blog/tags/standard/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 xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" dir="ltr">
   4   <head>
   5     <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" />
   6     <title>Petter Reinholdtsen: Entries Tagged standard</title>
   7     <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/style.css" />
   8     <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/vim.css" />
   9     <link rel="alternate" title="RSS Feed" href="standard.rss" type="application/rss+xml" />
  10   </head>
  11   <body>
  12     <div class="title">
  13  <h1>
  14      <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/">Petter Reinholdtsen</a>
  15
  16  </h1>
  17
  18 </div>
  19
  20
  21     <h3>Entries tagged "standard".</h3>
  22
  23     <div class="entry">
  24       <div class="title">
  25         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p__plass.html">ODF-bruk i staten, ikke helt på plass</a>
  26       </div>
  27       <div class="date">
  28         22nd January 2009
  29       </div>
  30       <div class="body">
  31         <p>I går publiserte
  32 <a href="http://universitas.no/nyhet/52776/">Universitas</a>,
  33 <a href="http://www.dagensit.no/trender/article1588462.ece">Dagens-IT</a>
  34 og <a href="http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article118622.ece">Computerworld
  35 Norge</a> en sak om at de ansatte ved Universitetet i Oslo ikke følger
  36 regjeringens pålegg om å publisere i HTML, PDF eller ODF.  Det er bra
  37 at det kommer litt fokus på dette, og jeg håper noen journalister tar
  38 en titt på de andre statlige instansene også.</p>
  39
  40 <p>Skulle ønske det var en enkel måte å sjekke om ODF-dokumenter er i
  41 henholdt til ODF-spesifikasjonen, og en måte å teste om programmer som
  42 hevder å støtte ODF forstår alle delene av ODF-spesifikasjonen.
  43 Kjenner kun til ufullstendige løsninger for slikt.</p>
  44
  45       </div>
  46       <div class="tags">
  47
  48
  49         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
  50
  51
  52       </div>
  53     </div>
  54     <div class="padding"></div>
  55
  56     <div class="entry">
  57       <div class="title">
  58         <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>
  59       </div>
  60       <div class="date">
  61         31st January 2009
  62       </div>
  63       <div class="body">
  64         <p>Det er mange ulike definisjoner om hva en åpen standard er for noe,
  65 og NUUG hadde <a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">en
  66 pressemelding om dette sommeren 2005</a>.  Der ble definisjonen til
  67 <a href="http://www.aaben-standard.dk/">DKUUG</a>,
  68 <a href="http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=19529">EU-kommissionens
  69 European Interoperability Framework ( side 9)</a> og
  70 <a href="http://www.teknologiradet.no/files/7polert_copy.htm">teknologirådet</a> omtalt.</p>
  71
  72 <p>Siden den gang har regjeringens standardiseringsråd dukket opp, og de
  73 ser ut til å har tatt utgangspunkt i EU-kommisjonens definisjon i
  74 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/kampanjer/standardiseringsradet/arbeidsmetodikk.html?id=476407">sin
  75 arbeidsmetodikk</a>.  Personlig synes jeg det er en god ide, da
  76 kravene som stilles der gjør at alle markedsaktører får like vilkår,
  77 noe som kommer kundene til gode ved hjelp av økt konkurranse.</p>
  78
  79 <p>I sommer kom det en ny definisjon på banen.
  80 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/">Digistan</a> lanserte
  81 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">en
  82 definisjon på en fri og åpen standard</a>.  Jeg liker måten de bryter
  83 ut av diskusjonen om hva som kreves for å kalle noe en åpen standard
  84 ved å legge på et ord og poengtere at en standard som er både åpen og
  85 fri har noen spesielle krav.  Her er den definisjonen etter rask
  86 oversettelse fra engelsk til norsk av meg:</p>
  87
  88 <blockquote>
  89 <p><strong>Definisjonen av en fri og åpen standard</strong></p>
  90
  91 <p>Den digitale standardorganisasjonen definierer fri og åpen standard
  92 som følger:</p>
  93 <ul>
  94 <li>En fri og åpen standard er immun for leverandørinnlåsing i alle
  95 stadier av dens livssyklus.  Immuniteten fra leverandørinnlåsing gjør
  96 det mulig å fritt bruke, forbedre, stole på og utvide en standard over
  97 tid.</li>
  98 <li>Standarden er adoptert og vil bli vedlikeholdt av en ikke-kommersiell
  99 organisasjon, og dens pågående utvikling gjøres med en åpen
 100 beslutningsprosedyre som er tilgjengelig for alle som er interessert i
 101 å delta.</li>
 102 <li>Standarden er publisert og spesifikasjonsdokumentet er fritt
 103 tilgjengelig.  Det må være tillatt for alle å kopiere, distribuere og
 104 bruke den uten begresninger.</li>
 105 <li>Patentene som muligens gjelder (deler av) standarden er gjort
 106 ugjenkallelig tilgjengelig uten krav om betaling.</li>
 107 <li>Det er ingen begresninger i gjenbruk av standarden.</li>
 108 </ul>
 109 <p>Det økonomiske resultatet av en fri og åpen standard, som kan
 110 måles, er at det muliggjør perfekt konkurranse mellom leverandører av
 111 produkter basert på standarden.</p>
 112 </blockquote>
 113
 114 <p>(Tar gjerne imot forbedringer av oversettelsen.)</p>
 115
 116       </div>
 117       <div class="tags">
 118
 119
 120         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>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 121
 122
 123       </div>
 124     </div>
 125     <div class="padding"></div>
 126
 127     <div class="entry">
 128       <div class="title">
 129         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en__pen_standard_.html">Hva er egentlig en åpen standard?</a>
 130       </div>
 131       <div class="date">
 132         28th March 2009
 133       </div>
 134       <div class="body">
 135         <p>Jeg møter alle slags interessante mennesker på min vei, og et møte
 136 jeg lærte mye av var å treffe på en svært kompetent IT-fyr som
 137 benektet ting jeg anser som åpenbart og selvfølgelig når det gjelder
 138 standarder.  Det var interessant, da det fikk meg til å tenke litt
 139 nøyere på hvilke mekanismer som ligger til grunn for at noe oppfattes
 140 som en standard.  Det hele startet med arbeid rundt integrering av NSS
 141 LDAP mot Active Directory, og problemer som oppstår pga. at Active
 142 Directory ikke følger LDAP-spesifikasjonen som dokumentert i RFCer fra
 143 IETF (konkret, AD returnerer kun et subset av attributter hvis det er
 144 mer enn 1500 atributter av en gitt type i et LDAP-objekt, og en må be
 145 om resten i bolker av 1500).  Jeg hevdet måten dette ble gjort på brøt
 146 med LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og henviste til hvor i LDAP-spesifikasjonen
 147 fra IETF det sto at oppførselen til AD ikke fulgte
 148 LDAP-spesifikasjonen.  AD-spesialisten overrasket meg da ved å
 149 fortelle at IETF var ikke de som definerte LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og at
 150 Active Directory ikke brøt den virkelige LDAP-spesifikasjonen som han
 151 mente lå til grunn.  Jeg ble spesielt overrasket over denne
 152 tilnærmingen til problemstillingen, da til og med Microsoft så vidt
 153 jeg kan se anerkjenner IETF som organisasjonen som definerer
 154 LDAP-spesifikasjonen.  Jeg fikk aldri spurt hvem han mente sto bak den
 155 egentlige LDAP-spesifikasjonen, da det var irrelevant for problemet vi
 156 måtte løse (få Linux og AD til å fungere sammen).  Dette møtet
 157 fortalte meg uansett at det ikke er gitt at alle aktører er enige om
 158 hva en standard er, og hva som er kilden til en gitt standard.  Det er
 159 vanskelig å enes om felles standarder før en først enes om hvem som
 160 bestemmer hva en gitt standard innebærer.</p>
 161
 162 <p>Hva er så en standard?  I sin abstrakte form er det noe å samles
 163 om.  På engelsk er en av betydningene fane brukt i krig, du vet, den
 164 type fane en samlet seg rundt på kamplassen i riddertiden.  En
 165 standard definerer altså et felleskap, noen som har noe felles.  Det
 166 er naturligvis mange måter å utgjøre et felleskap på.  En kan
 167 f.eks. enes om å gjøre alt slik som Ole gjør det, og dermed si at Oles
 168 oppførsel er standard.  Hver gang Ole endrer oppførsel endrer også
 169 standarden seg uten noe mer organisering og prosedyre.  En variant av
 170 dette er å gjøre slik som Ole har gjort det i stedet for slik Ole til
 171 enhver til gjør noe.  Dette er ofte litt enklere å forholde seg til,
 172 da en slipper å sjekke med Ole hver gang for å vite hvordan ting skal
 173 gjøres nå, men hvis det Ole gjorde noe dumt den gang en bestemte seg
 174 for å følge Ole, så er det vanskeligere å få endret oppførsel for å
 175 unngå dette dumme.</p>
 176
 177 <p>En kan også ta det et skritt videre, og istedet for å basere seg på
 178 enkeltpersoners oppførsel sette seg ned og bli enige om hvordan en
 179 skal gjøre ting, dvs. lage et felleskap basert på konsensus.  Dette
 180 tar naturligvis litt mer tid (en må diskutere ting i forkant før en
 181 kan sette igang), men det kan bidra til at den oppførselen en
 182 planlegger å benytte seg av er mer gjennomtenkt.  Det ender også
 183 typisk opp med en beskrivelse av ønsket oppførsel som flere kan forstå
 184 - da flere har vært involvert i å utarbeide beskrivelsen.</p>
 185
 186 <p>Dette er dessverre ikke alt som trengs for å forstå hva en åpen
 187 standard er for noe.  Der alle kan se på hvordan folk oppfører seg, og
 188 dermed har valget om de vil oppføre seg likt eller ikke, så er det
 189 endel juridiske faktorer som gjør det hele mer komplisert -
 190 opphavsretten og patentlovgivningen for å være helt konkret.  For å gi
 191 et eksempel. Hvis noen blir enige om å alltid plystre en bestemt
 192 melodi når de møtes, for å identifisere hverandre, så kan
 193 opphavsretten brukes til å styre hvem som får lov til å gjøre dette.
