blog/tags/standard/standard.rss

   1 <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
   2 <rss version='2.0' xmlns:lj='http://www.livejournal.org/rss/lj/1.0/'>
   3         <channel>
   4                 <title>Petter Reinholdtsen - Entries tagged standard</title>
   5                 <description>Entries tagged standard</description>
   6                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/</link>
   7
   8
   9         <item>
  10                 <title>Åpen og gjennomsiktig vedlikehold av spesifikasjonen for Noark 5 Tjenestegrensesnitt</title>
  11                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_pen_og_gjennomsiktig_vedlikehold_av_spesifikasjonen_for_Noark_5_Tjenestegrensesnitt.html</link>
  12                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_pen_og_gjennomsiktig_vedlikehold_av_spesifikasjonen_for_Noark_5_Tjenestegrensesnitt.html</guid>
  13                 <pubDate>Mon, 11 Mar 2019 16:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
  14                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Et virksomhetsarkiv for meg, er et arbeidsverktøy der en enkelt kan
  15 finne informasjonen en trenger når en trenger det, og der
  16 virksomhetens samlede kunnskap er tilgjengelig. Det må være greit å
  17 finne frem i, litt som en bibliotek. Men der et bibliotek gjerne tar
  18 vare på offentliggjort informasjon som er tilgjengelig flere steder,
  19 tar et arkiv vare på virksomhetsintern og til tider personlig
  20 informasjon som ofte kun er tilgjengelig fra et sted.&lt;/p&gt;
  21
  22 &lt;p&gt;Jeg mistenker den eneste måten å sikre at arkivet inneholder den
  23 samlede kunnskapen i en virksomhet, er å bruke det som virksomhetens
  24 kunnskapslager. Det innebærer å automatisk kopiere (brev, epost,
  25 SMS-er etc) inn i arkivet når de sendes og mottas, og der filtrere
  26 vekk det en ikke vil ta vare på, og legge på metadata om det som er
  27 samlet inn for enkel gjenfinning. En slik bruk av arkivet innebærer at
  28 arkivet er en del av daglig virke, ikke at det er siste hvilested for
  29 informasjon ingen lenger har daglig bruk for. For å kunne være en del
  30 av det daglige virket må arkivet enkelt kunne integreres med andre
  31 systemer.  I disse dager betyr det å tilby arkivet som en
  32 nett-tjeneste til hele virksomheten, tilgjengelig for både mennesker
  33 og datamaskiner.  Det betyr i tur å både tilby nettsider og et
  34 maskinlesbart grensesnitt.&lt;/p&gt;
  35
  36 &lt;p&gt;For noen år siden erkjente visjonære arkivarer fordelene med et
  37 standardisert maskinlesbart grensesnitt til organisasjonens arkiv.  De
  38 gikk igang med å lage noe de kalte
  39 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/arkivverket/noark5-tjenestegrensesnitt-standard/&quot;&gt;Noark
  40 5 Tjenestegrensesnitt&lt;/a&gt;.  Gjort riktig, så åpner slike maskinlesbare
  41 grensesnitt for samvirke på tvers av uavhengige programvaresystemer.
  42 Gjort feil, vil det blokkere for samvirke og bidra til
  43 leverandørinnlåsing.  For å gjøre det riktig så må grensesnittet være
  44 klart og entydig beskrevet i en spesifikasjon som gjør at
  45 spesifikasjonen tolkes på samme måte uavhengig av hvem som leser den,
  46 og uavhengig av hvem som tar den i bruk.&lt;/p&gt;
  47
  48 &lt;p&gt;For å oppnå klare og entydige beskrivelser i en spesifikasjon, som
  49 trengs for å kunne få en fri og åpen standard (se
  50 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html&quot;&gt;Digistan-definisjon&lt;/a&gt;),
  51 så trengs det en åpen og gjennomsiktig inngangsport med lav terskel,
  52 der de som forsøker å ta den i bruk enkelt kan få inn korreksjoner,
  53 etterlyse klargjøringer og rapportere uklarheter i spesifikasjonen.
  54 En trenger også automatiserte datasystemer som måler og sjekker at et
  55 gitt grensesnitt fungerer i tråd med spesifikasjonen.&lt;/p&gt;
  56
  57 &lt;p&gt;For Noark 5 Tjenestegrensesnittet er det nå etablert en slik åpen
  58 og gjennomsiktig inngangsport på prosjekttjenesten github.  Denne
  59 inngangsporten består først og fremst av en åpen portal som lar enhver
  60 se hva som er gjort av endringer i spesifikasjonsteksten over tid, men
  61 det hører også med et åpent &amp;quot;diskusjonsforum&amp;quot; der en kan
  62 komme med endringsforslag og forespørsler om klargjøringer.  Alle
  63 registrerte brukere på github kan bidra med innspill til disse
  64 henvendelsene.&lt;/p&gt;
  65
  66 &lt;p&gt;I samarbeide med Arkivverket har jeg fått opprettet et git-depot
  67 med spesifikasjonsteksten for tjenestegrensesnittet, der det er lagt
  68 inn historikk for endringer i teksten de siste årene, samt lagt inn
  69 endringsforslag og forespørsler om klargjøring av teksten.  Bakgrunnen
  70 for at jeg bidro med dette er at jeg er involvert i
  71 &lt;a href=&quot;https://gitlab.com/OsloMet-ABI/nikita-noark5-core&quot;&gt;Nikita-prosjektet&lt;/a&gt;,
  72 som lager en fri programvare-utgave av Noark 5 Tjenestegrensesnitt.
  73 Det er først når en forsøker å lage noe i tråd med en spesifikasjon at
  74 en oppdager hvor mange detaljer som må beskrives i spesifikasjonen for
  75 å sikre samhandling.&lt;/p&gt;
  76
  77 &lt;p&gt;Spesifikasjonen vedlikeholdes i et rent tekstformat, for å ha et
  78 format egnet for versjonskontroll via versjontrollsystemet git.  Dette
  79 gjør det både enkelt å se konkret hvilke endringer som er gjort når,
  80 samt gjør det praktisk mulig for enhver med github-konto å sende inn
  81 endringsforslag med formuleringer til spesifikasjonsteksten.  Dette
  82 tekstformatet vises frem som nettsider på github, slik at en ikke
  83 trenger spesielle verktøy for å se på siste utgave av
  84 spesifikasjonen.&lt;/p&gt;
  85
  86 &lt;p&gt;Fra dette rene tekstformatet kan det så avledes ulike formater, som
  87 HTML for websider, PDF for utskrift på papir og ePub for lesing med
  88 ebokleser.  Avlednings-systemet (byggesystemet) bruker i dag
  89 verktøyene pandoc, latex, docbook-xsl og GNU make til
  90 transformasjonen.  Tekstformatet som brukes dag er
  91 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.markdownguide.org/&quot;&gt;Markdown&lt;/a&gt;, men det vurderes
  92 å
  93 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/arkivverket/noark5-tjenestegrensesnitt-standard/issues/9&quot;&gt;endre
  94 til formatet RST&lt;/a&gt; i fremtiden for bedre styring av utseende på
  95 PDF-utgaven.&lt;/p&gt;
  96
  97 &lt;p&gt;Versjonskontrollsystemet git ble valgt da det er både fleksibelt,
  98 avansert og enkelt å ta i bruk. Github ble valgt (foran f.eks. Gitlab
  99 som vi bruker i Nikita), da Arkivverket allerede hadde tatt i bruk
 100 Github i andre sammenhenger.&lt;/p&gt;
 101
 102 &lt;p&gt;Enkle endringer i teksten kan gjøres av priviligerte brukere
 103 direkte i nettsidene til Github, ved å finne aktuell fil som skal
 104 endres (f.eks. kapitler/03-konformitet.md), klikke på den lille
 105 bokstaven i høyre hjørne over teksten. Det kommer opp en nettside der
 106 en kan endre teksten slik en ønsker. Når en er fornøyd med endringen
 107 så må endringen &amp;quot;sjekkes inn&amp;quot; i historikken. Det gjøres ved
 108 å gi en kort beskrivelse av endringen (beskriv helst hvorfor endringen
 109 trengs, ikke hva som er endret), under overskriften &amp;quot;Commit
 110 changes&amp;quot;. En kan og bør legge inn en lengre forklaring i det
 111 større skrivefeltet, før en velger om endringen skal sendes direkte
 112 til &#39;master&#39;-grenen (dvs. autorativ utgave av spesifikasjonen) eller
 113 om en skal lage en ny gren for denne endringen og opprette en
 114 endringsforespørsel (aka &amp;quot;Pull Request&amp;quot;/PR). Når alt dette
 115 er gjort kan en velge &amp;quot;Commit changes&amp;quot; for å sende inn
 116 endringen. Hvis den er lagt inn i &amp;quot;master&amp;quot;-grenen så er den
 117 en offisiell del av spesifikasjonen med en gang.  Hvis den derimot er
 118 en endringsforespørsel, så legges den inn i
 119 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/arkivverket/noark5-tjenestegrensesnitt-standard/pulls&quot;&gt;listen
 120 over forslag til endringer&lt;/a&gt; som venter på korrekturlesing og
 121 godkjenning.&lt;/p&gt;
 122
 123 &lt;p&gt;Større endringer (for eksempel samtidig endringer i flere filer)
 124 gjøres enklest ved å hente ned en kopi av git-depoet lokalt og gjøre
 125 endringene der før endringsforslaget sendes inn. Denne prosessen er
 126 godt beskrivet i dokumentasjon fra github.  Git-prosjektet som skal
 127 &amp;quot;klones&amp;quot; er
 128 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/arkivverket/noark5-tjenestegrensesnitt-standard/&quot;&gt;https://github.com/arkivverket/noark5-tjenestegrensesnitt-standard/&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 129
 130 &lt;p&gt;For å registrere nye utfordringer (issues) eller kommentere på
 131 eksisterende utfordringer benyttes nettsiden
 132 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/arkivverket/noark5-tjenestegrensesnitt-standard/issues&quot;&gt;https://github.com/arkivverket/noark5-tjenestegrensesnitt-standard/issues&lt;/a&gt;.
