspunkt i EU-kommisjonens definisjon i
  44 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/kampanjer/standardiseringsradet/arbeidsmetodikk.html?id=476407">sin
  45 arbeidsmetodikk</a>.  Personlig synes jeg det er en god ide, da
  46 kravene som stilles der gjør at alle markedsaktører får like vilkår,
  47 noe som kommer kundene til gode ved hjelp av økt konkurranse.</p>
  48
  49 <p>I sommer kom det en ny definisjon på banen.
  50 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/">Digistan</a> lanserte
  51 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">en
  52 definisjon på en fri og åpen standard</a>.  Jeg liker måten de bryter
  53 ut av diskusjonen om hva som kreves for å kalle noe en åpen standard
  54 ved å legge på et ord og poengtere at en standard som er både åpen og
  55 fri har noen spesielle krav.  Her er den definisjonen etter rask
  56 oversettelse fra engelsk til norsk av meg:</p>
  57
  58 <blockquote>
  59 <p><strong>Definisjonen av en fri og åpen standard</strong></p>
  60
  61 <p>Den digitale standardorganisasjonen definierer fri og åpen standard
  62 som følger:</p>
  63 <ul>
  64 <li>En fri og åpen standard er immun for leverandørinnlåsing i alle
  65 stadier av dens livssyklus.  Immuniteten fra leverandørinnlåsing gjør
  66 det mulig å fritt bruke, forbedre, stole på og utvide en standard over
  67 tid.</li>
  68 <li>Standarden er adoptert og vil bli vedlikeholdt av en ikke-kommersiell
  69 organisasjon, og dens pågående utvikling gjøres med en åpen
  70 beslutningsprosedyre som er tilgjengelig for alle som er interessert i
  71 å delta.</li>
  72 <li>Standarden er publisert og spesifikasjonsdokumentet er fritt
  73 tilgjengelig.  Det må være tillatt for alle å kopiere, distribuere og
  74 bruke den uten begresninger.</li>
  75 <li>Patentene som muligens gjelder (deler av) standarden er gjort
  76 ugjenkallelig tilgjengelig uten krav om betaling.</li>
  77 <li>Det er ingen begresninger i gjenbruk av standarden.</li>
  78 </ul>
  79 <p>Det økonomiske resultatet av en fri og åpen standard, som kan
  80 måles, er at det muliggjør perfekt konkurranse mellom leverandører av
  81 produkter basert på standarden.</p>
  82 </blockquote>
  83
  84 <p>(Tar gjerne imot forbedringer av oversettelsen.)</p>
  85
  86  </div>
  87  <div class="tags">
  88
  89
  90
  91   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>.
  92
  93  </div>
  94 </div>
  95 <div class="padding"></div>
  96
  97 <div class="entry">
  98  <div class="title">
  99  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html">Terms of use for video produced by a Canon IXUS 130 digital camera</a>
 100  </div>
 101  <div class="date">
 102   2010-09-09 23:55
 103  </div>
 104
 105  <div class="body">
 106
 107 <p>A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital
 108 camera, a Canon IXUS 130.  It was instructive and very disturbing to
 109 be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to
 110 specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera.
 111 Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras
 112 are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway.  What is the
 113 problem, you might ask?  It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the
 114 MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences
 115 without asking for permissions that is at risk.
 116
 117 <p>On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is
 118 written:</p>
 119
 120 <blockquote>
 121 <p>This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard
 122 and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding
 123 MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and
 124 non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the
 125 AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.</p>
 126
 127 <p>No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4
 128 standard.</p>
 129 </blockquote>
 130
 131 <p>In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology
 132 (MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and
 133 non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations
 134 holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.</p>
 135
 136 <p>This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to
 137 read
 138 "<a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA">Why
 139 Our Civilization's Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the
 140 MPEG-LA</a>" by Eugenia Loli-Queru and
 141 "<a href="http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/">H.264 Is Not
 142 The Sort Of Free That Matters</a>" by Simon Phipps to learn more about
 143 the issue.  The solution is to support the
 144 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">free and
 145 open standards</a> for video, like <a href="http://www.theora.org/">Ogg
 146 Theora</a>, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.</p>
 147
 148  </div>
 149  <div class="tags">
 150
 151
 152
 153   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/fildeling">fildeling</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/opphavsrett">opphavsrett</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/personvern">personvern</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web</a>.