 194 De har standardisert hvordan de kjenner igjen alle som følger denne
 195 standarden, men ikke alle har nødvendigvis lov til å følge den.
 196 Musikk er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, og fremføring av musikk i
 197 offentligheten er opphavsmannens enerett (dvs. et monopol).  Det vil i
 198 sin ytterste konsekvens si at alle som skal plystre en
 199 opphavsrettsbeskyttet melodi i det offentlige rom må ha godkjenning
 200 fra opphavsmannen.  Har en ikke dette, så bryter en loven og kan
 201 straffes.  Det er dermed mulig for opphavsmannen å kontrollere hvem
 202 som får lov til å benytte seg av denne standarden.  En annen variant
 203 er hvis en standard er dokumentert, så er dokumentet som definerer
 204 standarden (spesifikasjonen) beskyttet av opphavsretten, og det er
 205 dermed mulig for rettighetsinnehaver å begrense tilgang til
 206 spesifikasjonen, og slik styre hvem som kan ta i bruk standarden på
 207 den måten.</p>
 208
 209 <p>Der opphavsretten innvilger et monopol på kunstneriske uttrykk med
 210 verkshøyde, innvilger patentlovgivningen monopol på ideer.  Hvis en
 211 slik patentert idé (fortrinnsvis uttrykt i en teknisk innretning, men
 212 det er kompliserende faktorer som gjør at det ikke er et krav) trengs
 213 for å ta i bruk en standard, så vil den som innehar patent kunne styre
 214 hvem som får ta i bruk standarden.  Det er dermed ikke gitt at alle
 215 kan delta i et standard-felleskap, og hvis de kan delta, så er det
 216 ikke sikkert at det er på like vilkår.  F.eks. kan rettighetsinnehaver
 217 sette vilkår som gjør at noen faller utenfor, det være seg av
 218 finansielle, avtalemessige eller prinsipielle årsaker.  Vanlige slike
 219 vilkår er "må betale litt for hver kunde/bruker" som utelukker de som
 220 gir bort en løsning gratis og "må gi fra seg retten til å håndheve
 221 sine egne patentrettigheter ovenfor rettighetshaver" som utelukker
 222 alle som ønsker å beholde den muligheten.</p>
 223
 224 <p>En åpen standard innebærer for meg at alle kan få innsikt i en
 225 komplett beskrivelse av oppførsel som standarden skal dekke, og at
 226 ingen kan nektes å benytte seg av standarden.  Noen mener at det
 227 holder at alle med tilstrekkelig finansiering kan få tilgang til
 228 spesifikasjonen og at en kun har finansielle krav til bruk.
 229 Pga. denne konflikten har et nytt begrep spredt seg de siste årene,
 230 nemlig fri og åpen standard, der en har gjort det klart at alle må ha
 231 komplett og lik tilgang til spesifikasjoner og retten til å gjøre bruk
 232 av en standard for at en standard skal kunne kalles fri og åpen.</p>
 233
 234       </div>
 235       <div class="tags">
 236
 237
 238         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 239
 240
 241       </div>
 242     </div>
 243     <div class="padding"></div>
 244
 245     <div class="entry">
 246       <div class="title">
 247         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html">Standardize on protocols and formats, not vendors and applications</a>
 248       </div>
 249       <div class="date">
 250         30th March 2009
 251       </div>
 252       <div class="body">
 253         <p>Where I work at the University of Oslo, one decision stand out as a
 254 very good one to form a long lived computer infrastructure.  It is the
 255 simple one, lost by many in todays computer industry: Standardize on
 256 open network protocols and open exchange/storage formats, not applications.
 257 Applications come and go, while protocols and files tend to stay, and
 258 thus one want to make it easy to change application and vendor, while
 259 avoiding conversion costs and locking users to a specific platform or
 260 application.</p>
 261
 262 <p>This approach make it possible to replace the client applications
 263 independently of the server applications.  One can even allow users to
 264 use several different applications as long as they handle the selected
 265 protocol and format.  In the normal case, only one client application
 266 is recommended and users only get help if they choose to use this
 267 application, but those that want to deviate from the easy path are not
 268 blocked from doing so.</p>
 269
 270 <p>It also allow us to replace the server side without forcing the
 271 users to replace their applications, and thus allow us to select the
 272 best server implementation at any moment, when scale and resouce
 273 requirements change.</p>
 274
 275 <p>I strongly recommend standardizing - on open network protocols and
 276 open formats, but I would never recommend standardizing on a single
 277 application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.</p>
 278
 279       </div>
 280       <div class="tags">
 281
 282
 283         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian">debian</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 284
 285
 286       </div>
 287     </div>
 288     <div class="padding"></div>
 289
 290     <div class="entry">
 291       <div class="title">
 292         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html">Hvorfor jeg ikke bruker eFaktura</a>
 293       </div>
 294       <div class="date">
 295         23rd April 2009
 296       </div>
 297       <div class="body">
 298         <p>Telenors annonsering om å kreve 35 kroner i gebyr fra alle som
 299 ønsker papirfaktura har satt sinnene i kok, og pressedekningen så
 300 langt snakker om at eldre og folk som ikke behersker data vil få en
 301 urimelig ekstrakostnad.  Jeg tror ikke jeg passer inn i noen av de
 302 kategoriene, men velger å holde meg unna eFaktura - som er det
 303 Telenor ønsker å få folk over på - pga. systemets egenskaper.</p>
 304
 305 <p>Slik jeg har sett eFaktura til forbrukere så langt, så sender
 306 selger en elektronisk beskjed til kundens bank, som legger ut
 307 informasjon om fakturaen i nettbanken for godkjenning.  Personlig
 308 ville jeg sett det som mer naturlig at det gikk en elektronisk beskjed
 309 fra selger til kunde, dvs meg, og at jeg så kunne bruke den videre
 310 mot banken eller andre hvis jeg ønsket dette.  Mine innkjøp og
 311 regninger er jo en sak mellom meg og mine leverandører, ikke en sak
 312 mellom min bank og mine leverandører.  Kun hvis jeg ønsker å betale
 313 fakturaen skal banken involveres.  En faktura bør jo inn i
 314 regnskapet, og jeg ønsker mulighet til å legge det inn der.  Når
 315 fakturaen sendes til banken i stedet for meg, blir det vanskeligere.