 133 I skrivende stund er det 48 åpne og 11 avsluttede utfordringer.  Et
 134 forslag til hva som bør være med når en beskriver en utfordring er
 135 tilgjengelig som utfordring
 136 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/arkivverket/noark5-tjenestegrensesnitt-standard/issues/14&quot;&gt;#14&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 137
 138 &lt;p&gt;For å bygge en PDF-utgave av spesifikasjonen så bruker jeg i dag en
 139 Debian GNU/Linux-maskin med en rekke programpakker installert.  Når
 140 dette er på plass, så holder det å kjøre kommandoen &#39;make pdf html&#39; på
 141 kommandolinjen, vente ca. 20 sekunder, før spesifikasjon.pdf og
 142 spesifikasjon.html ligger klar på disken. Verktøyene for bygging av
 143 PDF, HTML og ePub-utgave er også tilgjengelig på Windows og
 144 MacOSX.&lt;/p&gt;
 145
 146 &lt;p&gt;Github bidrar med rammeverket.  Men for at åpent vedlikehold av
 147 spesifikasjonen skal fungere, så trengs det folk som bidrar med sin
 148 tid og kunnskap.  Arkivverket har sagt de skal bidra med innspill og
 149 godkjenne forslag til endringer, men det blir størst suksess hvis alle
 150 som bruker og lager systemer basert på Noark 5 Tjenestegrensesnitt
 151 bidrar med sin kunnskap og kommer med forslag til forebedringer.  Jeg
 152 stiller.  Blir du med?&lt;/p&gt;
 153
 154 &lt;p&gt;Det er viktig å legge til rette for åpen diskusjon blant alle
 155 interesserte, som ikke krever at en må godta lange kontrakter med
 156 vilkår for deltagelse. Inntil Arkivverket dukker opp på IRC har vi
 157 laget en IRC-kanal der interesserte enkelt kan orientere seg og
 158 diskutere tjenestegrensesnittet. Alle er velkommen til å ta turen
 159 innom
 160 &lt;a href=&quot;https://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=nikita&quot;&gt;#nikita&lt;/a&gt;
 161 (f.eks. via irc.freenode.net) for å møte likesinnede.&lt;/p&gt;
 162
 163 &lt;p&gt;Det holder dog ikke å ha en god spesifikasjon, hvis ikke de som tar
 164 den i bruk gjør en like god jobb. For å automatisk teste om et konkret
 165 tjenestegrensesnitt følger (min) forståelse av
 166 spesifikasjonsdokumentet, har jeg skrevet et program som kobler seg
 167 opp til et Noark 5v4 REST-tjeneste og tester alt den finner for å se
 168 om det er i henhold til min tolkning av spesifikasjonen.  Dette
 169 verktøyet er tilgjengelig fra
 170 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester&quot;&gt;https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester&lt;/a&gt;,
 171 og brukes daglig mens vi utvikler Nikita for å sikre at vi ikke
 172 introduserer nye feil.  Hvis en skal sikre samvirke på tvers av ulike
 173 systemer er det helt essensielt å kunne raskt og automatisk sjekke at
 174 tjenestegrensesnittet oppfører seg som forventet.  Jeg håper andre som
 175 lager sin utgave av tjenestegrensesnittet vi bruke dette verktøyet,
 176 slik at vi tidlig og raskt kan oppdage hvor vi har tolket
 177 spesifikasjonen ulikt, og dermed få et godt grunnlag for å gjøre
 178 spesifikasjonsteksten enda klarere og bedre.&lt;/p&gt;
 179
 180 &lt;p&gt;Dagens beskrivelse av Noark 5 Tjenestegrensesnitt er et svært godt
 181 utgangspunkt for å gjøre virksomhetens arkiv til et dynamisk og
 182 sentralt arbeidsverktøy i organisasjonen.  Blir du med å gjøre den
 183 enda bedre?&lt;/p&gt;
 184 </description>
 185         </item>
 186
 187         <item>
 188                 <title>Why is your site not using Content Security Policy / CSP?</title>
 189                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Why_is_your_site_not_using_Content_Security_Policy___CSP_.html</link>
 190                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Why_is_your_site_not_using_Content_Security_Policy___CSP_.html</guid>
 191                 <pubDate>Sun, 9 Dec 2018 15:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
 192                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Yesterday, I had the pleasure of watching on Frikanalen the OWASP
 193 talk by Scott Helme titled
 194 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://frikanalen.no/video/626080/&quot;&gt;What We’ve Learned From
 195 Billions of Security Reports&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  I had not heard of the
 196 &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Security_Policy&quot;&gt;Content
 197 Security Policy standard&lt;/a&gt; nor its ability to &quot;call home&quot; when a
 198 browser detect a policy breach (I do not follow web page design
 199 development much these days), and found the talk very illuminating.&lt;/p&gt;
 200
 201 &lt;p&gt;The mechanism allow a web site owner to use HTTP headers to tell
 202 visitors web browser which sources (internal and external) are allowed to
 203 be used on the web site.  Thus it become possible to enforce a &quot;only
 204 local content&quot; policy despite web designers urge to fetch programs
 205 from random sites on the Internet, like the one
 206 &lt;a href=&quot;https://securityaffairs.co/wordpress/68966/hacking/browsealoud-plugin-hack.html&quot;&gt;enabling
 207 the attack&lt;/a&gt; reported by Scott Helme earlier this year.&lt;/p&gt;
 208
 209 &lt;p&gt;Using CSP seem like an obvious thing for a site admin to implement
 210 to take some control over the information leak that occur when
 211 external sources are used to render web pages, it is a mystery more
 212 sites are not using CSP?  It is being
 213 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.w3.org/TR/CSP/&quot;&gt;standardized under W3C&lt;/a&gt; these
 214 days, and is supposed by most web browsers&lt;/p&gt;
 215
 216 &lt;p&gt;I managed to find &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/mozilla/django-csp&quot;&gt;a
 217 Django middleware for implementing CSP&lt;/a&gt; and was happy to discover
 218 it was already in Debian.  I plan to use it to add CSP support to the
 219 Frikanalen web site soon.&lt;/p&gt;
 220
 221 &lt;p&gt;As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
 222 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
 223 &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;bitcoin:15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&quot;&gt;15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 224 </description>
 225         </item>
 226
 227         <item>
 228                 <title>Time for an official MIME type for patches?</title>
 229                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Time_for_an_official_MIME_type_for_patches_.html</link>
 230                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Time_for_an_official_MIME_type_for_patches_.html</guid>
 231                 <pubDate>Thu, 1 Nov 2018 08:15:00 +0100</pubDate>
 232                 <description>&lt;p&gt;As part of my involvement in
 233 &lt;a href=&quot;https://gitlab.com/OsloMet-ABI/nikita-noark5-core&quot;&gt;the Nikita
 234 archive API project&lt;/a&gt;, I&#39;ve been importing a fairly large lump of
 235 emails into a test instance of the archive to see how well this would
 236 go.  I picked a subset of &lt;a href=&quot;https://notmuchmail.org/&quot;&gt;my
 237 notmuch email database&lt;/a&gt;, all public emails sent to me via
 238 @lists.debian.org, giving me a set of around 216 000 emails to import.
 239 In the process, I had a look at the various attachments included in
 240 these emails, to figure out what to do with attachments, and noticed
 241 that one of the most common attachment formats do not have
 242 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.iana.org/assignments/media-types/media-types.xhtml&quot;&gt;an
 243 official MIME type&lt;/a&gt; registered with IANA/IETF.  The output from
 244 diff, ie the input for patch, is on the top 10 list of formats
 245 included in these emails.  At the moment people seem to use either
 246 text/x-patch or text/x-diff, but neither is officially registered.  It
 247 would be better if one official MIME type were registered and used
 248 everywhere.&lt;/p&gt;
 249
 250 &lt;p&gt;To try to get one official MIME type for these files, I&#39;ve brought
 251 up the topic on
 252 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/media-types&quot;&gt;the
 253 media-types mailing list&lt;/a&gt;.  If you are interested in discussion
 254 which MIME type to use as the official for patch files, or involved in
 255 making software using a MIME type for patches, perhaps you would like
 256 to join the discussion?&lt;/p&gt;
 257
 258 &lt;p&gt;As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
 259 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
 260 &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;bitcoin:15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&quot;&gt;15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 261 </description>
 262         </item>
 263
 264         <item>
 265                 <title>Release 0.2 of free software archive system Nikita announced</title>
 266                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Release_0_2_of_free_software_archive_system_Nikita_announced.html</link>
 267                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Release_0_2_of_free_software_archive_system_Nikita_announced.html</guid>
 268                 <pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2018 14:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
 269                 <description>&lt;p&gt;This morning, the new release of the
 270 &lt;a href=&quot;https://gitlab.com/OsloMet-ABI/nikita-noark5-core/&quot;&gt;Nikita
 271 Noark 5 core project&lt;/a&gt; was
 272 &lt;a href=&quot;https://lists.nuug.no/pipermail/nikita-noark/2018-October/000406.html&quot;&gt;announced
 273 on the project mailing list&lt;/a&gt;.  The free software solution is an
 274 implementation of the Norwegian archive standard Noark 5 used by
 275 government offices in Norway.  These were the changes in version 0.2
 276 since version 0.1.1 (from NEWS.md):
 277
 278 &lt;ul&gt;
 279   &lt;li&gt;Fix typos in REL names&lt;/li&gt;
 280   &lt;li&gt;Tidy up error message reporting&lt;/li&gt;
 281   &lt;li&gt;Fix issue where we used Integer.valueOf(), not Integer.getInteger()&lt;/li&gt;
 282   &lt;li&gt;Change some String handling to StringBuffer&lt;/li&gt;
 283   &lt;li&gt;Fix error reporting&lt;/li&gt;
 284   &lt;li&gt;Code tidy-up&lt;/li&gt;
 285   &lt;li&gt;Fix issue using static non-synchronized SimpleDateFormat to avoid
 286       race conditions&lt;/li&gt;
 287   &lt;li&gt;Fix problem where deserialisers were treating integers as strings&lt;/li&gt;
 288   &lt;li&gt;Update methods to make them null-safe&lt;/li&gt;
 289   &lt;li&gt;Fix many issues reported by coverity&lt;/li&gt;
 290   &lt;li&gt;Improve equals(), compareTo() and hash() in domain model&lt;/li&gt;
 291   &lt;li&gt;Improvements to the domain model for metadata classes&lt;/li&gt;
 292   &lt;li&gt;Fix CORS issues when downloading document&lt;/li&gt;
 293   &lt;li&gt;Implementation of case-handling with registryEntry and document upload&lt;/li&gt;
 294   &lt;li&gt;Better support in Javascript for OPTIONS&lt;/li&gt;
 295   &lt;li&gt;Adding concept description of mail integration&lt;/li&gt;
 296   &lt;li&gt;Improve setting of default values for GET on ny-journalpost&lt;/li&gt;
 297   &lt;li&gt;Better handling of required values during deserialisation &lt;/li&gt;
 298   &lt;li&gt;Changed tilknyttetDato (M620) from date to dateTime&lt;/li&gt;
 299   &lt;li&gt;Corrected some opprettetDato (M600) (de)serialisation errors.&lt;/li&gt;
 300   &lt;li&gt;Improve parse error reporting.&lt;/li&gt;
 301   &lt;li&gt;Started on OData search and filtering.&lt;/li&gt;
 302   &lt;li&gt;Added Contributor Covenant Code of Conduct to project.&lt;/li&gt;
 303   &lt;li&gt;Moved repository and project from Github to Gitlab.&lt;/li&gt;
 304   &lt;li&gt;Restructured repository, moved code into src/ and web/.&lt;/li&gt;
 305   &lt;li&gt;Updated code to use Spring Boot version 2.&lt;/li&gt;
 306   &lt;li&gt;Added support for OAuth2 authentication.&lt;/li&gt;
 307   &lt;li&gt;Fixed several bugs discovered by Coverity.&lt;/li&gt;
 308   &lt;li&gt;Corrected handling of date/datetime fields.&lt;/li&gt;
 309   &lt;li&gt;Improved error reporting when rejecting during deserializatoin.&lt;/li&gt;
 310   &lt;li&gt;Adjusted default values provided for ny-arkivdel, ny-mappe,
 311    ny-saksmappe, ny-journalpost and ny-dokumentbeskrivelse.&lt;/li&gt;
 312   &lt;li&gt;Several fixes for korrespondansepart*.&lt;/li&gt;
 313   &lt;li&gt;Updated web GUI:
 314      &lt;ul&gt;
 315        &lt;li&gt;Now handle both file upload and download.&lt;/li&gt;
 316        &lt;li&gt;Uses new OAuth2 authentication for login.&lt;/li&gt;
 317        &lt;li&gt;Forms now fetches default values from API using GET.&lt;/li&gt;
 318        &lt;li&gt;Added RFC 822 (email), TIFF and JPEG to list of possible file formats.&lt;/li&gt;
 319      &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 320 &lt;/ul&gt;
 321
 322 &lt;p&gt;The changes and improvements are extensive.  Running diffstat on
 323 the changes between git tab 0.1.1 and 0.2 show 1098 files changed,
 324 108666 insertions(+), 54066 deletions(-).&lt;/p&gt;
 325
 326 &lt;p&gt;If free and open standardized archiving API sound interesting to
 327 you, please contact us on IRC
 328 (&lt;a href=&quot;irc://irc.freenode.net/%23nikita&quot;&gt;#nikita on
 329 irc.freenode.net&lt;/a&gt;) or email
 330 (&lt;a href=&quot;https://lists.nuug.no/mailman/listinfo/nikita-noark&quot;&gt;nikita-noark
 331 mailing list&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
 332
 333 &lt;p&gt;As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
 334 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
 335 &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;bitcoin:15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&quot;&gt;15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 336 </description>
 337         </item>
 338