 154
 155  </div>
 156 </div>
 157 <div class="padding"></div>
 158
 159 <div class="entry">
 160  <div class="title">
 161  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best____ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html">Best å ikke fortelle noen at streaming er nedlasting...</a>
 162  </div>
 163  <div class="date">
 164   2010-10-30 11:20
 165  </div>
 166
 167  <div class="body">
 168
 169 <p>I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta
 170 <a href="http://nrkbeta.no/2010/10/27/bakom-blindpassasjer-del-1/">om
 171 hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget</a> i forbindelse med at
 172 filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et
 173 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">fritt og
 174 åpent format</a>.  Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der 07:39.</p>
 175
 176 <p><blockquote>
 177 <p>"Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra
 178 nedlasting.  Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer
 179 som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den
 180 nødvendige forkunnskapen."</p>
 181
 182 <p>Haha.  Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å
 183 beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig.  Å skrive noe slikt
 184 er å forlede leseren.</p>
 185
 186 <p>Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun
 187 vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.</p>
 188
 189 <p>Anbefaler forresten å lese
 190 <a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm">http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm</a>
 191 om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer
 192 (DRM) fungerte.  Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo
 193 derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass,
 194 men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge
 195 opp under.</p>
 196 </blockquote></p>
 197
 198 <p>Ca. 20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i
 199 NRKBeta:</p>
 200
 201 <p><blockquote>
 202 <p>From: Anders Hofseth &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 203 <br>To: "pere@hungry.com" &lt;pere@hungry.com>
 204 <br>Cc: Eirik Solheim &lt;XXX@gmail.com>, Jon Ståle Carlsen &lt;XXX@gmail.com>, Henrik Lied &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 205 <br>Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: "Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1"
 206 <br>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:58:44 +0200</p>
 207
 208 <p>Hei Petter.
 209 <br>Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon,
 210 men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt
 211 om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
 212 særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.</p>
 213
 214 <p>Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er
 215 fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
 216 konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...</p>
 217
 218 <p>Med hilsen,
 219 <br>-anders</p>
 220
 221 <p>Ring meg om noe er uklart: 95XXXXXXX</p>
 222 </blockquote></p>
 223
 224 <p>Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte
 225 over følgende svar.  I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas
 226 kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet.
 227 Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å
 228 unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.</p>
 229
 230 <p><blockquote>
 231 <p>From: Petter Reinholdtsen &lt;pere@hungry.com>
 232 <br>To: Anders Hofseth &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 233 <br>Cc: Eirik Solheim &lt;XXX@gmail.com>,
 234 <br>        Jon Ståle Carlsen &lt;XXX@gmail.com>,
 235 <br>        Henrik Lied &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 236 <br>Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: "Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1"
 237 <br>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:24:34 +0200</p>
 238
 239 <p>[Anders Hofseth]
 240 <br>> Hei Petter.</p>
 241
 242 <p>Hei.</p>
 243
 244 <p>> Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
 245 <br>> om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
 246 <br>> å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
 247 <br>> særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.</p>
 248
 249 <p>Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon.  Den
 250 vil nok fortsette en stund til.  :)</p>
 251
 252 <p>Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med
 253 vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne
 254 fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.</p>
 255
 256 <p>Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke
 257 faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold
 258 som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker
 259 det.</p>
 260
 261 <p>Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på
 262 web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta.
 263 Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)</p>
 264
 265 <p>> Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
 266 <br>> og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
 267 <br>> konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...</p>
 268
 269 <p>Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og
 270 heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen
 271 mot de som vil låse kulturen inne.  Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK
 272 godtar å forlede publikum.  Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som
 273 skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i
 274 formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til
 275 H.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).</p>
 276
 277 <p>At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive
 278 påstander om at "streaming beskytter mot nedlasting" som bare er egnet
 279 til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.</p>
 280
 281 <p>Anbefaler &lt;URL:<a href="http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/">http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/</a>> og en
 282 titt på
 283 &lt;URL: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</a> >.