 316 Hele eFaktura-modellen virker på meg som en umyndiggjøring av meg
 317 som kunde.</p>
 318
 319 <p>I tillegg har jeg ikke vært i stand til å finne
 320 eFaktura-formatets spesifikasjon, og det ser ut til at utsending av
 321 slike krever dyre avtaler med bankene for å få lov til å sende ut
 322 eFaktura til kunder.  Jeg ser vel helst at fakturering på
 323 elektroniske formater kan gjøres f.eks. via epost eller HTTP uten å
 324 måtte betale mellommenn for retten til å lever ut en faktura, og
 325 liker rett og slett ikke dagens faktureringsmodeller.</p>
 326
 327       </div>
 328       <div class="tags">
 329
 330
 331         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 332
 333
 334       </div>
 335     </div>
 336     <div class="padding"></div>
 337
 338     <div class="entry">
 339       <div class="title">
 340         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n_r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html">Standarder fungerer best når en samler seg rundt dem</a>
 341       </div>
 342       <div class="date">
 343         19th May 2009
 344       </div>
 345       <div class="body">
 346         <p>En standard er noe man samler seg rundt, ut fra ideen om at en får
 347 fordeler når mange står sammen.  Jo flere som står sammen, jo
 348 bedre.  Når en vet dette, blir det litt merkelig å lese noen av
 349 uttalelsene som er kommet inn til
 350 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2/horingsuttalelser.html?id=549423">høringen
 351 om versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder</a>.  Blant
 352 annet Abelia, NHO og Microsoft tror det er lurt med flere standarder
 353 innenfor samme område.  Det blir som å si at det er fint om Norge
 354 standardiserte både på A4- og Letter-størrelser på arkene, ulik
 355 sporvidde på jernbaneskinnene, meter og fot som lengemål, eller
 356 høyre- og venstrekjøring - slik at en kan konkurrere på hvilken
 357 standard som er best.  De fleste forstår heldigvis at dette ikke
 358 bidrar positivt.</p>
 359
 360       </div>
 361       <div class="tags">
 362
 363
 364         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 365
 366
 367       </div>
 368     </div>
 369     <div class="padding"></div>
 370
 371     <div class="entry">
 372       <div class="title">
 373         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html">Microsofts misvisende argumentasjon rundt multimediaformater</a>
 374       </div>
 375       <div class="date">
 376         26th June 2009
 377       </div>
 378       <div class="body">
 379         <p>I
 380 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/Hoeringer/Refkat_V2/MicrosoftNorge.pdf">Microsoft
 381 sin høringsuttalelse</a> til
 382 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html?id=549422">forslag
 383 til versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder</a>, lirer
 384 de av seg følgende FUD-perle:</p>
 385
 386 <p><blockquote>"Vorbis, OGG, Theora og FLAC er alle tekniske
 387   spesifikasjoner overordnet styrt av xiph.org, som er en
 388   ikke-kommersiell organisasjon.  Etablerte og anerkjente
 389   standardiseringsorganisasjoner, som Oasis, W3C og Ecma, har en godt
 390   innarbeidet vedlikeholds- og forvaltningsprosess av en standard.
 391   Det er derimot helt opp til hver enkelt organisasjon å bestemme
 392   hvordan tekniske spesifikasjoner videreutvikles og endres, og disse
 393   spesifikasjonene bør derfor ikke defineres som åpne
 394   standarder."</blockquote></p>
 395
 396 <p>De vokter seg vel for å nevne den anerkjente
 397 standardiseringsorganisasjonen IETF, som er organisasjonen bak HTTP,
 398 IP og det meste av protokoller på Internet, og RFC-standardene som
 399 IETF står bak.  Ogg er spesifisert i
 400 <a href="http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3533.txt">RFC 3533</a>, og er uten
 401 tvil å anse som en åpen standard.  Vorbis er
 402 <a href="http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc5215.txt">RFC 5215</a>.  Theora er
 403
 404 under standardisering via IETF, med
 405 <a href="http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/theora/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-theora-00.txt">siste
 406 utkast publisert 2006-07-21</a> (riktignok er dermed teksten ikke
 407 skrevet i stein ennå, men det blir neppe endringer som ikke er
 408 bakoverkompatibel).  De kan være inne på noe når det gjelder FLAC da
 409 jeg ikke finner tegn til at <a
 410 href="http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html">spesifikasjonen
 411 tilgjengelig på web</a> er på tur via noen
 412 standardiseringsorganisasjon, men i og med at folkene bak Ogg, Theora
 413 og Vorbis også har involvert seg i Flac siden 2003, så ser jeg ikke
 414 bort fra at også den organiseres via IETF.  Jeg kjenner personlig lite
 415 til FLAC.</p>
 416
 417 <p>Uredelig argumentasjon bør en holde seg for god til å komme med,
 418 spesielt når det er så enkelt i dagens Internet-hverdag å gå
 419 misvisende påstander etter i sømmene.</p>
 420
 421       </div>
 422       <div class="tags">
 423
 424
 425         Tags: <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/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
 426
 427
 428       </div>
 429     </div>
 430     <div class="padding"></div>
 431
 432     <div class="entry">
 433       <div class="title">
 434         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html">Regjerningen forlater prinsippet om ingen royalty-betaling i standardkatalogen versjon 2</a>
 435       </div>
 436       <div class="date">
 437          6th July 2009
 438       </div>
 439       <div class="body">
 440         <p>Jeg ble glad da regjeringen
 441 <a href="http://www.digi.no/817635/her-er-statens-nye-it-standarder">annonserte</a>
 442 versjon 2 av
 443 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Referansekatalogen_versjon2.pdf">statens
 444 referansekatalog over standarder</a>, men trist da jeg leste hva som
 445 faktisk var vedtatt etter
 446 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html">høringen</a>.
 447 De fleste av de valgte åpne standardene er gode og vil bidra til at
 448 alle kan delta på like vilkår i å lage løsninger for staten, men
 449 noen av dem blokkerer for de som ikke har anledning til å benytte
 450 spesifikasjoner som krever betaling for bruk (såkalt
 451 royalty-betaling).  Det gjelder spesifikt for H.264 for video og MP3
 452 for lyd.  Så lenge bruk av disse var valgfritt mens Ogg Theora og Ogg
 453 Vorbis var påkrevd, kunne alle som ønsket å spille av video og lyd
 454 fra statens websider gjøre dette uten å måtte bruke programmer der
 455 betaling for bruk var nødvendig.  Når det nå er gjort valgfritt for
 456 de statlige etatene å bruke enten H.264 eller Theora (og MP3 eler
 457 Vorbis), så vil en bli tvunget til å forholde seg til
 458 royalty-belastede standarder for å få tilgang til videoen og
 459 lyden.</p>
 460
 461 <p>Det gjør meg veldig trist at regjeringen har forlatt prinsippet om
 462 at alle standarder som ble valgt til å være påkrevd i katalogen skulle
 463 være uten royalty-betaling.  Jeg håper det ikke betyr at en har mistet
 464 all forståelse for hvilke prinsipper som må følges for å oppnå
 465 likeverdig konkurranse mellom aktørene i IT-bransjen.  NUUG advarte
 466 mot dette i
 467 <a href="http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2">sin
 468 høringsuttalelse</a>, men ser ut til å ha blitt ignorert.</p>
 469
 470       </div>
 471       <div class="tags">
 472
 473
 474         Tags: <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/nuug">nuug</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>.
 475
 476
 477       </div>
 478     </div>
 479     <div class="padding"></div>
 480
 481     <div class="entry">
 482       <div class="title">
 483         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h_ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html">Regjerningens oppsummering av høringen om standardkatalogen versjon 2</a>
 484       </div>
 485       <div class="date">
 486          9th July 2009
 487       </div>
 488       <div class="body">
 489         <p>For å forstå mer om hvorfor standardkatalogens versjon 2 ble som
 490 den ble, har jeg bedt om kopi fra FAD av dokumentene som ble lagt frem
 491 for regjeringen da de tok sin avgjørelse.  De er nå lagt ut på NUUGs
 492 wiki, direkte tilgjengelig via "<a
 493 href="http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=kongelig-resolusjon.pdf">Referansekatalogen
 494 v2.0 - Oppsummering av høring</a>" og "<a
 495 href="http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=kongelig-resolusjon-katalogutkast.pdf">Referansekatalog
 496 for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor Versjon 2.0, dd.mm.åååå -
 497 UTKAST</a>".</p>
 498
 499 <p>Det er tre ting jeg merker meg i oppsummeringen fra
 500 høringsuttalelsen da jeg skummet igjennom den.  Det første er at
 501 forståelsen av hvordan programvarepatenter påvirker fri
 502 programvareutvikling også i Norge når en argumenterer med at
 503 royalty-betaling ikke er et relevant problem i Norge.  Det andre er at
 504 FAD ikke har en prinsipiell forståelse av verdien av en enkelt
 505 standard innenfor hvert område.  Det siste er at påstander i
 506 høringsuttalelsene ikke blir etterprøvd (f.eks. påstanden fra
 507 Microsoft om hvordan Ogg blir standardisert og påstanden fra
 508 politidirektoratet om patentproblemer i Theora).</p>
 509
 510       </div>
 511       <div class="tags">
 512
 513
 514         Tags: <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/nuug">nuug</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>.
 515
 516
 517       </div>
 518     </div>
 519     <div class="padding"></div>
 520
 521     <div class="entry">
 522       <div class="title">
 523         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html">ISO still hope to fix OOXML</a>
 524       </div>
 525       <div class="date">
 526          8th August 2009
 527       </div>
 528       <div class="body">
 529         <p>According to <a
 530 href="http://twerner.blogspot.com/2009/08/defects-of-office-open-xml.html">a
 531 blog post from Torsten Werner</a>, the current defect report for ISO
 532 29500 (ISO OOXML) is 809 pages.  His interesting point is that the
 533 defect report is 71 pages more than the full ODF 1.1 specification.