 339         <item>
 340                 <title>Release 0.1.1 of free software archive system Nikita announced</title>
 341                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Release_0_1_1_of_free_software_archive_system_Nikita_announced.html</link>
 342                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Release_0_1_1_of_free_software_archive_system_Nikita_announced.html</guid>
 343                 <pubDate>Sat, 10 Jun 2017 00:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
 344                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I am very happy to report that the
 345 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/hiOA-ABI/nikita-noark5-core&quot;&gt;Nikita Noark 5
 346 core project&lt;/a&gt; tagged its second release today.  The free software
 347 solution is an implementation of the Norwegian archive standard Noark
 348 5 used by government offices in Norway.  These were the changes in
 349 version 0.1.1 since version 0.1.0 (from NEWS.md):
 350
 351 &lt;ul&gt;
 352
 353  &lt;li&gt;Continued work on the angularjs GUI, including document upload.&lt;/li&gt;
 354  &lt;li&gt;Implemented correspondencepartPerson, correspondencepartUnit and
 355    correspondencepartInternal&lt;/li&gt;
 356  &lt;li&gt;Applied for coverity coverage and started submitting code on
 357    regualr basis.&lt;/li&gt;
 358  &lt;li&gt;Started fixing bugs reported by coverity&lt;/li&gt;
 359  &lt;li&gt;Corrected and completed HATEOAS links to make sure entire API is
 360    available via URLs in _links.&lt;/li&gt;
 361  &lt;li&gt;Corrected all relation URLs to use trailing slash.&lt;/li&gt;
 362  &lt;li&gt;Add initial support for storing data in ElasticSearch.&lt;/li&gt;
 363  &lt;li&gt;Now able to receive and store uploaded files in the archive.&lt;/li&gt;
 364  &lt;li&gt;Changed JSON output for object lists to have relations in _links.&lt;/li&gt;
 365  &lt;li&gt;Improve JSON output for empty object lists.&lt;/li&gt;
 366  &lt;li&gt;Now uses correct MIME type application/vnd.noark5-v4+json.&lt;/li&gt;
 367  &lt;li&gt;Added support for docker container images.&lt;/li&gt;
 368  &lt;li&gt;Added simple API browser implemented in JavaScript/Angular.&lt;/li&gt;
 369  &lt;li&gt;Started on archive client implemented in JavaScript/Angular.&lt;/li&gt;
 370  &lt;li&gt;Started on prototype to show the public mail journal.&lt;/li&gt;
 371  &lt;li&gt;Improved performance by disabling Sprint FileWatcher.&lt;/li&gt;
 372  &lt;li&gt;Added support for &#39;arkivskaper&#39;, &#39;saksmappe&#39; and &#39;journalpost&#39;.&lt;/li&gt;
 373  &lt;li&gt;Added support for some metadata codelists.&lt;/li&gt;
 374  &lt;li&gt;Added support for Cross-origin resource sharing (CORS).&lt;/li&gt;
 375  &lt;li&gt;Changed login method from Basic Auth to JSON Web Token (RFC 7519)
 376    style.&lt;/li&gt;
 377  &lt;li&gt;Added support for GET-ing ny-* URLs.&lt;/li&gt;
 378  &lt;li&gt;Added support for modifying entities using PUT and eTag.&lt;/li&gt;
 379  &lt;li&gt;Added support for returning XML output on request.&lt;/li&gt;
 380  &lt;li&gt;Removed support for English field and class names, limiting ourself
 381    to the official names.&lt;/li&gt;
 382  &lt;li&gt;...&lt;/li&gt;
 383
 384 &lt;/ul&gt;
 385
 386 &lt;p&gt;If this sound interesting to you, please contact us on IRC (#nikita
 387 on irc.freenode.net) or email
 388 (&lt;a href=&quot;https://lists.nuug.no/mailman/listinfo/nikita-noark&quot;&gt;nikita-noark
 389 mailing list).&lt;/p&gt;
 390 </description>
 391         </item>
 392
 393         <item>
 394                 <title>Idea for storing trusted timestamps in a Noark 5 archive</title>
 395                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Idea_for_storing_trusted_timestamps_in_a_Noark_5_archive.html</link>
 396                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Idea_for_storing_trusted_timestamps_in_a_Noark_5_archive.html</guid>
 397                 <pubDate>Wed, 7 Jun 2017 21:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
 398                 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;This is a copy of
 399 &lt;a href=&quot;https://lists.nuug.no/pipermail/nikita-noark/2017-June/000297.html&quot;&gt;an
 400 email I posted to the nikita-noark mailing list&lt;/a&gt;.  Please follow up
 401 there if you would like to discuss this topic.  The background is that
 402 we are making a free software archive system based on the Norwegian
 403 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.arkivverket.no/forvaltning-og-utvikling/regelverk-og-standarder/noark-standarden&quot;&gt;Noark
 404 5 standard&lt;/a&gt; for government archives.&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 405
 406 &lt;p&gt;I&#39;ve been wondering a bit lately how trusted timestamps could be
 407 stored in Noark 5.
 408 &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trusted_timestamping&quot;&gt;Trusted
 409 timestamps&lt;/a&gt; can be used to verify that some information
 410 (document/file/checksum/metadata) have not been changed since a
 411 specific time in the past.  This is useful to verify the integrity of
 412 the documents in the archive.&lt;/p&gt;
 413
 414 &lt;p&gt;Then it occured to me, perhaps the trusted timestamps could be
 415 stored as dokument variants (ie dokumentobjekt referered to from
 416 dokumentbeskrivelse) with the filename set to the hash it is
 417 stamping?&lt;/p&gt;
 418
 419 &lt;p&gt;Given a &quot;dokumentbeskrivelse&quot; with an associated &quot;dokumentobjekt&quot;,
 420 a new dokumentobjekt is associated with &quot;dokumentbeskrivelse&quot; with the
 421 same attributes as the stamped dokumentobjekt except these
 422 attributes:&lt;/p&gt;
 423
 424 &lt;ul&gt;
 425
 426 &lt;li&gt;format -&gt; &quot;RFC3161&quot;
 427 &lt;li&gt;mimeType -&gt; &quot;application/timestamp-reply&quot;
 428 &lt;li&gt;formatDetaljer -&gt; &quot;&amp;lt;source URL for timestamp service&amp;gt;&quot;
 429 &lt;li&gt;filenavn -&gt; &quot;&amp;lt;sjekksum&amp;gt;.tsr&quot;
 430
 431 &lt;/ul&gt;
 432
 433 &lt;p&gt;This assume a service following
 434 &lt;a href=&quot;https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3161&quot;&gt;IETF RFC 3161&lt;/a&gt; is
 435 used, which specifiy the given MIME type for replies and the .tsr file
 436 ending for the content of such trusted timestamp.  As far as I can
 437 tell from the Noark 5 specifications, it is OK to have several
 438 variants/renderings of a dokument attached to a given
 439 dokumentbeskrivelse objekt.  It might be stretching it a bit to make
 440 some of these variants represent crypto-signatures useful for
 441 verifying the document integrity instead of representing the dokument
 442 itself.&lt;/p&gt;
 443
 444 &lt;p&gt;Using the source of the service in formatDetaljer allow several
 445 timestamping services to be used.  This is useful to spread the risk
 446 of key compromise over several organisations.  It would only be a
 447 problem to trust the timestamps if all of the organisations are
 448 compromised.&lt;/p&gt;
 449
 450 &lt;p&gt;The following oneliner on Linux can be used to generate the tsr
 451 file.  $input is the path to the file to checksum, and $sha256 is the
 452 SHA-256 checksum of the file (ie the &quot;&lt;sjekksum&gt;.tsr&quot; value mentioned
 453 above).&lt;/p&gt;
 454
 455 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
 456 openssl ts -query -data &quot;$inputfile&quot; -cert -sha256 -no_nonce \
 457   | curl -s -H &quot;Content-Type: application/timestamp-query&quot; \
 458       --data-binary &quot;@-&quot; http://zeitstempel.dfn.de &gt; $sha256.tsr
 459 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 460
 461 &lt;p&gt;To verify the timestamp, you first need to download the public key
 462 of the trusted timestamp service, for example using this command:&lt;/p&gt;
 463
 464 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
 465 wget -O ca-cert.txt \
 466   https://pki.pca.dfn.de/global-services-ca/pub/cacert/chain.txt
 467 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 468
 469 &lt;p&gt;Note, the public key should be stored alongside the timestamps in
 470 the archive to make sure it is also available 100 years from now.  It
 471 is probably a good idea to standardise how and were to store such
 472 public keys, to make it easier to find for those trying to verify
 473 documents 100 or 1000 years from now. :)&lt;/p&gt;
 474
 475 &lt;p&gt;The verification itself is a simple openssl command:&lt;/p&gt;
 476
 477 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
 478 openssl ts -verify -data $inputfile -in $sha256.tsr \
 479   -CAfile ca-cert.txt -text
 480 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 481
 482 &lt;p&gt;Is there any reason this approach would not work?  Is it somehow against
 483 the Noark 5 specification?&lt;/p&gt;
 484 </description>
 485         </item>
 486
 487         <item>
 488                 <title>Epost inn som arkivformat i Riksarkivarens forskrift?</title>
 489                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Epost_inn_som_arkivformat_i_Riksarkivarens_forskrift_.html</link>
 490                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Epost_inn_som_arkivformat_i_Riksarkivarens_forskrift_.html</guid>
 491                 <pubDate>Thu, 27 Apr 2017 11:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
 492                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I disse dager, med frist 1. mai, har Riksarkivaren ute en høring på
 493 sin forskrift.  Som en kan se er det ikke mye tid igjen før fristen
 494 som går ut på søndag.  Denne forskriften er det som lister opp hvilke
 495 formater det er greit å arkivere i
 496 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arkivverket.no/arkivverket/Offentleg-forvalting/Noark/Noark-5&quot;&gt;Noark
 497 5-løsninger&lt;/a&gt; i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
 498
 499 &lt;p&gt;Jeg fant høringsdokumentene hos
 500 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.arkivrad.no/aktuelt/riksarkivarens-forskrift-pa-horing&quot;&gt;Norsk
 501 Arkivråd&lt;/a&gt; etter å ha blitt tipset på epostlisten til
 502 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/hiOA-ABI/nikita-noark5-core&quot;&gt;fri
 503 programvareprosjektet Nikita Noark5-Core&lt;/a&gt;, som lager et Noark 5
 504 Tjenestegresesnitt.  Jeg er involvert i Nikita-prosjektet og takket
 505 være min interesse for tjenestegrensesnittsprosjektet har jeg lest en
 506 god del Noark 5-relaterte dokumenter, og til min overraskelse oppdaget
 507 at standard epost ikke er på listen over godkjente formater som kan
 508 arkiveres.  Høringen med frist søndag er en glimrende mulighet til å
 509 forsøke å gjøre noe med det.  Jeg holder på med
 510 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/blob/master/docs/hoering-arkivforskrift.tex&quot;&gt;egen
 511 høringsuttalelse&lt;/a&gt;, og lurer på om andre er interessert i å støtte
 512 forslaget om å tillate arkivering av epost som epost i arkivet.&lt;/p&gt;
 513
 514 &lt;p&gt;Er du igang med å skrive egen høringsuttalelse allerede?  I så fall
 515 kan du jo vurdere å ta med en formulering om epost-lagring. Jeg tror
 516 ikke det trengs så mye.  Her et kort forslag til tekst:&lt;/p&gt;
 517
 518 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 519
 520   &lt;p&gt;Viser til høring sendt ut 2017-02-17 (Riksarkivarens referanse
 521   2016/9840 HELHJO), og tillater oss å sende inn noen innspill om
 522   revisjon av Forskrift om utfyllende tekniske og arkivfaglige
 523   bestemmelser om behandling av offentlige arkiver (Riksarkivarens
 524   forskrift).&lt;/p&gt;
 525
 526   &lt;p&gt;Svært mye av vår kommuikasjon foregår i dag på e-post.  Vi
 527   foreslår derfor at Internett-e-post, slik det er beskrevet i IETF
 528   RFC 5322,
 529   &lt;a href=&quot;https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322&quot;&gt;https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5322&lt;/a&gt;. bør
 530   inn som godkjent dokumentformat.  Vi foreslår at forskriftens
 531   oversikt over godkjente dokumentformater ved innlevering i § 5-16
 532   endres til å ta med Internett-e-post.&lt;/p&gt;
 533
 534 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 535
 536 &lt;p&gt;Som del av arbeidet med tjenestegrensesnitt har vi testet hvordan
 537 epost kan lagres i en Noark 5-struktur, og holder på å skrive et
 538 forslag om hvordan dette kan gjøres som vil bli sendt over til
 539 arkivverket så snart det er ferdig.  De som er interesserte kan
 540 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/blob/master/docs/epostlagring.md&quot;&gt;følge
 541 fremdriften på web&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 542
 543 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2017-04-28: I dag ble høringuttalelsen jeg skrev
 544   &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.nuug.no/news/NUUGs_h_ringuttalelse_til_Riksarkivarens_forskrift.shtml&quot;&gt;sendt
 545   inn av foreningen NUUG&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 546 </description>
 547         </item>
 548
 549         <item>
 550                 <title>Free software archive system Nikita now able to store documents</title>
 551                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Free_software_archive_system_Nikita_now_able_to_store_documents.html</link>
 552                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Free_software_archive_system_Nikita_now_able_to_store_documents.html</guid>
 553                 <pubDate>Sun, 19 Mar 2017 08:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
 554                 <description>&lt;p&gt;The &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/hiOA-ABI/nikita-noark5-core&quot;&gt;Nikita
 555 Noark 5 core project&lt;/a&gt; is implementing the Norwegian standard for
 556 keeping an electronic archive of government documents.