 284 for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H.264 innebærer.</p>
 285
 286 <p>Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke
 287 kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade
 288 samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall
 289 synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er
 290 langt på overtid.</p>
 291
 292 <p>> Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX</p>
 293
 294 <p>Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på.
 295 Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en
 296 gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted
 297 for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med
 298 ryggraden på plass.</p>
 299
 300 <p>PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.</p>
 301
 302 <p>Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet.
 303 &lt;URL: <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft">http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft</a> > og
 304 &lt;URL: <a href="http://patentabsurdity.com/">http://patentabsurdity.com/</a> > hadde vært noe å kringkaste på
 305 NRK1. :)</p>
 306
 307 <p>Vennlig hilsen,
 308 <br>--
 309 <br>Petter Reinholdtsen</p>
 310
 311  </div>
 312  <div class="tags">
 313
 314
 315
 316   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/opphavsrett">opphavsrett</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web</a>.
 317
 318  </div>
 319 </div>
 320 <div class="padding"></div>
 321
 322 <div class="entry">
 323  <div class="title">
 324  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html">The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru</a>
 325  </div>
 326  <div class="date">
 327   2010-12-25 10:50
 328  </div>
 329
 330  <div class="body">
 331
 332 <p>A few days ago
 333 <a href="http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece">an
 334 article</a> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
 335 2.0 of
 336 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework">European
 337 Interoperability Framework</a> has been successfully lobbied by the
 338 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
 339 Nothing very surprising there, given
 340 <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe">earlier
 341 reports</a> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
 342 this work.  But I find this very sad.   The definition of
 343 <a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">an
 344 open standard from version 1</a> was very good, and something I
 345 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
 346 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the
 347 definition from Digistan</A>.  Version 2 have removed the open
 348 standard definition from its content.</p>
 349
 350 <p>Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
 351 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
 352 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
 353 in the public sector in Peru.  As the text was not available from a
 354 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
 355 <a href="http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html">my
 356 source</a> to ensure it is available also in the future.  Some
 357 background information about that story is available in
 358 <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099">an article</a> from
 359 Linux Journal in 2002.</p>
 360
 361 <blockquote>
 362 <p>Lima, 8th of April, 2002<br>
 363 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ<br>
 364 General Manager of Microsoft Perú</p>
 365
 366 <p>Dear Sir:</p>
 367
 368 <p>First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter.</p>
 369
 370 <p>While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.</p>
 371
 372 <p>With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.</p>
 373
 374 <p>It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:</p>
 375
 376 <p>
 377 <ul>
 378 <li>Free access to public information by the citizen. </li>
 379 <li>Permanence of public data. </li>
 380 <li>Security of the State and citizens.</li>
 381 </ul>
 382 </p>
 383
 384 <p>To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.</p>
 385
 386 <p>To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.</p>
 387
 388 <p>To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*. </p>
 389
 390 <p>In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.</p>
 391
 392 <p>In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles.</p>
 393
 394
 395 <p>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:<br>
 396 <li>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software</li>
 397 <li>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software</li>
 398 <li>the law does not specify which concrete software to use</li>
 399 <li>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought</li>
 400 <li>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.</li>
 401
 402 </p>
 403
 404 <p>What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning.</p>
 405
 406 <p>We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.</p>
 407
 408 <p>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:</p>
 409
 410 <p>Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution."</p>
 411
 412 <p>This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter.</p>
 413
 414 <p>The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No. 012-2001-PCM).</p>
 415
 416 <p>The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions.</p>
 417
 418 <p>It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill.</p>
 419
 420 <p>By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved.</p>
 421
 422 <p>To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies..."</p>
 423
 424 <p>This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive ... practices."</p>
 425
 426 <p>Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles.</p>
 427
 428 <p>Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement.</p>
 429
 430 <p>On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.</p>
 431
 432 <p>It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: "update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgment alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).</p>
 433
 434 <p>You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector."</p>
 435
 436 <p>I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs.</p>
 437
 438 <p>On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software.</p>
 439
 440 <p>In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.</p>
 441
 442 <p>In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.</p>
 443
 444 <p>It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive.</p>
 445
 446 <p>With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model.</p>
 447
 448 <p>Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties."</p>
 449
 450 <p>Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.</p>
 451
 452 <p>On security:</p>
 453
 454 <p>National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.</p>
 455
 456 <p>What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors.</p>
 457
 458 <p>It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product.</p>
 459
 460 <p>In respect of the guarantee:</p>
 461