 534 Personally I find it more interesting that ISO still believe ISO OOXML
 535 can be fixed in ISO.  Personally, I believe it is broken beyon repair,
 536 and I completely lack any trust in ISO for being able to get anywhere
 537 close to solving the problems.  I was part of the Norwegian committee
 538 involved in the OOXML fast track process, and was not impressed with
 539 Standard Norway and ISO in how they handled it.</p>
 540
 541 <p>These days I focus on ODF instead, which seem like a specification
 542 with the future ahead of it.  We are working in NUUG to organise a ODF
 543 seminar this autumn.</p>
 544
 545       </div>
 546       <div class="tags">
 547
 548
 549         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 550
 551
 552       </div>
 553     </div>
 554     <div class="padding"></div>
 555
 556     <div class="entry">
 557       <div class="title">
 558         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html">Relative popularity of document formats (MS Office vs. ODF)</a>
 559       </div>
 560       <div class="date">
 561         12th August 2009
 562       </div>
 563       <div class="body">
 564         <p>Just for fun, I did a search right now on Google for a few file ODF
 565 and MS Office based formats (not to be mistaken for ISO or ECMA
 566 OOXML), to get an idea of their relative usage.  I searched using
 567 'filetype:odt' and equvalent terms, and got these results:</P>
 568
 569 <table>
 570 <tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
 571 <tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:282000</td> <td>docx:308000</td></tr>
 572 <tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:75600</td> <td>pptx:183000</td></tr>
 573 <tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:26500     </td> <td>xlsx:145000</td></tr>
 574 </table>
 575
 576 <p>Next, I added a 'site:no' limit to get the numbers for Norway, and
 577 got these numbers:</p>
 578
 579 <table>
 580 <tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
 581 <tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:2480 </td> <td>docx:4460</td></tr>
 582 <tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:299   </td> <td>pptx:741</td></tr>
 583 <tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:187       </td> <td>xlsx:372</td></tr>
 584 </table>
 585
 586 <p>I wonder how these numbers change over time.</p>
 587
 588 <p>I am aware of Google returning different results and numbers based
 589 on where the search is done, so I guess these numbers will differ if
 590 they are conduced in another country.  Because of this, I did the same
 591 search from a machine in California, USA, a few minutes after the
 592 search done from a machine here in Norway.</p>
 593
 594
 595 <table>
 596 <tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
 597 <tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:129000</td> <td>docx:308000</td></tr>
 598 <tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:44200</td> <td>pptx:93900</td></tr>
 599 <tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:26500     </td> <td>xlsx:82400</td></tr>
 600 </table>
 601
 602 <p>And with 'site:no':
 603
 604 <table>
 605 <tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
 606 <tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:2480</td> <td>docx:3410</td></tr>
 607 <tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:175</td> <td>pptx:604</td></tr>
 608 <tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:186       </td> <td>xlsx:296</td></tr>
 609 </table>
 610
 611 <p>Interesting difference, not sure what to conclude from these
 612 numbers.</p>
 613
 614       </div>
 615       <div class="tags">
 616
 617
 618         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web</a>.
 619
 620
 621       </div>
 622     </div>
 623     <div class="padding"></div>
 624
 625     <div class="entry">
 626       <div class="title">
 627         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Danmark_g_r_for_ODF_.html">Danmark går for ODF?</a>
 628       </div>
 629       <div class="date">
 630         29th January 2010
 631       </div>
 632       <div class="body">
 633         <p>Ble nettopp gjort oppmerksom på en
 634 <a href="http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13690-breaking-odf-vinder-dokumentformat-krigen ">nyhet fra Version2</a>
 635 fra Danmark, der det hevdes at Folketinget har vedtatt at ODF skal
 636 brukes som dokumentutvekslingsformat i Staten.</p>
 637
 638 <p>Hyggelig lesning, spesielt hvis det viser seg at de av vedtatt
 639 kravlisten for hva som skal aksepteres som referert i kommentarfeltet
 640 til artikkelen og
 641 <a href="http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13693-er-ooxml-doemt-ude-her-er-kravene-til-en-offentlig-dokumentstandard">en
 642 annen artikkel</a> i samme nett-avis.  Liker spesielt godt denne:</p>
 643
 644 <p><blockquote> Det skal demonstreres, at standarden i sin helhed kan
 645 implementeres af alle direkte i sin helhed på flere
 646 platforme.</blockquote></p>
 647
 648 <p>Noe slikt burde være et krav også i Norge.</p>
 649
 650       </div>
 651       <div class="tags">
 652
 653
 654         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 655
 656
 657       </div>
 658     </div>
 659     <div class="padding"></div>
 660
 661     <div class="entry">
 662       <div class="title">
 663         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html">A manual for standards wars...</a>
 664       </div>
 665       <div class="date">
 666          6th June 2010
 667       </div>
 668       <div class="body">
 669         <p>Via the
 670 <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/robweir/antic-atom/~3/QzU4RgoAGMg/weekly-links-10.html">blog
 671 of Rob Weir</a> I came across the very interesting essay named
 672 <a href="http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/wars.pdf">The Art of
 673 Standards Wars</a> (PDF 25 pages).  I recommend it for everyone
 674 following the standards wars of today.</p>
 675
 676       </div>
 677       <div class="tags">
 678
 679
 680         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian">debian</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian edu">debian edu</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>.
 681
 682
 683       </div>
 684     </div>
 685     <div class="padding"></div>
 686
 687     <div class="entry">
 688       <div class="title">
 689         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html">Officeshots taking shape</a>
 690       </div>
 691       <div class="date">
 692         13th June 2010
 693       </div>
 694       <div class="body">
 695         <p>For those of us caring about document exchange and
 696 interoperability, <a href="http://www.officeshots.org/">OfficeShots</a>
 697 is a great service.  It is to ODF documents what
 698 <a href="http://browsershots.org/">BrowserShots</a> is for web
 699 pages.</p>
 700
 701 <p>A while back, I was contacted by Knut Yrvin at the part of Nokia
 702 that used to be Trolltech, who wanted to help the OfficeShots project
 703 and wondered if the University of Oslo where I work would be
 704 interested in supporting the project.  I helped him to navigate his
 705 request to the right people at work, and his request was answered with
 706 a spot in the machine room with power and network connected, and Knut
 707 arranged funding for a machine to fill the spot.  The machine is
 708 administrated by the OfficeShots people, so I do not have daily
 709 contact with its progress, and thus from time to time check back to
 710 see how the project is doing.</p>
 711
 712 <p>Today I had a look, and was happy to see that the Dell box in our
 713 machine room now is the host for several virtual machines running as
 714 OfficeShots factories, and the project is able to render ODF documents
 715 in 17 different document processing implementation on Linux and
 716 Windows.  This is great.</p>
 717
 718       </div>
 719       <div class="tags">
 720
 721
 722         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 723
 724
 725       </div>
 726     </div>
 727     <div class="padding"></div>
 728
 729     <div class="entry">
 730       <div class="title">
 731         <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>
 732       </div>
 733       <div class="date">
 734          9th September 2010
 735       </div>
 736       <div class="body">
 737         <p>A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital
 738 camera, a Canon IXUS 130.  It was instructive and very disturbing to
 739 be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to
 740 specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera.
 741 Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras
 742 are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway.  What is the
 743 problem, you might ask?  It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the
 744 MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences
 745 without asking for permissions that is at risk.
 746
 747 <p>On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is
 748 written:</p>
 749
 750 <blockquote>
 751 <p>This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard
 752 and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding
 753 MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and
 754 non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the
 755 AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.</p>
 756
 757 <p>No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4
 758 standard.</p>
 759 </blockquote>
 760
 761 <p>In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology
 762 (MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and
 763 non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations
 764 holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.</p>
 765
 766 <p>This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to
 767 read
 768 "<a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA">Why
 769 Our Civilization's Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the
 770 MPEG-LA</a>" by Eugenia Loli-Queru and
 771 "<a href="http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/">H.264 Is Not
 772 The Sort Of Free That Matters</a>" by Simon Phipps to learn more about
 773 the issue.  The solution is to support the
 774 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">free and
 775 open standards</a> for video, like <a href="http://www.theora.org/">Ogg
 776 Theora</a>, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.</p>
 777
 778       </div>
 779       <div class="tags">
 780
 781
 782         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>.