 557 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arkivverket.no/arkivverket/Offentlig-forvaltning/Noark/Noark-5/English-version&quot;&gt;The
 558 Noark 5 standard&lt;/a&gt; document the requirement for data systems used by
 559 the archives in the Norwegian government, and the Noark 5 web interface
 560 specification document a REST web service for storing, searching and
 561 retrieving documents and metadata in such archive.  I&#39;ve been involved
 562 in the project since a few weeks before Christmas, when the Norwegian
 563 Unix User Group
 564 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.nuug.no/news/NOARK5_kjerne_som_fri_programvare_f_r_epostliste_hos_NUUG.shtml&quot;&gt;announced
 565 it supported the project&lt;/a&gt;.  I believe this is an important project,
 566 and hope it can make it possible for the government archives in the
 567 future to use free software to keep the archives we citizens depend
 568 on.  But as I do not hold such archive myself, personally my first use
 569 case is to store and analyse public mail journal metadata published
 570 from the government.  I find it useful to have a clear use case in
 571 mind when developing, to make sure the system scratches one of my
 572 itches.&lt;/p&gt;
 573
 574 &lt;p&gt;If you would like to help make sure there is a free software
 575 alternatives for the archives, please join our IRC channel
 576 (&lt;a href=&quot;irc://irc.freenode.net/%23nikita&quot;&gt;#nikita on
 577 irc.freenode.net&lt;/a&gt;) and
 578 &lt;a href=&quot;https://lists.nuug.no/mailman/listinfo/nikita-noark&quot;&gt;the
 579 project mailing list&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 580
 581 &lt;p&gt;When I got involved, the web service could store metadata about
 582 documents.  But a few weeks ago, a new milestone was reached when it
 583 became possible to store full text documents too.  Yesterday, I
 584 completed an implementation of a command line tool
 585 &lt;tt&gt;archive-pdf&lt;/tt&gt; to upload a PDF file to the archive using this
 586 API.  The tool is very simple at the moment, and find existing
 587 &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fonds&quot;&gt;fonds&lt;/a&gt;, series and
 588 files while asking the user to select which one to use if more than
 589 one exist.  Once a file is identified, the PDF is associated with the
 590 file and uploaded, using the title extracted from the PDF itself.  The
 591 process is fairly similar to visiting the archive, opening a cabinet,
 592 locating a file and storing a piece of paper in the archive.  Here is
 593 a test run directly after populating the database with test data using
 594 our API tester:&lt;/p&gt;
 595
 596 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
 597 ~/src//noark5-tester$ ./archive-pdf mangelmelding/mangler.pdf
 598 using arkiv: Title of the test fonds created 2017-03-18T23:49:32.103446
 599 using arkivdel: Title of the test series created 2017-03-18T23:49:32.103446
 600
 601  0 - Title of the test case file created 2017-03-18T23:49:32.103446
 602  1 - Title of the test file created 2017-03-18T23:49:32.103446
 603 Select which mappe you want (or search term): 0
 604 Uploading mangelmelding/mangler.pdf
 605   PDF title: Mangler i spesifikasjonsdokumentet for NOARK 5 Tjenestegrensesnitt
 606   File 2017/1: Title of the test case file created 2017-03-18T23:49:32.103446
 607 ~/src//noark5-tester$
 608 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 609
 610 &lt;p&gt;You can see here how the fonds (arkiv) and serie (arkivdel) only had
 611 one option, while the user need to choose which file (mappe) to use
 612 among the two created by the API tester.  The &lt;tt&gt;archive-pdf&lt;/tt&gt;
 613 tool can be found in the git repository for the API tester.&lt;/p&gt;
 614
 615 &lt;p&gt;In the project, I have been mostly working on
 616 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester&quot;&gt;the API
 617 tester&lt;/a&gt; so far, while getting to know the code base.  The API
 618 tester currently use
 619 &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HATEOAS&quot;&gt;the HATEOAS links&lt;/a&gt;
 620 to traverse the entire exposed service API and verify that the exposed
 621 operations and objects match the specification, as well as trying to
 622 create objects holding metadata and uploading a simple XML file to
 623 store.  The tester has proved very useful for finding flaws in our
 624 implementation, as well as flaws in the reference site and the
 625 specification.&lt;/p&gt;
 626
 627 &lt;p&gt;The test document I uploaded is a summary of all the specification
 628 defects we have collected so far while implementing the web service.
 629 There are several unclear and conflicting parts of the specification,
 630 and we have
 631 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/tree/master/mangelmelding&quot;&gt;started
 632 writing down&lt;/a&gt; the questions we get from implementing it.  We use a
 633 format inspired by how &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opengroup.org/austin/&quot;&gt;The
 634 Austin Group&lt;/a&gt; collect defect reports for the POSIX standard with
 635 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.opengroup.org/austin/mantis.html&quot;&gt;their
 636 instructions for the MANTIS defect tracker system&lt;/a&gt;, in lack of an official way to structure defect reports for Noark 5 (our first submitted defect report was a &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/noark5-tester/blob/master/mangelmelding/sendt/2017-03-15-mangel-prosess.md&quot;&gt;request for a procedure for submitting defect reports&lt;/a&gt; :).
 637
 638 &lt;p&gt;The Nikita project is implemented using Java and Spring, and is
 639 fairly easy to get up and running using Docker containers for those
 640 that want to test the current code base.  The API tester is
 641 implemented in Python.&lt;/p&gt;
 642 </description>
 643         </item>
 644
 645         <item>
 646                 <title>Detect OOXML files with undefined behaviour?</title>
 647                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Detect_OOXML_files_with_undefined_behaviour_.html</link>
 648                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Detect_OOXML_files_with_undefined_behaviour_.html</guid>
 649                 <pubDate>Tue, 21 Feb 2017 00:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
 650                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I just noticed
 651 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.arkivrad.no/aktuelt/riksarkivarens-forskrift-pa-horing&quot;&gt;the
 652 new Norwegian proposal for archiving rules in the goverment&lt;/a&gt; list
 653 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ecma-international.org/publications/standards/Ecma-376.htm&quot;&gt;ECMA-376&lt;/a&gt;
 654 / ISO/IEC 29500 (aka OOXML) as valid formats to put in long term
 655 storage.  Luckily such files will only be accepted based on
 656 pre-approval from the National Archive.  Allowing OOXML files to be
 657 used for long term storage might seem like a good idea as long as we
 658 forget that there are plenty of ways for a &quot;valid&quot; OOXML document to
 659 have content with no defined interpretation in the standard, which
 660 lead to a question and an idea.&lt;/p&gt;
 661
 662 &lt;p&gt;Is there any tool to detect if a OOXML document depend on such
 663 undefined behaviour?  It would be useful for the National Archive (and
 664 anyone else interested in verifying that a document is well defined)
 665 to have such tool available when considering to approve the use of
 666 OOXML.  I&#39;m aware of the
 667 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/arlm/officeotron/&quot;&gt;officeotron OOXML
 668 validator&lt;/a&gt;, but do not know how complete it is nor if it will
 669 report use of undefined behaviour.  Are there other similar tools
 670 available?  Please send me an email if you know of any such tool.&lt;/p&gt;
 671 </description>
 672         </item>
 673
 674         <item>
 675                 <title>Introducing ical-archiver to split out old iCalendar entries</title>
 676                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Introducing_ical_archiver_to_split_out_old_iCalendar_entries.html</link>
 677                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Introducing_ical_archiver_to_split_out_old_iCalendar_entries.html</guid>
 678                 <pubDate>Wed, 4 Jan 2017 12:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
 679                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Do you have a large &lt;a href=&quot;https://icalendar.org/&quot;&gt;iCalendar&lt;/a&gt;
 680 file with lots of old entries, and would like to archive them to save
 681 space and resources?  At least those of us using KOrganizer know that
 682 turning on and off an event set become slower and slower the more
 683 entries are in the set.  While working on migrating our calendars to a
 684 &lt;a href=&quot;http://radicale.org/&quot;&gt;Radicale CalDAV server&lt;/a&gt; on our
 685 &lt;a href=&quot;https://freedomboxfoundation.org/&quot;&gt;Freedombox server&lt;/a/&gt;, my
 686 loved one wondered if I could find a way to split up the calendar file
 687 she had in KOrganizer, and I set out to write a tool.  I spent a few
 688 days writing and polishing the system, and it is now ready for general
 689 consumption.  The
 690 &lt;a href=&quot;https://github.com/petterreinholdtsen/ical-archiver&quot;&gt;code for
 691 ical-archiver&lt;/a&gt; is publicly available from a git repository on
 692 github.  The system is written in Python and depend on
 693 &lt;a href=&quot;http://eventable.github.io/vobject/&quot;&gt;the vobject Python
 694 module&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 695
 696 &lt;p&gt;To use it, locate the iCalendar file you want to operate on and
 697 give it as an argument to the ical-archiver script.  This will
 698 generate a set of new files, one file per component type per year for
 699 all components expiring more than two years in the past.  The vevent,
 700 vtodo and vjournal entries are handled by the script.  The remaining
 701 entries are stored in a &#39;remaining&#39; file.&lt;/p&gt;
 702
 703 &lt;p&gt;This is what a test run can look like:
 704
 705 &lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
 706 % ical-archiver t/2004-2016.ics
 707 Found 3612 vevents
 708 Found 6 vtodos
 709 Found 2 vjournals
 710 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2004.ics
 711 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2005.ics
 712 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2006.ics
 713 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2007.ics
 714 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2008.ics
 715 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2009.ics
 716 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2010.ics
 717 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2011.ics
 718 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2012.ics
 719 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2013.ics
 720 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vevent-2014.ics
 721 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vjournal-2007.ics
 722 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vjournal-2011.ics
 723 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-subset-vtodo-2012.ics
 724 Writing t/2004-2016.ics-remaining.ics
 725 %
 726 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 727
 728 &lt;p&gt;As you can see, the original file is untouched and new files are
 729 written with names derived from the original file.  If you are happy
 730 with their content, the *-remaining.ics file can replace the original
 731 the the others can be archived or imported as historical calendar
 732 collections.&lt;/p&gt;
 733
 734 &lt;p&gt;The script should probably be improved a bit.  The error handling
 735 when discovering broken entries is not good, and I am not sure yet if
 736 it make sense to split different entry types into separate files or
 737 not.  The program is thus likely to change.  If you find it
 738 interesting, please get in touch. :)&lt;/p&gt;
 739
 740 &lt;p&gt;As usual, if you use Bitcoin and want to show your support of my
 741 activities, please send Bitcoin donations to my address
 742 &lt;b&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;bitcoin:15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&quot;&gt;15oWEoG9dUPovwmUL9KWAnYRtNJEkP1u1b&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/b&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 743 </description>
 744         </item>
 745
 746         <item>
 747                 <title>UsingQR - &quot;Electronic&quot; paper invoices using JSON and QR codes</title>
 748                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/UsingQR____Electronic__paper_invoices_using_JSON_and_QR_codes.html</link>
 749                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/UsingQR____Electronic__paper_invoices_using_JSON_and_QR_codes.html</guid>
 750                 <pubDate>Sat, 19 Mar 2016 09:40:00 +0100</pubDate>
 751                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Back in 2013 I proposed
 752 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_Electronic__paper_invoices___using_vCard_in_a_QR_code.html&quot;&gt;a
 753 way to make paper and PDF invoices easier to process electronically by
 754 adding a QR code with the key information about the invoice&lt;/a&gt;.  I
 755 suggested using vCard field definition, to get some standard format
 756 for name and address, but any format would work.  I did not do
 757 anything about the proposal, but hoped someone one day would make
 758 something like it.  It would make it possible to efficiently send
 759 machine readable invoices directly between seller and buyer.&lt;/p&gt;
 760
 761 &lt;p&gt;This was the background when I came across a proposal and
 762 specification from the web based accounting and invoicing supplier
 763 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.visma.com/&quot;&gt;Visma&lt;/a&gt; in Sweden called
 764 &lt;a href=&quot;http://usingqr.com/&quot;&gt;UsingQR&lt;/a&gt;.  Their PDF invoices contain
 765 a QR code with the key information of the invoice in JSON format.