 462 <p>As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.</p>
 463
 464 <p>On Intellectual Property:</p>
 465
 466 <p>Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).</p>
 467
 468 <p>You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position."</p>
 469
 470 <p>This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL).</p>
 471
 472 <p>Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats.</p>
 473
 474 <p>If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State.</p>
 475
 476 <p>You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time."</p>
 477
 478 <p>This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.</p>
 479
 480 <p>In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability.</p>
 481
 482 <p>You further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries."</p>
 483
 484 <p>I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you.</p>
 485
 486 <p>On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.</p>
 487
 488 <p>You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market."</p>
 489
 490 <p>Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely.</p>
 491
 492 <p>The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code.</p>
 493
 494 <p>You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place."</p>
 495
 496 <p>This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software.</p>
 497
 498 <p>On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.</p>
 499
 500 <p>You continue by observing that: "10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment."</p>
 501
 502 <p>It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.</p>
 503
 504 <p>What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments.</p>
 505
 506 <p>You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry."</p>
 507
 508 <p>This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad.</p>
 509
 510 <p>You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools."</p>
 511
 512 <p>In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software.</p>
 513
 514 <p>You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?"</p>
 515
 516 <p>We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.</p>
 517
 518 <p>The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public.</p>
 519
 520 <p>In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.</p>
 521
 522 <p>I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.</p>
 523
 524 <p>Cordially,<br>
 525 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ<br>
 526 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.</p>
 527 </blockquote>
 528
 529  </div>
 530  <div class="tags">
 531
 532
 533
 534   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 535
 536  </div>
 537 </div>
 538 <div class="padding"></div>
 539
 540 <div class="entry">
 541  <div class="title">
 542  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html">Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?</a>
 543  </div>
 544  <div class="date">
 545   2010-12-25 20:25
 546  </div>
 547
 548  <div class="body">
 549
 550 <p><a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">The
 551 Digistan definition</a> of a free and open standard reads like this:</p>
 552
 553 <blockquote>
 554
 555 <p>The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
 556 as follows:</p>
 557
 558 <ol>
 559
 560 <li>A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
 561 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
 562 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.</li>
 563
 564 <li>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
 565 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
 566 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
 567 parties.</li>
 568
 569 <li>The standard has been published and the standard specification
 570 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
 571 distribute, and use it freely.</li>
 572
 573 <li>The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
 574 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.</li>
 575
 576 <li>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.</li>
 577
 578 </ol>
 579
 580 <p>The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
 581 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
 582 products based on the standard.</p>
 583 </blockquote>
 584
 585 <p>For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
 586 and open standard according to this definition.  Here is a short
 587 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far.  I brought up the
 588 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
 589 <a href="http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html">in
 590 July 2009</a>, for those that want to see some background information.
 591 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
 592 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.</p>
 593
 594 <p><strong>Free from vendor capture?</strong></p>
 595
 596 <p>As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
 597 Ogg Theora specification.  It can be argued that the
 598 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/">Xiph foundation</A> is such vendor, but
 599 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
 600 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
 601 obvious that this is a real risk.  One issue with the Xiph
 602 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
 603 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web.  I've
 604 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
 605 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
 606 where is is spent in the foundation.  It is thus not obvious for an
 607 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
 608 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
 609 specification.  But it seem unlikely.</p>
 610
 611 <p><strong>Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?</strong></p>
 612
 613 <p>Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
 614 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled.  If Xiph foundation is
 615 controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any
 616 documentation indicating this.</p>
 617
 618 <p>According to
 619 <a href="http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf">a report</a>
 620 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
 621 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
 622 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
 623 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
 624 report is correct.</p>
 625
 626 <p><strong>Specification freely available?</strong></p>
 627
 628 <p>The specification for the <a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/">Ogg
 629 container format</a> and both the
 630 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/">Vorbis</a> and
 631 <a href="http://theora.org/doc/">Theora</a> codeces are available on
 632 the web.  This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
 633
 634 <blockquote>
 635
 636 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
 637 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
 638 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
 639 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
 640 specification compliance.