 783
 784
 785       </div>
 786     </div>
 787     <div class="padding"></div>
 788
 789     <div class="entry">
 790       <div class="title">
 791         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html">Standardkrav inn i anbudstekster?</a>
 792       </div>
 793       <div class="date">
 794         17th October 2010
 795       </div>
 796       <div class="body">
 797         <p>Hvis det å følge standarder skal ha noen effekt overfor
 798 leverandører, så må slike krav og ønsker komme inn i anbudstekster når
 799 systemer kjøpes inn.  Har ikke sett noen slike formuleringer i anbud
 800 så langt, men har tenkt litt på hva som bør inn.  Her er noen ideer og
 801 forslag.  Min drøm er at en kan sette krav til slik støtte i
 802 anbudstekster, men så langt er det nok mer sannsynlig at en må nøye
 803 seg med å skrive at det er en fordel om slik støtte er tilstede i
 804 leveranser.</p>
 805
 806 <p>Som systemadministrator på Universitetet er det typisk to områder
 807 som er problematiske for meg.  Det ene er admin-grensesnittene på
 808 tjenermaskiner, som vi ønsker å bruke via ssh.  Det andre er nettsider
 809 som vi ønsker å bruke via en nettleser.  For begge deler er det viktig
 810 at protokollene og formatene som brukes følger standarder våre verktøy
 811 støtter.</p>
 812
 813 <p>De fleste har nå støtte for SSH som overføringsprotkoll for
 814 admin-grensesnittet, men det er ikke tilstrekkelig for å kunne stille
 815 inn f.eks BIOS og RAID-kontroller via ssh-forbindelsen.  Det er flere
 816 aktuelle protokoller for fremvisning av BIOS-oppsett og
 817 oppstartmeldinger, og min anbefaling ville være å kreve
 818 VT100-kompatibel protokoll, for å sikre at flest mulig
 819 terminalemulatorer kan forstå hva som kommer fra admin-grensesnittet
 820 via ssh.  Andre aktuelle alternativer er ANSI-terminalemulering og
 821 VT220.  Kanskje en formulering ala dette i anbudsutlysninger vil
 822 fungere:</p>
 823
 824 <p><blockquote>
 825 BIOS og oppstartmeldinger i administrasjonsgrensesnittet til maskinen
 826 bør/skal være tilgjengelig via SSH-protokollen som definert av IETF
 827 (RFC 4251 mfl.) og følge terminalfremvisningprotokollen VT100 (ref?)
 828 når en kobler seg til oppstart via ssh.
 829 </blockquote></p>
 830
 831 <p>Har ikke lykkes med å finne en god referanse for
 832 VT100-spesifikasjonen.</p>
 833
 834 <p>Når det gjelder nettsider, så er det det HTML, CSS og
 835 JavaScript-spesifikasjonen til W3C som gjelder.</p>
 836
 837 <p><blockquote>
 838 Alle systemets nettsider bør/skal være i henhold til statens
 839 standardkatalogs krav om nettsider og følge HTML-standarden som
 840 definert av W3C, og validere uten feil hos W3Cs HTML-validator
 841 (http://validator.w3.org).  Hvis det brukes CSS så bør/skal denne
 842 validere uten feil hos W3Cs CSS-validator
 843 (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/).  Eventuelle JavaScript skal
 844 være i henhold til EcmaScript-standarden.  I tillegg til å følge de
 845 overnevnte standardene skal websidene fungere i nettleserne (fyll inn
 846 relevant liste for organisasjonen) Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer 8,
 847 Opera 9, etc.
 848 </blockquote></p>
 849
 850 <p>Vil et slikt avsnitt være konkret nok til å få leverandørene til å
 851 lage nettsider som følger standardene og fungerer i flere
 852 nettlesere?</p>
 853
 854 <p>Tar svært gjerne imot innspill på dette temaet til aktive (at)
 855 nuug.no, og er spesielt interessert i hva andre skriver i sine anbud
 856 for å oppmuntre leverandører til å følge standardene.  Kanskje NUUG
 857 burde lage et dokument med forslag til standardformuleringer å ta med
 858 i anbudsutlysninger?</p>
 859
 860 <p>Oppdatering 2010-12-03: I følge Wikipedias oppføring om
 861 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code">ANSI escape
 862 code</a>, så bruker VT100-terminaler ECMA-48-spesifikasjonen som
 863 basis for sin oppførsel.  Det kan dermed være et alternativ når en
 864 skal spesifisere hvordan seriell-konsoll skal fungere.</p>
 865
 866       </div>
 867       <div class="tags">
 868
 869
 870         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web</a>.
 871
 872
 873       </div>
 874     </div>
 875     <div class="padding"></div>
 876
 877     <div class="entry">
 878       <div class="title">
 879         <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>
 880       </div>
 881       <div class="date">
 882         30th October 2010
 883       </div>
 884       <div class="body">
 885         <p>I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta
 886 <a href="http://nrkbeta.no/2010/10/27/bakom-blindpassasjer-del-1/">om
 887 hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget</a> i forbindelse med at
 888 filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et
 889 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">fritt og
 890 åpent format</a>.  Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der 07:39.</p>
 891
 892 <p><blockquote>
 893 <p>"Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra
 894 nedlasting.  Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer
 895 som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den
 896 nødvendige forkunnskapen."</p>
 897
 898 <p>Haha.  Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å
 899 beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig.  Å skrive noe slikt
 900 er å forlede leseren.</p>
 901
 902 <p>Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun
 903 vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.</p>
 904
 905 <p>Anbefaler forresten å lese
 906 <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>
 907 om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer
 908 (DRM) fungerte.  Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo
 909 derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass,
 910 men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge
 911 opp under.</p>
 912 </blockquote></p>
 913
 914 <p>Ca. 20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i
 915 NRKBeta:</p>
 916
 917 <p><blockquote>
 918 <p>From: Anders Hofseth &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 919 <br>To: "pere@hungry.com" &lt;pere@hungry.com>
 920 <br>Cc: Eirik Solheim &lt;XXX@gmail.com>, Jon Ståle Carlsen &lt;XXX@gmail.com>, Henrik Lied &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 921 <br>Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: "Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1"
 922 <br>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:58:44 +0200</p>
 923
 924 <p>Hei Petter.
 925 <br>Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon,
 926 men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt
 927 om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
 928 særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.</p>
 929
 930 <p>Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er
 931 fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
 932 konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...</p>
 933
 934 <p>Med hilsen,
 935 <br>-anders</p>
 936
 937 <p>Ring meg om noe er uklart: 95XXXXXXX</p>
 938 </blockquote></p>
 939
 940 <p>Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte
 941 over følgende svar.  I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas
 942 kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet.
 943 Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å
 944 unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.</p>
 945
 946 <p><blockquote>
 947 <p>From: Petter Reinholdtsen &lt;pere@hungry.com>
 948 <br>To: Anders Hofseth &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 949 <br>Cc: Eirik Solheim &lt;XXX@gmail.com>,
 950 <br>        Jon Ståle Carlsen &lt;XXX@gmail.com>,
 951 <br>        Henrik Lied &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 952 <br>Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: "Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1"
 953 <br>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:24:34 +0200</p>
 954
 955 <p>[Anders Hofseth]
 956 <br>> Hei Petter.</p>
 957
 958 <p>Hei.</p>
 959
 960 <p>> Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
 961 <br>> om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
 962 <br>> å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
 963 <br>> særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.</p>
 964
 965 <p>Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon.  Den
 966 vil nok fortsette en stund til.  :)</p>
 967
 968 <p>Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med
 969 vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne
 970 fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.</p>
 971
 972 <p>Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke
 973 faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold
 974 som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker
 975 det.</p>
 976
 977 <p>Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på
 978 web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta.
 979 Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)</p>
 980
 981 <p>> Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
 982 <br>> og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
 983 <br>> konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...</p>
 984
 985 <p>Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og
 986 heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen
 987 mot de som vil låse kulturen inne.  Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK
 988 godtar å forlede publikum.  Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som
 989 skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i
 990 formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til
 991 H.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).</p>
 992
 993 <p>At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive
 994 påstander om at "streaming beskytter mot nedlasting" som bare er egnet
 995 til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.</p>
 996
 997 <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
 998 titt på
 999 &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> >.
1000 for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H.264 innebærer.</p>
1001
1002 <p>Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke
1003 kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade
1004 samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall
1005 synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er
1006 langt på overtid.</p>
1007
1008 <p>> Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX</p>
1009
1010 <p>Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på.
1011 Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en
1012 gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted
1013 for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med
1014 ryggraden på plass.</p>
1015
1016 <p>PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.</p>
1017
1018 <p>Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet.
1019 &lt;URL: <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft">http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft</a> > og
1020 &lt;URL: <a href="http://patentabsurdity.com/">http://patentabsurdity.com/</a> > hadde vært noe å kringkaste på
1021 NRK1. :)</p>
1022
1023 <p>Vennlig hilsen,
1024 <br>--
1025 <br>Petter Reinholdtsen</p>
1026
1027       </div>
1028       <div class="tags">
1029
1030
1031         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>.
1032
1033
1034       </div>
1035     </div>
1036     <div class="padding"></div>
1037
1038     <div class="entry">
1039       <div class="title">
1040         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html">Officeshots still going strong</a>
1041       </div>
1042       <div class="date">
1043         25th December 2010
1044       </div>
1045       <div class="body">
1046         <p>Half a year ago I
1047 <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html">wrote
1048 a bit</a> about <a href="http://www.officeshots.org/">OfficeShots</a>,
1049 a web service to allow anyone to test how ODF documents are handled by
1050 the different programs reading and writing the ODF format.</p>
1051
1052 <p>I just had a look at the service, and it seem to be going strong.