 766 This is the typical content of a QR code following the UsingQR
 767 specification (based on a real world example, some numbers replaced to
 768 get a more bogus entry).  I&#39;ve reformatted the JSON to make it easier
 769 to read.  Normally this is all on one long line:&lt;/p&gt;
 770
 771 &lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2016-03-19-qr-invoice.png&quot; align=&quot;right&quot;&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
 772 {
 773  &quot;vh&quot;:500.00,
 774  &quot;vm&quot;:0,
 775  &quot;vl&quot;:0,
 776  &quot;uqr&quot;:1,
 777  &quot;tp&quot;:1,
 778  &quot;nme&quot;:&quot;Din Leverandør&quot;,
 779  &quot;cc&quot;:&quot;NO&quot;,
 780  &quot;cid&quot;:&quot;997912345 MVA&quot;,
 781  &quot;iref&quot;:&quot;12300001&quot;,
 782  &quot;idt&quot;:&quot;20151022&quot;,
 783  &quot;ddt&quot;:&quot;20151105&quot;,
 784  &quot;due&quot;:2500.0000,
 785  &quot;cur&quot;:&quot;NOK&quot;,
 786  &quot;pt&quot;:&quot;BBAN&quot;,
 787  &quot;acc&quot;:&quot;17202612345&quot;,
 788  &quot;bc&quot;:&quot;BIENNOK1&quot;,
 789  &quot;adr&quot;:&quot;0313 OSLO&quot;
 790 }
 791 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 792
 793 &lt;/p&gt;The interpretation of the fields can be found in the
 794 &lt;a href=&quot;http://usingqr.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/UsingQR_specification1.pdf&quot;&gt;format
 795 specification&lt;/a&gt; (revision 2 from june 2014).  The format seem to
 796 have most of the information needed to handle accounting and payment
 797 of invoices, at least the fields I have needed so far here in
 798 Norway.&lt;/p&gt;
 799
 800 &lt;p&gt;Unfortunately, the site and document do not mention anything about
 801 the patent, trademark and copyright status of the format and the
 802 specification.  Because of this, I asked the people behind it back in
 803 November to clarify.  Ann-Christine Savlid (ann-christine.savlid (at)
 804 visma.com) replied that Visma had not applied for patent or trademark
 805 protection for this format, and that there were no copyright based
 806 usage limitations for the format.  I urged her to make sure this was
 807 explicitly written on the web pages and in the specification, but
 808 unfortunately this has not happened yet.  So I guess if there is
 809 submarine patents, hidden trademarks or a will to sue for copyright
 810 infringements, those starting to use the UsingQR format might be at
 811 risk, but if this happen there is some legal defense in the fact that
 812 the people behind the format claimed it was safe to do so.  At least
 813 with patents, there is always
 814 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paperspecs.com/paper-news/beware-the-qr-code-patent-trap/&quot;&gt;a
 815 chance of getting sued...&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 816
 817 &lt;p&gt;I also asked if they planned to maintain the format in an
 818 independent standard organization to give others more confidence that
 819 they would participate in the standardization process on equal terms
 820 with Visma, but they had no immediate plans for this.  Their plan was
 821 to work with banks to try to get more users of the format, and
 822 evaluate the way forward if the format proved to be popular.  I hope
 823 they conclude that using an open standard organisation like
 824 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ietf.org/&quot;&gt;IETF&lt;/a&gt; is the correct place to
 825 maintain such specification.&lt;/p&gt;
 826
 827 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update 2016-03-20&lt;/strong&gt;: Via Twitter I became aware of
 828 &lt;a href=&quot;https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11319492&quot;&gt;some comments
 829 about this blog post&lt;/a&gt; that had several useful links and references to
 830 similar systems.  In the Czech republic, the Czech Banking Association
 831 standard #26, with short name SPAYD, uses QR codes with payment
 832 information.  More information is available from the Wikipedia page on
 833 &lt;a href=&quot;https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Payment_Descriptor&quot;&gt;Short
 834 Payment Descriptor&lt;/a&gt;.  And in Germany, there is a system named
 835 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bezahlcode.de/&quot;&gt;BezahlCode&lt;/a&gt;,
 836 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.bezahlcode.de/wp-content/uploads/BezahlCode_TechDok.pdf&quot;&gt;specification
 837 v1.8 2013-12-05 available as PDF&lt;/a&gt;), which uses QR codes with
 838 URL-like formatting using &quot;bank:&quot; as the URI schema/protocol to
 839 provide the payment information.  There is also the
 840 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ferd-net.de/front_content.php?idcat=231&quot;&gt;ZUGFeRD&lt;/a&gt;
 841 file format that perhaps could be transfered using QR codes, but I am
 842 not sure if it is done already.  Last, in Bolivia there are reports
 843 that tax information since november 2014 need to be printed in QR
 844 format on invoices.  I have not been able to track down a
 845 specification for this format, because of my limited language skill
 846 sets.&lt;/p&gt;
 847 </description>
 848         </item>
 849
 850         <item>
 851                 <title>MPEG LA on &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC Video&quot; licensing and non-private use</title>
 852                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html</link>
 853                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_on__Internet_Broadcast_AVC_Video__licensing_and_non_private_use.html</guid>
 854                 <pubDate>Tue, 7 Jul 2015 09:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
 855                 <description>&lt;p&gt;After asking the Norwegian Broadcasting Company (NRK)
 856 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html&quot;&gt;why
 857 they can broadcast and stream H.264 video without an agreement with
 858 the MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt;, I was wiser, but still confused.  So I asked MPEG LA
 859 if their understanding matched that of NRK.  As far as I can tell, it
 860 does not.&lt;/p&gt;
 861
 862 &lt;p&gt;I started by asking for more information about the various
 863 licensing classes and what exactly is covered by the &quot;Internet
 864 Broadcast AVC Video&quot; class that NRK pointed me at to explain why NRK
 865 did not need a license for streaming H.264 video:
 866
 867 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 868
 869 &lt;p&gt;According to
 870 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf&quot;&gt;a
 871 MPEG LA press release dated 2010-02-02&lt;/a&gt;, there is no charge when
 872 using MPEG AVC/H.264 according to the terms of &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC
 873 Video&quot;.  I am trying to understand exactly what the terms of &quot;Internet
 874 Broadcast AVC Video&quot; is, and wondered if you could help me.  What
 875 exactly is covered by these terms, and what is not?&lt;/p&gt;
 876
 877 &lt;p&gt;The only source of more information I have been able to find is a
 878 PDF named
 879 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf&quot;&gt;AVC
 880 Patent Portfolio License Briefing&lt;/a&gt;, which states this about the
 881 fees:&lt;/p&gt;
 882
 883 &lt;ul&gt;
 884  &lt;li&gt;Where End User pays for AVC Video
 885   &lt;ul&gt;
 886    &lt;li&gt;Subscription (not limited by title) – 100,000 or fewer
 887      subscribers/yr = no royalty; &amp;gt; 100,000 to 250,000 subscribers/yr =
 888      $25,000; &amp;gt;250,000 to 500,000 subscribers/yr = $50,000; &amp;gt;500,000 to
 889      1M subscribers/yr = $75,000; &amp;gt;1M subscribers/yr = $100,000&lt;/li&gt;
 890
 891    &lt;li&gt;Title-by-Title - 12 minutes or less = no royalty; &amp;gt;12 minutes in
 892      length = lower of (a) 2% or (b) $0.02 per title&lt;/li&gt;
 893   &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 894
 895  &lt;li&gt;Where remuneration is from other sources
 896   &lt;ul&gt;
 897    &lt;li&gt;Free Television - (a) one-time $2,500 per transmission encoder or
 898      (b) annual fee starting at $2,500 for &amp;gt; 100,000 HH rising to
 899      maximum $10,000 for &amp;gt;1,000,000 HH&lt;/li&gt;
 900
 901    &lt;li&gt;Internet Broadcast AVC Video (not title-by-title, not subscription)
 902      – no royalty for life of the AVC Patent Portfolio License&lt;/li&gt;
 903   &lt;/ul&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
 904 &lt;/ul&gt;
 905
 906 &lt;p&gt;Am I correct in assuming that the four categories listed is the
 907 categories used when selecting licensing terms, and that &quot;Internet
 908 Broadcast AVC Video&quot; is the category for things that do not fall into
 909 one of the other three categories?  Can you point me to a good source
 910 explaining what is ment by &quot;title-by-title&quot; and &quot;Free Television&quot; in
 911 the license terms for AVC/H.264?&lt;/p&gt;
 912
 913 &lt;p&gt;Will a web service providing H.264 encoded video content in a
 914 &quot;video on demand&quot; fashing similar to Youtube and Vimeo, where no
 915 subscription is required and no payment is required from end users to
 916 get access to the videos, fall under the terms of the &quot;Internet
 917 Broadcast AVC Video&quot;, ie no royalty for life of the AVC Patent
 918 Portfolio license?  Does it matter if some users are subscribed to get
 919 access to personalized services?&lt;/p&gt;
 920
 921 &lt;p&gt;Note, this request and all answers will be published on the
 922 Internet.&lt;/p&gt;
 923 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 924
 925 &lt;p&gt;The answer came quickly from Benjamin J. Myers, Licensing Associate
 926 with the MPEG LA:&lt;/p&gt;
 927
 928 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 929 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA.  We
 930 appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.&lt;/p&gt;
 931
 932 &lt;p&gt;As you are aware, MPEG LA offers our AVC Patent Portfolio License
 933 which provides coverage under patents that are essential for use of
 934 the AVC/H.264 Standard (MPEG-4 Part 10).  Specifically, coverage is
 935 provided for end products and video content that make use of AVC/H.264
 936 technology.  Accordingly, the party offering such end products and
 937 video to End Users concludes the AVC License and is responsible for
 938 paying the applicable royalties.&lt;/p&gt;
 939
 940 &lt;p&gt;Regarding Internet Broadcast AVC Video, the AVC License generally
 941 defines such content to be video that is distributed to End Users over
 942 the Internet free-of-charge.  Therefore, if a party offers a service
 943 which allows users to upload AVC/H.264 video to its website, and such
 944 AVC Video is delivered to End Users for free, then such video would
 945 receive coverage under the sublicense for Internet Broadcast AVC
 946 Video, which is not subject to any royalties for the life of the AVC
 947 License.  This would also apply in the scenario where a user creates a
 948 free online account in order to receive a customized offering of free
 949 AVC Video content.  In other words, as long as the End User is given
 950 access to or views AVC Video content at no cost to the End User, then
 951 no royalties would be payable under our AVC License.&lt;/p&gt;
 952
 953 &lt;p&gt;On the other hand, if End Users pay for access to AVC Video for a
 954 specific period of time (e.g., one month, one year, etc.), then such
 955 video would constitute Subscription AVC Video.  In cases where AVC
 956 Video is delivered to End Users on a pay-per-view basis, then such
 957 content would constitute Title-by-Title AVC Video.  If a party offers
 958 Subscription or Title-by-Title AVC Video to End Users, then they would
 959 be responsible for paying the applicable royalties you noted below.&lt;/p&gt;
 960
 961 &lt;p&gt;Finally, in the case where AVC Video is distributed for free
 962 through an &quot;over-the-air, satellite and/or cable transmission&quot;, then
 963 such content would constitute Free Television AVC Video and would be
 964 subject to the applicable royalties.&lt;/p&gt;
 965
 966 &lt;p&gt;For your reference, I have attached
 967 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2015-07-07-mpegla.pdf&quot;&gt;a
 968 .pdf copy of the AVC License&lt;/a&gt;. You will find the relevant
 969 sublicense information regarding AVC Video in Sections 2.2 through
 970 2.5, and the corresponding royalties in Section 3.1.2 through 3.1.4.