 641
 642 </blockquote>
 643
 644 <p>The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
 645 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt">RFC 3533</a>, and
 646 this is the term:<p>
 647
 648 <blockquote>
 649
 650 <p>This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 651 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 652 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
 653 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
 654 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 655 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 656 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 657 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 658 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
 659 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
 660 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
 661 translate it into languages other than English.</p>
 662
 663 <p>The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 664 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.</p>
 665 </blockquote>
 666
 667 <p>All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
 668 this term seem to be fulfilled.  There might be a problem with the
 669 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
 670 thus reuse it in other specifications.  Not quite sure if that is a
 671 requirement for the Digistan definition.</p>
 672
 673 <p><strong>Royalty-free?</strong></p>
 674
 675 <p>There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
 676 Theora format.
 677 <a href="http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782">MPEG-LA</a>
 678 and
 679 <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit">Steve
 680 Jobs</a> in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
 681 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
 682 them.  Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
 683 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
 684 without paying any royalties.  For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
 685 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
 686 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.</p>
 687
 688 <p><strong>No constraints on re-use?</strong></p>
 689
 690 <p>I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.</p>
 691
 692 <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
 693
 694 <p>3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
 695 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation.  Given the
 696 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
 697 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
 698 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
 699 this.</p>
 700
 701 <p>It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
 702 see if they are free and open standards.</p>
 703
 704  </div>
 705  <div class="tags">
 706
 707
 708
 709   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
 710
 711  </div>
 712 </div>
 713 <div class="padding"></div>
 714
 715 <div class="entry">
 716  <div class="title">
 717  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html">The many definitions of a open standard</a>
 718  </div>
 719  <div class="date">
 720   2010-12-27 14:45
 721  </div>
 722
 723  <div class="body">
 724
 725 <p>One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
 726 "<a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">Free and
 727 Open Standard</a>" is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
 728 the term has been decided by Digistan.  The term "Open Standard" has
 729 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
 730 about standards.  One end up discussing which definition is the best
 731 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
 732 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.</p>
 733
 734 <p>But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
 735 standards, here are a few that I know about.  This list is not
 736 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
 737 complete survey.  More definitions are available on the
 738 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard">wikipedia
 739 page</a>.</p>
 740
 741 <p>First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
 742 Interoperability Framework version 1.0.  Really sad to notice that BSA
 743 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the
 744 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
 745 their own people.  Anyway, the definition is still available and it
 746 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
 747 specification on equal terms.</p>
 748
 749 <blockquote>
 750
 751 <p>The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
 752 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
 753 open standard:</p>
 754
 755 <ul>
 756
 757 <li>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
 758 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
 759 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
 760 (consensus or majority decision etc.).</li>
 761
 762 <li>The standard has been published and the standard specification
 763 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
 764 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
 765 nominal fee.</li>
 766
 767 <li>The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
 768 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
 769 free basis.</li>
 770
 771 <li>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.</li>
 772
 773 </ul>
 774 </blockquote>
 775
 776 <p>Another one originates from my friends over at
 777 <a href="http://www.dkuug.dk/">DKUUG</a>, who coined and gathered
 778 support for <a href="http://www.aaben-standard.dk/">this
 779 definition</a> in 2004.  It even made it into the Danish parlament as
 780 <a href="http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm">their
 781 definition of a open standard</a>.  Another from a different part of
 782 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.</p>
 783
 784 <blockquote>
 785
 786 <p>En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:</p>
 787
 788 <ol>
 789
 790 <li>Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
 791 tilgængelig.</li>
 792
 793 <li>Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
 794 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.</li>
 795
 796 <li>Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
 797 "standardiseringsorganisation") via en åben proces.</li>
 798
 799 </ol>
 800
 801 </blockquote>
 802
 803 <p>Then there is <a href="http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html">the
 804 definition</a> from Free Software Foundation Europe.</p>
 805
 806 <blockquote>
 807