1053 Very interesting to see the results reported in the gallery, how
1054 different Office implementations handle different ODF features.  Sad
1055 to see that KOffice was not doing it very well, and happy to see that
1056 LibreOffice has been tested already (but sadly not listed as a option
1057 for OfficeShots users yet).  I am glad to see that the ODF community
1058 got such a great test tool available.</p>
1059
1060       </div>
1061       <div class="tags">
1062
1063
1064         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
1065
1066
1067       </div>
1068     </div>
1069     <div class="padding"></div>
1070
1071     <div class="entry">
1072       <div class="title">
1073         <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>
1074       </div>
1075       <div class="date">
1076         25th December 2010
1077       </div>
1078       <div class="body">
1079         <p>A few days ago
1080 <a href="http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece">an
1081 article</a> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
1082 2.0 of
1083 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework">European
1084 Interoperability Framework</a> has been successfully lobbied by the
1085 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
1086 Nothing very surprising there, given
1087 <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe">earlier
1088 reports</a> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
1089 this work.  But I find this very sad.   The definition of
1090 <a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">an
1091 open standard from version 1</a> was very good, and something I
1092 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
1093 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the
1094 definition from Digistan</A>.  Version 2 have removed the open
1095 standard definition from its content.</p>
1096
1097 <p>Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
1098 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
1099 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
1100 in the public sector in Peru.  As the text was not available from a
1101 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
1102 <a href="http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html">my
1103 source</a> to ensure it is available also in the future.  Some
1104 background information about that story is available in
1105 <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099">an article</a> from
1106 Linux Journal in 2002.</p>
1107
1108 <blockquote>
1109 <p>Lima, 8th of April, 2002<br>
1110 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ<br>
1111 General Manager of Microsoft Perú</p>
1112
1113 <p>Dear Sir:</p>
1114
1115 <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>
1116
1117 <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>
1118
1119 <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>
1120
1121 <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>
1122
1123 <p>
1124 <ul>
1125 <li>Free access to public information by the citizen. </li>
1126 <li>Permanence of public data. </li>
1127 <li>Security of the State and citizens.</li>
1128 </ul>
1129 </p>
1130
1131 <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>
1132
1133 <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>
1134
1135 <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>
1136
1137 <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>
1138
1139 <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>
1140
1141
1142 <p>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:<br>
1143 <li>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software</li>
1144 <li>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software</li>
1145 <li>the law does not specify which concrete software to use</li>
1146 <li>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought</li>
1147 <li>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.</li>
1148
1149 </p>
1150
1151 <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>
1152
1153 <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>
1154
1155 <p>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:</p>
1156
1157 <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>
1158
1159 <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>
1160
1161 <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>
1162
1163 <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>
1164
1165 <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>
1166
1167 <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>
1168
1169 <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>
1170
1171 <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>
1172
1173 <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>
1174
1175 <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>
1176
1177 <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>
1178
1179 <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>
1180
1181 <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>
1182
1183 <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>
1184
1185 <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>
1186
1187 <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>
1188
1189 <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>
1190
1191 <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>
1192
1193 <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>
1194
1195 <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>
1196
1197 <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>
1198
1199 <p>On security:</p>
1200
1201 <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>
1202
1203 <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>
1204
1205 <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>
1206
1207 <p>In respect of the guarantee:</p>
1208
1209 <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>
1210
1211 <p>On Intellectual Property:</p>
1212
1213 <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>
1214
1215 <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>
1216
1217 <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>
1218
1219 <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>
1220
1221 <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>
1222
1223 <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>
1224
1225 <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>
1226
1227 <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>
1228
1229 <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>
1230
1231 <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>
1232
1233 <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>
1234
1235 <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>
1236
1237 <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>
1238
1239 <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>
1240
1241 <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>
1242
1243 <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>
1244
1245 <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>
1246
1247 <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>
1248
1249 <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>
1250
1251 <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>
1252
1253 <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>
1254
1255 <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>
1256
1257 <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>
1258
1259 <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>
1260
1261 <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>
1262
1263 <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>
1264
1265 <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>
1266
1267 <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>
1268
1269 <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>
1270
1271 <p>Cordially,<br>
1272 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ<br>
1273 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.</p>
1274 </blockquote>
1275
1276       </div>
1277       <div class="tags">
1278
1279
1280         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>.
1281
1282
1283       </div>
1284     </div>
1285     <div class="padding"></div>
1286
1287     <div class="entry">
1288       <div class="title">
1289         <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>
1290       </div>
1291       <div class="date">
1292         25th December 2010
1293       </div>
1294       <div class="body">
1295         <p><a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">The
1296 Digistan definition</a> of a free and open standard reads like this:</p>
1297
1298 <blockquote>
1299
1300 <p>The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
1301 as follows:</p>
1302
1303 <ol>
1304
1305 <li>A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
1306 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
1307 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.</li>
1308
1309 <li>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
1310 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
1311 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
1312 parties.</li>
1313
1314 <li>The standard has been published and the standard specification
1315 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
1316 distribute, and use it freely.</li>
1317
1318 <li>The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
1319 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.</li>
1320
1321 <li>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.</li>
1322
1323 </ol>
1324
1325 <p>The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
1326 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
1327 products based on the standard.</p>
1328 </blockquote>
1329
1330 <p>For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
1331 and open standard according to this definition.  Here is a short
1332 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far.  I brought up the
1333 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
1334 <a href="http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html">in
1335 July 2009</a>, for those that want to see some background information.
1336 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
1337 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.</p>
1338
1339 <p><strong>Free from vendor capture?</strong></p>
1340
1341 <p>As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
1342 Ogg Theora specification.  It can be argued that the
1343 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/">Xiph foundation</A> is such vendor, but
1344 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
1345 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
1346 obvious that this is a real risk.  One issue with the Xiph
1347 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
1348 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web.  I've
1349 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
1350 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
1351 where is is spent in the foundation.  It is thus not obvious for an
1352 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
1353 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
1354 specification.  But it seem unlikely.</p>
1355
1356 <p><strong>Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?</strong></p>
1357
1358 <p>Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
1359 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled.  If Xiph foundation is
1360 controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any
1361 documentation indicating this.</p>
1362
1363 <p>According to
1364 <a href="http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf">a report</a>
1365 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
1366 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
1367 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
1368 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
1369 report is correct.</p>
1370
1371 <p><strong>Specification freely available?</strong></p>
1372
1373 <p>The specification for the <a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/">Ogg
1374 container format</a> and both the
1375 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/">Vorbis</a> and
1376 <a href="http://theora.org/doc/">Theora</a> codeces are available on
1377 the web.  This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
1378
1379 <blockquote>
1380
1381 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
1382 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
1383 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
1384 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
1385 specification compliance.
1386
1387 </blockquote>
1388
1389 <p>The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
1390 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt">RFC 3533</a>, and
1391 this is the term:<p>
1392
1393 <blockquote>
1394
1395 <p>This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
1396 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
1397 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
1398 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
1399 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
1400 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
1401 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
1402 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
1403 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
1404 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
1405 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
1406 translate it into languages other than English.</p>
1407
1408 <p>The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
1409 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.</p>
1410 </blockquote>
1411
1412 <p>All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
1413 this term seem to be fulfilled.  There might be a problem with the
1414 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
1415 thus reuse it in other specifications.  Not quite sure if that is a
1416 requirement for the Digistan definition.</p>
1417
1418 <p><strong>Royalty-free?</strong></p>
1419
1420 <p>There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
1421 Theora format.
1422 <a href="http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782">MPEG-LA</a>
1423 and
1424 <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit">Steve
1425 Jobs</a> in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
1426 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
1427 them.  Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
1428 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
1429 without paying any royalties.  For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
1430 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
1431 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.</p>
1432
1433 <p><strong>No constraints on re-use?</strong></p>
1434
1435 <p>I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.</p>
1436
1437 <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
1438
1439 <p>3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
1440 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation.  Given the
1441 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
1442 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
1443 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
1444 this.</p>
1445
1446 <p>It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
1447 see if they are free and open standards.</p>
1448
1449       </div>
1450       <div class="tags">
1451
1452
1453         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>.