 971 You will also find the definitions of Title-by-Title AVC Video,
 972 Subscription AVC Video, Free Television AVC Video, and Internet
 973 Broadcast AVC Video in Section 1 of the License.  Please note that the
 974 electronic copy is provided for informational purposes only and cannot
 975 be used for execution.&lt;/p&gt;
 976
 977 &lt;p&gt;I hope the above information is helpful.  If you have additional
 978 questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
 979 free to contact me directly.&lt;/p&gt;
 980 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 981
 982 &lt;p&gt;Having a fresh copy of the license text was useful, and knowing
 983 that the definition of Title-by-Title required payment per title made
 984 me aware that my earlier understanding of that phrase had been wrong.
 985 But I still had a few questions:&lt;/p&gt;
 986
 987 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 988 &lt;p&gt;I have a small followup question.  Would it be possible for me to get
 989 a license with MPEG LA even if there are no royalties to be paid?  The
 990 reason I ask, is that some video related products have a copyright
 991 clause limiting their use without a license with MPEG LA.  The clauses
 992 typically look similar to this:
 993
 994 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 995   This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for
 996   the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer to (a) encode
 997   video in compliance with the AVC standard (&quot;AVC video&quot;) and/or (b)
 998   decode AVC video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a
 999   personal and non-commercial activity and/or AVC video that was
1000   obtained from a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No
1001   license is granted or shall be implied for any other use. additional
1002   information may be obtained from MPEG LA L.L.C.
1003 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1004
1005 &lt;p&gt;It is unclear to me if this clause mean that I need to enter into
1006 an agreement with MPEG LA to use the product in question, even if
1007 there are no royalties to be paid to MPEG LA.  I suspect it will
1008 differ depending on the jurisdiction, and mine is Norway.  What is
1009 MPEG LAs view on this?&lt;/p&gt;
1010 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1011
1012 &lt;p&gt;According to the answer, MPEG LA believe those using such tools for
1013 non-personal or commercial use need a license with them:&lt;/p&gt;
1014
1015 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1016
1017 &lt;p&gt;With regard to the Notice to Customers, I would like to begin by
1018 clarifying that the Notice from Section 7.1 of the AVC License
1019 reads:&lt;/p&gt;
1020
1021 &lt;p&gt;THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR
1022 THE PERSONAL USE OF A CONSUMER OR OTHER USES IN WHICH IT DOES NOT
1023 RECEIVE REMUNERATION TO (i) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC
1024 STANDARD (&quot;AVC VIDEO&quot;) AND/OR (ii) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED
1025 BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL ACTIVITY AND/OR WAS OBTAINED FROM
1026 A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED
1027 OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE
1028 OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA, L.L.C. SEE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM&lt;/p&gt;
1029
1030 &lt;p&gt;The Notice to Customers is intended to inform End Users of the
1031 personal usage rights (for example, to watch video content) included
1032 with the product they purchased, and to encourage any party using the
1033 product for commercial purposes to contact MPEG LA in order to become
1034 licensed for such use (for example, when they use an AVC Product to
1035 deliver Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free Television or Internet
1036 Broadcast AVC Video to End Users, or to re-Sell a third party&#39;s AVC
1037 Product as their own branded AVC Product).&lt;/p&gt;
1038
1039 &lt;p&gt;Therefore, if a party is to be licensed for its use of an AVC
1040 Product to Sell AVC Video on a Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
1041 Television or Internet Broadcast basis, that party would need to
1042 conclude the AVC License, even in the case where no royalties were
1043 payable under the License.  On the other hand, if that party (either a
1044 Consumer or business customer) simply uses an AVC Product for their
1045 own internal purposes and not for the commercial purposes referenced
1046 above, then such use would be included in the royalty paid for the AVC
1047 Products by the licensed supplier.&lt;/p&gt;
1048
1049 &lt;p&gt;Finally, I note that our AVC License provides worldwide coverage in
1050 countries that have AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, including
1051 Norway.&lt;/p&gt;
1052
1053 &lt;p&gt;I hope this clarification is helpful.  If I may be of any further
1054 assistance, just let me know.&lt;/p&gt;
1055 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1056
1057 &lt;p&gt;The mentioning of Norwegian patents made me a bit confused, so I
1058 asked for more information:&lt;/p&gt;
1059
1060 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1061
1062 &lt;p&gt;But one minor question at the end.  If I understand you correctly,
1063 you state in the quote above that there are patents in the AVC Patent
1064 Portfolio that are valid in Norway.  This make me believe I read the
1065 list available from &amp;lt;URL:
1066 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/PatentList.aspx&lt;/a&gt;
1067 &amp;gt; incorrectly, as I believed the &quot;NO&quot; prefix in front of patents
1068 were Norwegian patents, and the only one I could find under Mitsubishi
1069 Electric Corporation expired in 2012.  Which patents are you referring
1070 to that are relevant for Norway?&lt;/p&gt;
1071
1072 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1073
1074 &lt;p&gt;Again, the quick answer explained how to read the list of patents
1075 in that list:&lt;/p&gt;
1076
1077 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1078
1079 &lt;p&gt;Your understanding is correct that the last AVC Patent Portfolio
1080 Patent in Norway expired on 21 October 2012.  Therefore, where AVC
1081 Video is both made and Sold in Norway after that date, then no
1082 royalties would be payable for such AVC Video under the AVC License.
1083 With that said, our AVC License provides historic coverage for AVC
1084 Products and AVC Video that may have been manufactured or Sold before
1085 the last Norwegian AVC patent expired.  I would also like to clarify
1086 that coverage is provided for the country of manufacture and the
1087 country of Sale that has active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents.&lt;/p&gt;
1088
1089 &lt;p&gt;Therefore, if a party offers AVC Products or AVC Video for Sale in
1090 a country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents (for example,
1091 Sweden, Denmark, Finland, etc.), then that party would still need
1092 coverage under the AVC License even if such products or video are
1093 initially made in a country without active AVC Patent Portfolio
1094 Patents (for example, Norway).  Similarly, a party would need to
1095 conclude the AVC License if they make AVC Products or AVC Video in a
1096 country with active AVC Patent Portfolio Patents, but eventually Sell
1097 such AVC Products or AVC Video in a country without active AVC Patent
1098 Portfolio Patents.&lt;/p&gt;
1099 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1100
1101 &lt;p&gt;As far as I understand it, MPEG LA believe anyone using Adobe
1102 Premiere and other video related software with a H.264 distribution
1103 license need a license agreement with MPEG LA to use such tools for
1104 anything non-private or commercial, while it is OK to set up a
1105 Youtube-like service as long as no-one pays to get access to the
1106 content.  I still have no clear idea how this applies to Norway, where
1107 none of the patents MPEG LA is licensing are valid.  Will the
1108 copyright terms take precedence or can those terms be ignored because
1109 the patents are not valid in Norway?&lt;/p&gt;
1110 </description>
1111         </item>
1112
1113         <item>
1114                 <title>Hva gjør at NRK kan distribuere H.264-video uten patentavtale med MPEG LA?</title>
1115                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html</link>
1116                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_gj_r_at_NRK_kan_distribuere_H_264_video_uten_patentavtale_med_MPEG_LA_.html</guid>
1117                 <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jun 2015 15:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
1118                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Helt siden jeg i 2012 fikk beskjed fra MPEG LA om at
1119 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html&quot;&gt;NRK
1120 trengte patentavtale med dem&lt;/a&gt; hvis de distribuerte H.264-video til
1121 sluttbrukere, har jeg lurt på hva som gjør at NRK ikke har slik
1122 avtale.  For noen dager siden fikk jeg endelig gjort noe med min
1123 undring, og sendte 2015-05-28 følgende epost til info (at) nrk.no med
1124 tittel &quot;Hva gjør at NRK kan distribuere H.264-video uten patentavtale
1125 med MPEG LA?&quot;:&lt;/p&gt;
1126
1127 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1128 &lt;p&gt;Jeg lurer på en ting rundt NRKs bruk av H.264-video på sine
1129 websider samt distribusjon via RiksTV og kabel-TV.  Har NRK vurdert om
1130 det er behov for en patentavtale med
1131 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/&quot;&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt; slik det står i
1132 programvarelisensene til blant annet Apple Final Cut Studio, Adobe
1133 Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X?&lt;/p&gt;
1134
1135 &lt;p&gt;Hvis dere har vurdert dette, hva var utfallet av en slik vurdering?&lt;/p&gt;
1136
1137 &lt;p&gt;Hvis dere ikke har vurdert dette, har NRK planer om å vurdere behovet
1138 for patentavtale?&lt;/p&gt;
1139
1140 &lt;p&gt;I følge en artikkel på
1141 &lt;a href=&quot;https://nrkbeta.no/2012/02/01/siste-kutt-for-final-cut/&quot;&gt;NRK
1142 Beta i 2012&lt;/a&gt; har NRK brukt eller testet både Apple Final Cut
1143 Studio, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X til bruk
1144 for å redigere video før sending. Alle disse har bruksvilkår
1145 understøttet av opphavsretten som sier at de kun kan brukes til å lage
1146 filmer til personlig og ikke-kommersiell bruk - med mindre en har en
1147 lisensavtale med MPEG LA om bruk av patenter utstedt i USA for H.264.