 808 <p>An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is</p>
 809
 810 <ol>
 811
 812 <li>subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
 813 manner equally available to all parties;</li>
 814
 815 <li>without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
 816 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
 817 Standard themselves;</li>
 818
 819 <li>free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
 820 any party or in any business model;</li>
 821
 822 <li>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
 823 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
 824 parties;</li>
 825
 826 <li>available in multiple complete implementations by competing
 827 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
 828 parties.</li>
 829
 830 </ol>
 831
 832 </blockquote>
 833
 834 <p>A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
 835 its
 836 <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf">Open
 837 Standards Checklist</a> with a fairly detailed description.</p>
 838
 839 <blockquote>
 840 <p>Creation and Management of an Open Standard
 841
 842 <ul>
 843
 844 <li>Its development and management process must be collaborative and
 845   democratic:
 846
 847          <ul>
 848
 849          <li>Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
 850             participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
 851             imposed by the organization under which it is developed
 852             and managed.</li>
 853
 854          <li>The processes must be documented and, through a known
 855             method, can be changed through input from all
 856             participants.</li>
 857
 858          <li>The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
 859             the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.</li>
 860
 861          <li>Development and management should strive for consensus,
 862             and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.</li>
 863
 864          <li>The standard specification must be open to extensive
 865             public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
 866             comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.</li>
 867
 868          </ul>
 869
 870 </li>
 871
 872 </ul>
 873
 874 <p>Use and Licensing of an Open Standard</p>
 875 <ul>
 876
 877 <li>The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
 878   and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
 879   implementations to the interface described in the standard without
 880   undue or restrictive constraints.  Interfaces include APIs,
 881   protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.</li>
 882
 883 <li> The standard must not contain any proprietary "hooks" that create
 884   a technical or economic barriers</li>
 885
 886 <li>Faithful implementations of the standard must
 887   interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
 888   program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
 889   programs and mutually to use the information which has been
 890   exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
 891   file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
 892   conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
 893   computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
 894   intended to function.</li>
 895
 896 <li>It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
 897   standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
 898   must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.</li>
 899
 900 <li>It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
 901   fees; also known as "royalty free"), worldwide, non-exclusive and
 902   perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
 903   sell products based on the standard.  The only exceptions are
 904   terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
 905   outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
 906   patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
 907   only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
 908
 909       <ul>
 910
 911       <li> May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
 912         licensees' patent claims essential to practice that standard
 913         (also known as a reciprocity clause)</li>
 914
 915       <li> May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
 916         or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
 917         essential to practice that standard (also known as a
 918         "defensive suspension" clause)</li>
 919
 920       <li> The same licensing terms are available to every potential
 921         licensor</li>
 922
 923       </ul>
 924 </li>
 925
 926 <li>The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
 927   implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
 928   or restricted licensing terms</li>
 929
 930 </ul>
 931
 932 </blockquote>
 933
 934 <p>It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
 935 there are so many of them.  As you can see, the same holds true for
 936 open standard definitions.  Most of the definitions have a lot in
 937 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
 938 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
 939 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
 940 competition to downplay the significance of open standards.  I hope we
 941 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
 942 Standards.</p>
 943
 944  </div>
 945  <div class="tags">
 946
 947
 948
 949   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 950
 951  </div>
 952 </div>
 953 <div class="padding"></div>
 954
 955 <div class="entry">
 956  <div class="title">
 957  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html">What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?</a>
 958  </div>
 959  <div class="date">
 960   2010-12-30 23:15
 961  </div>
 962
 963  <div class="body">
 964
 965 <p>After trying to
 966 <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html">compare
 967 Ogg Theora</a> to
 968 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the Digistan
 969 definition</a> of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
 970 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
 971 this.  As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
 972 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
 973 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others.  But to be able to complete this in a
 974 reasonable time frame, I will need help.</p>
 975
 976 <p>If you want to help out with this work, please visit
 977 <a href="http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse">the