1454
1455
1456       </div>
1457     </div>
1458     <div class="padding"></div>
1459
1460     <div class="entry">
1461       <div class="title">
1462         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html">The many definitions of a open standard</a>
1463       </div>
1464       <div class="date">
1465         27th December 2010
1466       </div>
1467       <div class="body">
1468         <p>One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
1469 "<a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">Free and
1470 Open Standard</a>" is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
1471 the term has been decided by Digistan.  The term "Open Standard" has
1472 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
1473 about standards.  One end up discussing which definition is the best
1474 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
1475 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.</p>
1476
1477 <p>But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
1478 standards, here are a few that I know about.  This list is not
1479 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
1480 complete survey.  More definitions are available on the
1481 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard">wikipedia
1482 page</a>.</p>
1483
1484 <p>First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
1485 Interoperability Framework version 1.0.  Really sad to notice that BSA
1486 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the
1487 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
1488 their own people.  Anyway, the definition is still available and it
1489 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
1490 specification on equal terms.</p>
1491
1492 <blockquote>
1493
1494 <p>The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
1495 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
1496 open standard:</p>
1497
1498 <ul>
1499
1500 <li>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
1501 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
1502 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
1503 (consensus or majority decision etc.).</li>
1504
1505 <li>The standard has been published and the standard specification
1506 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
1507 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
1508 nominal fee.</li>
1509
1510 <li>The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
1511 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
1512 free basis.</li>
1513
1514 <li>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.</li>
1515
1516 </ul>
1517 </blockquote>
1518
1519 <p>Another one originates from my friends over at
1520 <a href="http://www.dkuug.dk/">DKUUG</a>, who coined and gathered
1521 support for <a href="http://www.aaben-standard.dk/">this
1522 definition</a> in 2004.  It even made it into the Danish parlament as
1523 <a href="http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm">their
1524 definition of a open standard</a>.  Another from a different part of
1525 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.</p>
1526
1527 <blockquote>
1528
1529 <p>En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:</p>
1530
1531 <ol>
1532
1533 <li>Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
1534 tilgængelig.</li>
1535
1536 <li>Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
1537 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.</li>
1538
1539 <li>Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
1540 "standardiseringsorganisation") via en åben proces.</li>
1541
1542 </ol>
1543
1544 </blockquote>
1545
1546 <p>Then there is <a href="http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html">the
1547 definition</a> from Free Software Foundation Europe.</p>
1548
1549 <blockquote>
1550
1551 <p>An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is</p>
1552
1553 <ol>
1554
1555 <li>subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
1556 manner equally available to all parties;</li>
1557
1558 <li>without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
1559 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
1560 Standard themselves;</li>
1561
1562 <li>free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
1563 any party or in any business model;</li>
1564
1565 <li>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
1566 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
1567 parties;</li>
1568
1569 <li>available in multiple complete implementations by competing
1570 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
1571 parties.</li>
1572
1573 </ol>
1574
1575 </blockquote>
1576
1577 <p>A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
1578 its
1579 <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf">Open
1580 Standards Checklist</a> with a fairly detailed description.</p>
1581
1582 <blockquote>
1583 <p>Creation and Management of an Open Standard
1584
1585 <ul>
1586
1587 <li>Its development and management process must be collaborative and
1588   democratic:
1589
1590          <ul>
1591
1592          <li>Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
1593             participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
1594             imposed by the organization under which it is developed
1595             and managed.</li>
1596
1597          <li>The processes must be documented and, through a known
1598             method, can be changed through input from all
1599             participants.</li>
1600
1601          <li>The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
1602             the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.</li>
1603
1604          <li>Development and management should strive for consensus,
1605             and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.</li>
1606
1607          <li>The standard specification must be open to extensive
1608             public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
1609             comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.</li>
1610
1611          </ul>
1612
1613 </li>
1614
1615 </ul>
1616
1617 <p>Use and Licensing of an Open Standard</p>
1618 <ul>
1619
1620 <li>The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
1621   and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
1622   implementations to the interface described in the standard without
1623   undue or restrictive constraints.  Interfaces include APIs,
1624   protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.</li>
1625
1626 <li> The standard must not contain any proprietary "hooks" that create
1627   a technical or economic barriers</li>
1628
1629 <li>Faithful implementations of the standard must
1630   interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
1631   program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
1632   programs and mutually to use the information which has been
1633   exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
1634   file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
1635   conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
1636   computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
1637   intended to function.</li>
1638
1639 <li>It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
1640   standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
1641   must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.</li>
1642
1643 <li>It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
1644   fees; also known as "royalty free"), worldwide, non-exclusive and
1645   perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
1646   sell products based on the standard.  The only exceptions are
1647   terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
1648   outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
1649   patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
1650   only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
1651
1652       <ul>
1653
1654       <li> May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
1655         licensees' patent claims essential to practice that standard
1656         (also known as a reciprocity clause)</li>
1657
1658       <li> May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
1659         or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
1660         essential to practice that standard (also known as a
1661         "defensive suspension" clause)</li>
1662
1663       <li> The same licensing terms are available to every potential
1664         licensor</li>
1665
1666       </ul>
1667 </li>
1668
1669 <li>The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
1670   implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
1671   or restricted licensing terms</li>
1672
1673 </ul>
1674
1675 </blockquote>
1676
1677 <p>It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
1678 there are so many of them.  As you can see, the same holds true for
1679 open standard definitions.  Most of the definitions have a lot in
1680 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
1681 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
1682 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
1683 competition to downplay the significance of open standards.  I hope we
1684 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
1685 Standards.</p>
1686
1687       </div>
1688       <div class="tags">
1689
1690
1691         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>.
1692
1693
1694       </div>
1695     </div>
1696     <div class="padding"></div>
1697
1698     <div class="entry">
1699       <div class="title">
1700         <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>
1701       </div>
1702       <div class="date">
1703         30th December 2010
1704       </div>
1705       <div class="body">
1706         <p>After trying to
1707 <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html">compare
1708 Ogg Theora</a> to
1709 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the Digistan
1710 definition</a> of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
1711 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
1712 this.  As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
1713 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
1714 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others.  But to be able to complete this in a
1715 reasonable time frame, I will need help.</p>
1716
1717 <p>If you want to help out with this work, please visit
1718 <a href="http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse">the
1719 wiki pages I have set up for this</a>, and let me know that you want
1720 to help out.  The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
1721 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
1722 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
1723 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).</p>
1724
1725 <p>The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do.  Do not be
1726 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)</p>
1727
1728       </div>
1729       <div class="tags">
1730
1731
1732         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>.
1733
1734
1735       </div>
1736     </div>
1737     <div class="padding"></div>
1738
1739     <div class="entry">
1740       <div class="title">
1741         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html">Chrome plan to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &lt;video&gt;</a>
1742       </div>
1743       <div class="date">
1744         12th January 2011
1745       </div>
1746       <div class="body">
1747         <p>Today I discovered
1748 <a href="http://www.digi.no/860070/google-dropper-h264-stotten-i-chrome">via
1749 digi.no</a> that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement,
1750 <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html">yesterday
1751 announced</a> plans to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &lt;video&gt; in
1752 the browser.  The argument used is that H.264 is not a "completely
1753 open" codec technology.  If you believe H.264 was free for everyone
1754 to use, I recommend having a look at the essay
1755 "<a href="http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/">H.264 – Not The Kind Of
1756 Free That Matters</a>".  It is not free of cost for creators of video
1757 tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the
1758 terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from
1759 licensing the patents needed for H.264.  Some background information
1760 on the Google announcement is available from
1761 <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/24243/Google_To_Drop_H264_Support_from_Chrome">OSnews</a>.
1762 A good read. :)</p>
1763
1764 <p>Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to
1765 promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on
1766 the Internet.  This can only be done by publishing using free and open
1767 standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support
1768 for these free and open standards.  At the moment there seem to be two
1769 camps in the web browser world when it come to video support.  Some
1770 browsers support H.264, and others support
1771 <a href="http://www.theora.org/">Ogg Theora</a> and
1772 <a href="http://www.webmproject.org/">WebM</a>
1773 (<a href="http://www.diracvideo.org/">Dirac</a> is not really an option
1774 yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet
1775 and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for
1776 H.264 to not reach all potential viewers.
1777 Wikipedia keep <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video">an
1778 updated summary</a> of the current browser support.</p>
1779
1780 <p>Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep
1781 promoting H.264, and John Gruber
1782 <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions">presents
1783 the mind set</a> of these people quite well.  His rhetorical questions
1784 provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions
1785 <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM">presenting
1786 the issues with H.264</a>. Both are worth a read.</p>
1787
1788 <p>Some argue that if Google is dropping H.264 because it isn't free,
1789 they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin.  This
1790 argument was covered by Simon Phipps in
1791 <a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/01/google-and-h264---far-from-hypocritical/index.htm">todays
1792 blog post</a>, which I find to put the issue in context.  To me it
1793 make perfect sense to drop native H.264 support for HTML5 in the
1794 browser while still allowing plugins.</p>
1795
1796 <p>I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest,
1797 is that all the users and promoters of H.264 suddenly get an uneasy
1798 feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse.  A lot of TV
1799 broadcasters have been moving to H.264 the last few years, and a lot
1800 of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they
1801 could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web
1802 publishing.  Suddenly this belief is shaken.</p>
1803
1804 <p>An interesting question is why Google is doing this.  While the
1805 presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only
1806 present the argument if the change make sense from a business
1807 perspective.  One reason might be that they are currently negotiating
1808 with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the
1809 feeling that dropping H.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and
1810 Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google.
1811 Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having
1812 to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a
1813 video format not requiring royalties at all.  A third reason might be
1814 that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the
1815 Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome.