1148 Se f.eks. &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.avid.com/static/resources/common/documents/corporate/LICENSE.pdf&quot;&gt;bruksvilkårene for Avid&lt;/a&gt;, &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html&quot;&gt;Adobe Premiere&lt;/a&gt; og &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf&quot;&gt;Apple Final
1149 Cut Studio&lt;/a&gt; og søk etter &quot;MPEG LA&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;
1150
1151 &lt;p&gt;Dette får meg til å lure på om det er brudd på opphavsretten å bruke
1152 disse verktøyene i strid med bruksvilkårene uten patentavtale med MPEG
1153 LA.  Men NRK bruker jo tilsynelatende disse verktøyene uten patentavtale
1154 med MPEG LA.&lt;/p&gt;
1155
1156 &lt;p&gt;I følge forfatteren av Open Broadcast Encoder finnes det to typer
1157 H.264-relaterte avtaler en kan få med MPEG LA. Det er én for å lage
1158 programvare og utstyr som produserer H.264-video, og en annen for å
1159 kringkaste video som bruker H.264. Dette forteller meg at selv om
1160 produsentene av utstyr og programvare som NRK bruker har en slik avtale
1161 med MPEG LA, så trenges det en egen avtale for å kringkaste video på det
1162 formatet.&lt;/p&gt;
1163
1164 &lt;p&gt;I følge Ryan Rodriguez hos MPEG LA, da jeg spurte ham på epost i
1165 juni 2012, har NRK ikke en slik avtale med MPEG LA. Han sa videre at
1166 NRK trenger en slik avtale hvis NRK tilbyr H.264-kodet video til
1167 sluttbrukere.  Jeg sjekket listen med
1168 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&quot;&gt;organisasjoner
1169 med avtale med MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt; og NRK står fortsatt ikke der.&lt;/p&gt;
1170
1171 &lt;p&gt;Jeg lurer dermed på hva som gjør at NRK kan bruke de overnevnte
1172 videoredigeringsverktøyene, som tilsynelatende har krav om avtale med
1173 MPEG LA for å kunne brukes slik NRK bruker dem, til å lage videofiler
1174 for distribusjon uten å ha en avtale med MPEG LA om distribusjon av
1175 H.264-video?  Dette er spesielt interessant å vite for oss andre som
1176 også vurderer å spre H.264-video etter å ha redigert dem med disse mye
1177 brukte videoredigeringsverktøyene.&lt;/p&gt;
1178 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1179
1180 &lt;p&gt;Samme dag fikk jeg automatisk svar om at min henvendelse hadde fått
1181 saksid 1294699.  Jeg fikk deretter følgende respons fra NRK
1182 2015-06-09:&lt;/p&gt;
1183
1184 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1185 &lt;p&gt;Hei, beklager lang svartid, men det tok litt tid å finne ut hvem som kunne
1186 svare på dette.&lt;/p&gt;
1187
1188 &lt;p&gt;For selskaper som leverer h.264 til sluttbrukere på nett (f.eks
1189 NRKs nett- tv utgaver som bruker h.264) - og som leverer slike
1190 tjenester uten betaling fra forbrukere – er det heller ikke påkrevd
1191 noen patentavtale.&lt;/p&gt;
1192
1193 &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&quot;&gt;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1194
1195 &lt;p&gt;Med vennlig hilsen
1196 &lt;br&gt;Gunn Helen Berg
1197 &lt;br&gt;Informasjonskonsulent, Publikumsservice&lt;/p&gt;
1198
1199 &lt;p&gt;NRK
1200 &lt;br&gt;Strategidivisjonen
1201 &lt;Br&gt;Sentralbord: +47 23 04 70 00
1202 &lt;br&gt;Post: NRK Publikumsservice, 8608 Mo i Rana
1203 &lt;br&gt;nrk.no / info (at) nrk.no&lt;/p&gt;
1204 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1205
1206 Da dette ikke helt var svar på det jeg lurte på, sendte jeg samme dag
1207 oppfølgerepost tilbake:
1208
1209 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1210 &lt;p&gt;[Gunn Helen Berg]
1211 &lt;br&gt;&gt; Hei, beklager lang svartid, men det tok litt tid å finne ut hvem som
1212 &lt;br&gt;&gt; kunne svare på dette.&lt;/p&gt;
1213
1214 &lt;p&gt;Takk for svar.  Men det besvarte ikke helt det jeg spurte om.&lt;/p&gt;
1215
1216 &lt;p&gt;&gt; For selskaper som leverer h.264 til sluttbrukere på nett (f.eks NRKs
1217 &lt;br&gt;&gt; nett- tv utgaver som bruker h.264) - og som leverer slike tjenester
1218 &lt;br&gt;&gt; uten betaling fra forbrukere – er det heller ikke påkrevd noen
1219 &lt;br&gt;&gt; patentavtale.
1220 &lt;br&gt;&gt;
1221 &lt;br&gt;&gt; http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&lt;/p&gt;
1222
1223 &lt;p&gt;Spørsmålet er ikke kun om MPEG LA krever patentavtale eller ikke
1224 (hvilket ikke helt besvares av pressemeldingen omtalt over, gitt at
1225 pressemeldingen kom i 2010, to år før MPEG LA ansvarlige for
1226 internasjonal lisensiering egen Ryan Rodriguez fortalte meg på epost
1227 at NRK trenger en lisens.&lt;/p&gt;
1228
1229 &lt;p&gt;Det er uklart fra pressemeldingen hva &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC
1230 Video&quot; konkret betyr, men i følge en
1231 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf&quot;&gt;presentasjon
1232 fra MPEG LA med tema &quot;AVC PAtent Portfoli License Briefing&quot; datert
1233 2015-05-15&lt;/a&gt; gjelder &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC Video&quot; kun kringkasting
1234 på Internet som ikke tilbyr valg av enkeltinnslag (&quot;not
1235 title-by-title&quot;), hvilket jo NRK gjør på sine nettsider.  I tillegg
1236 kringkaster jo NRK H.264-video også utenom Internet (RiksTV, kabel,
1237 satelitt), hvilket helt klart ikke er dekket av vilkårene omtalt i
1238 pressemeldingen.&lt;/p&gt;
1239
1240 &lt;p&gt;Spørsmålet mitt er hvordan NRK kan bruke verktøy med bruksvilkår
1241 som krever avtale med MPEG LA for det NRK bruker dem til, når NRK ikke
1242 har avtale med MPEG LA.  Hvis jeg forsto spørsmålet riktig, så mener
1243 NRK at dere ikke trenger avtale med MPEG LA, men uten slik avtale kan
1244 dere vel ikke bruke hverken Apple Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premiere
1245 Pro, Avid eller Apples Final Cut Pro X for å redigere video før
1246 sending?&lt;/p&gt;
1247
1248 &lt;p&gt;Mine konkrete spørsmål var altså:&lt;/p&gt;
1249
1250 &lt;ul&gt;
1251
1252 &lt;li&gt;Hvis NRK har vurdert om det er behov for en patentavtale med MPEG LA
1253    slik det er krav om i programvarelisensene til blant annet Apple
1254    Final Cut Studio, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Apples Final Cut Pro X,
1255    hva var utfallet av en slik vurdering? Kan jeg få kopi av vurderingen
1256    hvis den er gjort skriftlig?&lt;/li&gt;
1257
1258 &lt;li&gt;Hvis NRK ikke har vurdert dette, har NRK planer om å vurdere behovet
1259    for patentavtale?&lt;/li&gt;
1260
1261 &lt;li&gt;Hva slags saksnummer fikk min henvendelse i NRKs offentlige
1262    postjournal?  Jeg ser at postjournalen ikke er publisert for den
1263    aktuelle perioden ennå, så jeg fikk ikke sjekket selv.&lt;/li&gt;
1264
1265 &lt;/ul&gt;
1266 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1267
1268 &lt;p&gt;Det hjelper å ha funnet rette vedkommende i NRK, for denne gangen
1269 fikk jeg svar tilbake dagen etter (2015-06-10), fra Geir Børdalen i
1270 NRK:&lt;/p&gt;
1271
1272 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1273 &lt;p&gt;Hei Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
1274
1275 &lt;p&gt;Jeg har sjekket saken med distribusjonssjef for tv, Arild Hellgren
1276 (som var teknologidirektør da bakkenettet ble satt opp). NRK v/
1277 Hellgren hadde møte med MPEG LA sammen med den europeiske
1278 kringkastingsunionen EBU før bakkenettet for TV ble satt opp
1279 (igangsatt høsten 2007). I dette møtet ble det avklart at NRK/EBU ikke
1280 trengte noen patentavtale for h.264 i forbindelse med oppsett av
1281 bakkenettet eller bruk av MPEG4 h.264 som kompresjonsalgoritme fordi
1282 tjenesten «in full»(nor: helt) var betalt av utsendelseselskapene og
1283 ikke av forbrukerne.&lt;/p&gt;
1284
1285 &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/oppdrag/digitalt-bakkenett-1.3214555&quot;&gt;http://www.nrk.no/oppdrag/digitalt-bakkenett-1.3214555&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1286
1287 &lt;p&gt;Det er også klart slått fast at selskaper som leverer video basert
1288 på MPEG4 h.264 til sluttbrukere på nett, heller ikke påkrevd noen
1289 patentavtale – så lenge de leverer slike tjenester uten betaling fra
1290 sluttbrukere.&lt;/p&gt;
1291
1292 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&quot;&gt;http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20100825006629/en/MPEG-LA%E2%80%99s-AVC-License-Charge-Royalties-Internet#.VWb2ws_774Y&lt;/a&gt;
1293
1294 &lt;p&gt;“MPEG LA announced today that its AVC Patent Portfolio License will
1295 continue not to charge royalties for Internet Video that is free to
1296 end users (known as “Internet Broadcast AVC Video”) during the entire
1297 life of this License. MPEG LA previously announced it would not charge
1298 royalties for such video through December 31, 2015 (see
1299 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com/Lists/MPEG%20LA%20News%20List/Attachments/226/n-10-02-02.pdf&lt;/a&gt;),
1300 and today’s announcement makes clear that royalties will continue not
1301 to be charged for such video beyond that time. Products and services
1302 other than Internet Broadcast AVC Video continue to be
1303 royalty-bearing.”&lt;/p&gt;
1304
1305 &lt;p&gt;Vi har derfor ikke noe behov for å vurdere noen patentavtale med
1306 MPEG LA.&lt;/p&gt;
1307
1308 &lt;p&gt;Understreker for øvrig at NRK ikke er låst til MPEG4 – h.264 som
1309 utsendelsesformat – og at vi har brukt og bruker flere andre
1310 alternativer i våre tjenester. Ulike «devicer» har ofte behov for
1311 forskjellige løsninger – og NRK har forsøkt å levere med best mulig
1312 kvalitet /økonomi /stabilitet avhengig av
1313 plattform. Produksjonsformater i NRK spenner for øvrig over en rekke
1314 forskjellige formater – hvor MPEG4 bare er en av disse. Når NRK kjøper
1315 teknisk utstyr er betaling for kodekstøtte ofte en del av
1316 anskaffelsesprisen for denne maskinvaren (enten dette er spesialiserte
1317 enkodere eller forskjellige typer produksjonsutstyr).&lt;/p&gt;
1318
1319 &lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen
1320 &lt;br&gt;Geir Børdalen&lt;/p&gt;
1321
1322 &lt;p&gt;________________________________________
1323 &lt;br&gt;Geir Børdalen
1324 &lt;br&gt;Investeringsansvarlig NRK / Hovedprosjektleder - Origo
1325 &lt;br&gt;Avdeling for utvikling, innovasjon, investering og eiendom
1326 &lt;br&gt;NRK medietjenester
1327 &lt;br&gt;Sentralbord: +47 23 04 70 00
1328 &lt;br&gt;Post: NRK, AUTV (RBM5), Pb. 8500 Majorstuen, 0340 Oslo
1329 &lt;br&gt;nrk.no
1330 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1331
1332 &lt;p&gt;Et godt og grundig svar, som var informativt om hvordan NRK tenker
1333 rundt patentavtale med MPEG LA, men heller ikke helt besvarte det jeg
1334 lurte på, så jeg sendte epostoppfølging samme dag.&lt;/p&gt;
1335
1336 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1337 &lt;p&gt;[Geir Børdalen]
1338 &lt;br&gt;&gt; Hei Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
1339
1340 &lt;p&gt;Hei, og takk for raskt svar.  Er min henvendelse journalført slik
1341 at den dukker opp i NRKs postjournal?&lt;/p&gt;
1342
1343 &lt;p&gt;Svaret ditt var meget nyttig, og jeg forstår ut fra det du skriver
1344 at avklaringen med MPEG LA rundt H.264-distribusjon via bakkenettet
1345 gjelder alle TV-kanaler i Norge.  Hvilke saksnummer fikk dokumenter
1346 som ble opprettet i forbindelse med det omtalte møtet NRK v/Hellgren
1347 og EBU hadde med MPEG LA (dvs. referater, avtaler, etc),