 978 wiki pages I have set up for this</a>, and let me know that you want
 979 to help out.  The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
 980 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
 981 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
 982 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).</p>
 983
 984 <p>The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do.  Do not be
 985 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)</p>
 986
 987  </div>
 988  <div class="tags">
 989
 990
 991
 992   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 993
 994  </div>
 995 </div>
 996 <div class="padding"></div>
 997
 998  <p style="text-align: right;"><a href="digistan.rss"><img src="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/xml.gif" alt="RSS Feed" width="36" height="14"></a></p>
 999
1000
1001
1002
1003 <div id="sidebar">
1004
1005 <h2>Archive</h2>
1006 <ul>
1007
1008 <li>2011
1009 <ul>
1010
1011 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/01/">January (16)</a></li>
1012
1013 </ul></li>
1014
1015 <li>2010
1016 <ul>
1017
1018 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/01/">January (2)</a></li>
1019
1020 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/02/">February (1)</a></li>
1021
1022 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/03/">March (3)</a></li>
1023
1024 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/04/">April (3)</a></li>
1025
1026 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/05/">May (9)</a></li>
1027
1028 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/06/">June (14)</a></li>
1029
1030 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/07/">July (12)</a></li>
1031
1032 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/08/">August (13)</a></li>
1033
1034 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/09/">September (7)</a></li>
1035
1036 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/10/">October (9)</a></li>
1037
1038 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/11/">November (13)</a></li>
1039
1040 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/12/">December (12)</a></li>
1041
1042 </ul></li>
1043
1044 <li>2009
1045 <ul>
1046
1047 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/01/">January (8)</a></li>
1048
1049 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/02/">February (8)</a></li>
1050
1051 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/03/">March (12)</a></li>
1052
1053 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/04/">April (10)</a></li>
1054
1055 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/05/">May (9)</a></li>
1056
1057 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/06/">June (3)</a></li>
1058
1059 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/07/">July (4)</a></li>
1060
1061 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/08/">August (3)</a></li>
1062
1063 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/09/">September (1)</a></li>
1064
1065 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/10/">October (2)</a></li>
1066
1067 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/11/">November (3)</a></li>
1068
1069 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/12/">December (3)</a></li>
1070
1071 </ul></li>
1072
1073 <li>2008
1074 <ul>
1075
1076 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2008/11/">November (5)</a></li>
1077
1078 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2008/12/">December (7)</a></li>
1079
1080 </ul></li>
1081
1082 </ul>
1083
1084
1085
1086 <h2>Tags</h2>
1087 <ul>
1088
1089  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/3d-printer">3d-printer (13)</a></li>
1090
1091  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/amiga">amiga (1)</a></li>
1092
1093  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/aros">aros (1)</a></li>
1094
1095  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/bitcoin">bitcoin (2)</a></li>
1096
1097  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/bootsystem">bootsystem (10)</a></li>
1098
1099  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian">debian (48)</a></li>
1100
1101  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian edu">debian edu (59)</a></li>
1102
1103  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan (7)</a></li>
1104
1105  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english (86)</a></li>
1106
1107  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/fiksgatami">fiksgatami (1)</a></li>
1108
1109  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/fildeling">fildeling (11)</a></li>
1110
1111  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/intervju">intervju (5)</a></li>
1112
1113  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/kart">kart (5)</a></li>
1114
1115  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/ldap">ldap (8)</a></li>
1116
1117  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/lenker">lenker (4)</a></li>
1118
1119  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/ltsp">ltsp (1)</a></li>
1120
1121  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia (11)</a></li>
1122
1123  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk (106)</a></li>
1124
1125  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug (116)</a></li>
1126
1127  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/opphavsrett">opphavsrett (18)</a></li>
1128
1129  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/personvern">personvern (35)</a></li>
1130
1131  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/reprap">reprap (11)</a></li>
1132
1133  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/rfid">rfid (2)</a></li>
1134
1135  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/robot">robot (4)</a></li>
1136
1137  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/rss">rss (1)</a></li>
1138
1139  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/sikkerhet">sikkerhet (23)</a></li>
1140
1141  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/sitesummary">sitesummary (3)</a></li>
1142
1143  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard (23)</a></li>
1144
1145  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/stavekontroll">stavekontroll (1)</a></li>
1146
1147  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/surveillance">surveillance (7)</a></li>
1148
1149  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video (19)</a></li>
1150
1151  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/vitenskap">vitenskap (1)</a></li>
1152
1153  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web (14)</a></li>
1154
1155 </ul>
1156
1157 </div>
1158 </body>
1159 </html>