1816 I guess time will tell.</p>
1817
1818 <p>Update 2011-01-15: The Google Chrome team provided
1819 <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html">more
1820 background and information on the move</a> it a blog post yesterday.</p>
1821
1822       </div>
1823       <div class="tags">
1824
1825
1826         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
1827
1828
1829       </div>
1830     </div>
1831     <div class="padding"></div>
1832
1833     <div class="entry">
1834       <div class="title">
1835         <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html">The video format most supported in web browsers?</a>
1836       </div>
1837       <div class="date">
1838         16th January 2011
1839       </div>
1840       <div class="body">
1841         <p>The video format struggle on the web continues, and the three
1842 contenders seem to be Ogg Theora, H.264 and WebM.  Most video sites
1843 seem to use H.264, while others use Ogg Theora.  Interestingly enough,
1844 the comments I see give me the feeling that a lot of people believe
1845 H.264 is the most supported video format in browsers, but according to
1846 the Wikipedia article on
1847 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video">HTML5 video</a>,
1848 this is not true.  Check out the nice table of supprted formats in
1849 different browsers there.  The format supported by most browsers is
1850 Ogg Theora, supported by released versions of Mozilla Firefox, Google
1851 Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Origyn Web Browser and
1852 BOLT browser, while not supported by Internet Explorer nor Safari.
1853 The runner up is WebM supported by released versions of Google Chrome
1854 Chromium Opera and Origyn Web Browser, and test versions of Mozilla
1855 Firefox.  H.264 is supported by released versions of Safari, Origyn
1856 Web Browser and BOLT browser, and the test version of Internet
1857 Explorer.  Those wanting Ogg Theora support in Internet Explorer and
1858 Safari can install plugins to get it.</p>
1859
1860 <p>To me, the simple conclusion from this is that to reach most users
1861 without any extra software installed, one uses Ogg Theora with the
1862 HTML5 video tag.   Of course to reach all those without a browser
1863 handling HTML5, one need fallback mechanisms.  In
1864 <a href="http://www.nuug.no/">NUUG</a>, we provide first fallback to a
1865 plugin capable of playing MPEG1 video, and those without such support
1866 we have a second fallback to the Cortado java applet playing Ogg
1867 Theora.  This seem to work quite well, as can be seen in an <a
1868 href="http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20110111-semantic-web/">example
1869 from last week</a>.</p>
1870
1871 <p>The reason Ogg Theora is the most supported format, and H.264 is
1872 the least supported is simple.  Implementing and using H.264
1873 require royalty payment to MPEG-LA, and the terms of use from MPEG-LA
1874 are incompatible with free software licensing.  If you believed H.264
1875 was without royalties and license terms, check out
1876 "<a href="http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/">H.264 – Not The Kind Of
1877 Free That Matters</a>" by Simon Phipps.</p>
1878
1879 <p>A incomplete list of sites providing video in Ogg Theora is
1880 available from
1881 <a href="http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/List_of_Theora_videos">the
1882 Xiph.org wiki</a>, if you want to have a look.  I'm not aware of a
1883 similar list for WebM nor H.264.</p>
1884
1885 <p>Update 2011-01-16 09:40: A question from Tollef on IRC made me
1886 realise that I failed to make it clear enough this text is about the
1887 &lt;video&gt; tag support in browsers and not the video support
1888 provided by external plugins like the Flash plugins.</p>
1889
1890       </div>
1891       <div class="tags">
1892
1893
1894         Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</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>.
1895
1896
1897       </div>
1898     </div>
1899     <div class="padding"></div>
1900
1901     <p style="text-align: right;"><a href="standard.rss"><img src="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/xml.gif" alt="RSS Feed" width="36" height="14" /></a></p>
1902     <div id="sidebar">
1903
1904
1905
1906 <h2>Archive</h2>
1907 <ul>
1908
1909 <li>2012
1910 <ul>
1911
1912 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2012/01/">January (7)</a></li>
1913
1914 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2012/02/">February (10)</a></li>
1915
1916 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2012/03/">March (10)</a></li>
1917
1918 </ul></li>
1919
1920 <li>2011
1921 <ul>
1922
1923 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/01/">January (16)</a></li>
1924
1925 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/02/">February (6)</a></li>
1926
1927 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/03/">March (6)</a></li>
1928
1929 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/04/">April (7)</a></li>
1930
1931 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/05/">May (3)</a></li>
1932
1933 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/06/">June (2)</a></li>
1934
1935 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/07/">July (7)</a></li>
1936
1937 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/08/">August (6)</a></li>
1938
1939 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/09/">September (4)</a></li>
1940
1941 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/10/">October (2)</a></li>
1942
1943 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/11/">November (3)</a></li>
1944
1945 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/12/">December (1)</a></li>
1946
1947 </ul></li>
1948
1949 <li>2010
1950 <ul>
1951
1952 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/01/">January (2)</a></li>
1953
1954 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/02/">February (1)</a></li>
1955
1956 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/03/">March (3)</a></li>
1957
1958 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/04/">April (3)</a></li>
1959
1960 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/05/">May (9)</a></li>
1961
1962 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/06/">June (14)</a></li>
1963
1964 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/07/">July (12)</a></li>
1965
1966 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/08/">August (13)</a></li>
1967
1968 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/09/">September (7)</a></li>
1969
1970 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/10/">October (9)</a></li>
1971
1972 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/11/">November (13)</a></li>
1973
1974 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/12/">December (12)</a></li>
1975
1976 </ul></li>
1977
1978 <li>2009
1979 <ul>
1980
1981 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/01/">January (8)</a></li>
1982
1983 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/02/">February (8)</a></li>
1984
1985 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/03/">March (12)</a></li>
1986
1987 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/04/">April (10)</a></li>
1988
1989 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/05/">May (9)</a></li>
1990
1991 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/06/">June (3)</a></li>
1992
1993 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/07/">July (4)</a></li>
1994
1995 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/08/">August (3)</a></li>
1996
1997 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/09/">September (1)</a></li>
1998
1999 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/10/">October (2)</a></li>
2000
2001 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/11/">November (3)</a></li>
2002
2003 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/12/">December (3)</a></li>
2004
2005 </ul></li>
2006
2007 <li>2008
2008 <ul>
2009
2010 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2008/11/">November (5)</a></li>
2011
2012 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2008/12/">December (7)</a></li>
2013
2014 </ul></li>
2015
2016 </ul>
2017
2018
2019
2020 <h2>Tags</h2>
2021 <ul>
2022
2023  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/3d-printer">3d-printer (13)</a></li>
2024
2025  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/amiga">amiga (1)</a></li>
2026
2027  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/aros">aros (1)</a></li>
2028
2029  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/bitcoin">bitcoin (2)</a></li>
2030
2031  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/bootsystem">bootsystem (12)</a></li>
2032
2033  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/bsa">bsa (2)</a></li>
2034
2035  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian">debian (54)</a></li>
2036
2037  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian edu">debian edu (88)</a></li>
2038
2039  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan (7)</a></li>
2040
2041  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english (115)</a></li>
2042
2043  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/fiksgatami">fiksgatami (14)</a></li>
2044
2045  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/fildeling">fildeling (12)</a></li>
2046
2047  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/intervju">intervju (18)</a></li>
2048
2049  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/kart">kart (15)</a></li>
2050
2051  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/ldap">ldap (8)</a></li>
2052
2053  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/lenker">lenker (4)</a></li>
2054
2055  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/ltsp">ltsp (1)</a></li>
2056
2057  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia (14)</a></li>
2058
2059  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk (151)</a></li>
2060
2061  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug (120)</a></li>
2062
2063  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/open311">open311 (2)</a></li>
2064
2065  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/opphavsrett">opphavsrett (24)</a></li>
2066
2067  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/personvern">personvern (46)</a></li>
2068
2069  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/raid">raid (1)</a></li>
2070
2071  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/reprap">reprap (11)</a></li>
2072
2073  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/rfid">rfid (2)</a></li>
2074
2075  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/robot">robot (4)</a></li>
2076
2077  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/rss">rss (1)</a></li>
2078
2079  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/ruter">ruter (4)</a></li>
2080
2081  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/sikkerhet">sikkerhet (23)</a></li>
2082
2083  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/sitesummary">sitesummary (4)</a></li>
2084
2085  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard (24)</a></li>
2086
2087  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/stavekontroll">stavekontroll (1)</a></li>
2088
2089  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/stortinget">stortinget (3)</a></li>
2090
2091  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/surveillance">surveillance (9)</a></li>
2092
2093  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/valg">valg (6)</a></li>
2094
2095  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video (23)</a></li>
2096
2097  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/vitenskap">vitenskap (1)</a></li>
2098
2099  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web (18)</a></li>
2100
2101 </ul>
2102
2103
2104     </div>
2105     <p style="text-align: right">
2106  Created by <a href="http://steve.org.uk/Software/chronicle">Chronicle v4.4</a>
2107 </p>
2108
2109   </body>
2110 </html>