1348 f.eks. dokumentet der formuleringen &quot;in full&quot; som du omtaler
1349 finnes?&lt;p&gt;
1350
1351 &lt;p&gt;Men det er et par ting jeg fortsatt ikke forstår.  Det ene er
1352 hvorfor NRKs forståelse av hva &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC Video&quot; dekker
1353 ser ut til å avvike fra det som presenteres i
1354 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/avc/Documents/avcweb.pdf&quot;&gt;lysark
1355 fra MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt; i mai, der MPEG LA på lysark med overskriften
1356 &quot;AVC/H.264 License Terms Participation Fees&quot; og undertittel &quot;Where
1357 remuneration is from other sources&quot; skriver &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC
1358 Video (not title-by-title, not subscription) – no royalty for life of
1359 the AVC Patent Portfolio License&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;
1360
1361 &lt;p&gt;Her leser jeg MPEG LA dithen at det kun er kringkasting uten
1362 abonnement via Internet som er dekket at vilkårne omtalt i
1363 pressemeldingen, mens jeg forstår deg dithen at NRK mener NRKs
1364 nettsider som også har enkeltfilmer og innslag (som jeg forstår dekket
1365 av formuleringen &quot;title-by-title&quot;) dekkes av &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC
1366 Video&quot; fra MPEG LA.  Hva baserer dere denne tolkningen på?  Jeg har
1367 ikke sett noe skriftlig fra MPEG LA som støtter NRKs tolkning, og
1368 lurer på om dere har andre kilder enn den pressemeldingen fra 5 år
1369 tilbake, der NRKS forståelse av hva &quot;Internet Broadcast AVC Video&quot;
1370 dekker er beskrevet?&lt;/p&gt;
1371
1372 &lt;p&gt;Det andre er at eposten din ikke nevnte spørsmålet mitt om
1373 bruksvilkårene til videoredigeringsverktøyene som NRK bruker.  Disse
1374 har som tidligere nevnt krav om at de kun skal brukes til private og
1375 ikke-kommersielle formål med mindre en har avtale med MPEG LA, og uten
1376 avtale med MPEG LA kan det jo virke som om NRK bruker verktøyene i
1377 strid med bruksvilkårene.  Hva gjør at disse bruksvilkårene ikke
1378 gjelder for NRK?&lt;/p&gt;
1379 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1380
1381 &lt;p&gt;Noen minutter senere får jeg foreløpig siste svar i
1382 føljetongen:&lt;/p&gt;
1383
1384 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1385 &lt;p&gt;Hei igjen&lt;/p&gt;
1386
1387 &lt;p&gt;Vårt dokumentarkiv har fått en kopi (journalføringsnr kan jeg
1388 dessverre ikke gi deg).&lt;p&gt;
1389
1390 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Svaret ditt var meget nyttig, og jeg forstår ut fra det du
1391 &lt;br&gt;&gt; skriver at avklaringen med MPEG LA rundt H.264-distribusjon via
1392 &lt;br&gt;&gt; bakkenettet gjelder alle TV-kanaler i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
1393
1394 &lt;p&gt;Svar: Kan ikke svare for andre enn for NRK/EBU - og for bakkenettet
1395 i Norge er det kun NRK som er et lisensbasert selskap. Kan ikke gi noe
1396 svar på saksnr på dokumenter eller ytterligere informasjon da jeg selv
1397 ikke var del i dette.&lt;/p&gt;
1398
1399 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Men det er et par ting jeg fortsatt ikke forstår.  ...&lt;/p&gt;
1400
1401 &lt;p&gt;Svar: Kan ikke gå ytterligere inn i dette fra min side og mitt
1402 fagfelt som er produksjon/publisering og systemstrukturene bak
1403 disse. For øvrig ligger det etter vår formening ingen begrensninger
1404 for NRK i mulighetene til publisering mht til kodek i
1405 produksjonssystemer. Som tidligere skrevet mener vi at NRK ikke
1406 trenger noen avtale med MPEG LA og støtter oss til det vi allerede har
1407 kommunisert i forrige epost.&lt;/p&gt;
1408
1409 &lt;p&gt;Mvh
1410 &lt;br&gt;Geir Børdalen&lt;/p&gt;
1411 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1412
1413 &lt;p&gt;Det syntes vanskelig å komme videre når NRK ikke ønsker å gå inn i
1414 problemstillingen rundt bruksvilkårene til videoredigeringsverktøyene
1415 NRK bruker, så jeg sendte takk for svarene og avsluttet utvekslingen
1416 så langt:&lt;/p&gt;
1417
1418 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1419 &lt;p&gt;Tusen takk for rask respons, og oppklarende forklaring om hvordan
1420 NRK tenker rundt MPEG LA.&lt;/p&gt;
1421
1422 &lt;p&gt;Jeg vil høre med NRK-arkivet for å se om de kan spore opp de
1423 omtalte dokumentene.  Jeg setter pris på om du kan dele titler, dato
1424 eller annen informasjon som kan gjøre det enklere for arkivet å finne
1425 dem.&lt;/p&gt;
1426
1427 &lt;p&gt;Når det gjelder hvordan bruksvilkårene til
1428 videoredigeringsverktøyene skal tolkes, så skal jeg høre med MPEG LA
1429 og produsentene av verktøyene for å forsøke å få klarhet i hva de
1430 mener er rikgig rettstilstand.&lt;/p&gt;
1431 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1432
1433 &lt;p&gt;Jeg ble litt klokere, men fortsatt er det uklart for meg hva som er
1434 grunnlaget til NRK for å se bort fra bruksvilkår i
1435 videoredigeringsprogramvare som krever MPEG LA-avtale til alt annet
1436 enn privat og ikke-kommersiell bruk.&lt;/p&gt;
1437 </description>
1438         </item>
1439
1440         <item>
1441                 <title>Hvordan vurderer regjeringen H.264-patentutfordringen?</title>
1442                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvordan_vurderer_regjeringen_H_264_patentutfordringen_.html</link>
1443                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvordan_vurderer_regjeringen_H_264_patentutfordringen_.html</guid>
1444                 <pubDate>Sun, 16 Nov 2014 10:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
1445                 <description>&lt;p&gt;For en stund tilbake spurte jeg Fornyingsdepartementet om hvilke
1446 juridiske vurderinger rundt patentproblemstillingen som var gjort da
1447 H.264 ble tatt inn i &lt;a href=&quot;http://standard.difi.no/&quot;&gt;statens
1448 referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;.  Stig Hornnes i FAD tipset meg
1449 om følgende som står i oppsumeringen til høringen om
1450 referansekatalogen versjon 2.0, som jeg siden ved hjelp av en
1451 innsynsforespørsel fikk tak i
1452 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&amp;do=get&amp;target=kongelig-resolusjon.pdf&quot;&gt;PDF-utgaven av&lt;/a&gt;
1453 datert 2009-06-03 (saksnummer 200803291, saksbehandler Henrik
1454 Linnestad).&lt;/p&gt;
1455
1456 &lt;p&gt;Der står det følgende om problemstillingen:&lt;/p&gt;
1457
1458 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1459 &lt;strong&gt;4.4 Patentproblematikk&lt;/strong&gt;
1460
1461 &lt;p&gt;NUUG og Opera ser det som særlig viktig at forslagene knyttet til
1462 lyd og video baserer seg på de royalty-frie standardene Vorbis, Theora
1463 og FLAC.&lt;/p&gt;
1464
1465 &lt;p&gt;Kommentarene relaterer seg til at enkelte standarder er åpne, men
1466 inneholder tekniske prosedyrer som det i USA (og noen andre land som
1467 Japan) er gitt patentrettigheter til. I vårt tilfelle berører dette
1468 spesielt standardene Mp3 og H.264, selv om Politidirektoratet peker på
1469 at det muligens kan være tilsvarende problematikk også for Theora og
1470 Vorbis.  Dette medfører at det i USA kan kreves royalties for bruk av
1471 tekniske løsninger knyttet til standardene, et krav som også
1472 håndheves. Patenter kan imidlertid bare hevdes i de landene hvor
1473 patentet er gitt, så amerikanske patenter gjelder ikke andre steder
1474 enn USA.&lt;/p&gt;
1475
1476 &lt;p&gt;Spesielt for utvikling av fri programvare er patenter
1477 problematisk. GPL, en &quot;grunnleggende&quot; lisens for distribusjon av fri
1478 programvare, avviser at programvare kan distribueres under denne
1479 lisensen hvis det inneholder referanser til patenterte rutiner som
1480 utløser krav om royalties. Det er imidlertid uproblematisk å
1481 distribuere fri programvareløsninger under GPL som benytter de
1482 aktuelle standardene innen eller mellom land som ikke anerkjenner
1483 patentene. Derfor finner vi også flere implementeringer av Mp3 og
1484 H.264 som er fri programvare, lisensiert under GPL.&lt;/p&gt;
1485
1486 &lt;p&gt;I Norge og EU er patentlovgivningen langt mer restriktiv enn i USA,
1487 men det er også her mulig å få patentert metoder for løsning av et
1488 problem som relaterer seg til databehandling. Det er AIF bekjent ikke
1489 relevante patenter i EU eller Norge hva gjelder H.264 og Mp3, men
1490 muligheten for at det finnes patenter uten at det er gjort krav om
1491 royalties eller at det senere vil gis slike patenter kan ikke helt
1492 avvises.&lt;/p&gt;
1493
1494 &lt;p&gt;AIF mener det er et behov for å gi offentlige virksomheter mulighet
1495 til å benytte antatt royaltyfrie åpne standarder som et likeverdig
1496 alternativ eller i tillegg til de markedsledende åpne standardene.&lt;/p&gt;
1497
1498 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1499
1500 &lt;p&gt;Det ser dermed ikke ut til at de har vurdert patentspørsmålet i
1501 sammenheng med opphavsrettsvilkår slik de er formulert for f.eks.
1502 Apple Final Cut Pro, Adobe Premiere Pro, Avid og Sorenson-verktøyene,
1503 der det kreves brukstillatelse for patenter som ikke er gyldige i
1504 Norge for å bruke disse verktøyene til annet en personlig og ikke
1505 kommersiell aktivitet når det gjelder H.264-video.  Jeg må nok lete
1506 videre etter svar på det spørsmålet.&lt;/p&gt;
1507 </description>
1508         </item>
1509
1510         <item>
1511                 <title>Do you need an agreement with MPEG-LA to publish and broadcast H.264 video in Norway?</title>
1512                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Do_you_need_an_agreement_with_MPEG_LA_to_publish_and_broadcast_H_264_video_in_Norway_.html</link>
1513                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Do_you_need_an_agreement_with_MPEG_LA_to_publish_and_broadcast_H_264_video_in_Norway_.html</guid>
1514                 <pubDate>Mon, 25 Aug 2014 22:10:00 +0200</pubDate>
1515                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Two years later, I am still not sure if it is legal here in Norway
1516 to use or publish a video in H.264 or MPEG4 format edited by the
1517 commercially licensed video editors, without limiting the use to
1518 create &quot;personal&quot; or &quot;non-commercial&quot; videos or get a license
1519 agreement with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com&quot;&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/a&gt;.  If one
1520 want to publish and broadcast video in a non-personal or commercial
1521 setting, it might be that those tools can not be used, or that video
1522 format can not be used, without breaking their copyright license.  I
1523 am not sure.
1524 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;Back
1525 then&lt;/a&gt;, I found that the copyright license terms for Adobe Premiere
1526 and Apple Final Cut Pro both specified that one could not use the
1527 program to produce anything else without a patent license from MPEG
1528 LA.  The issue is not limited to those two products, though.  Other
1529 much used products like those from Avid and Sorenson Media have terms
1530 of use are similar to those from Adobe and Apple.  The complicating
1531 factor making me unsure if those terms have effect in Norway or not is
1532 that the patents in question are not valid in Norway, but copyright
1533 licenses are.&lt;/p&gt;
1534
1535 &lt;p&gt;These are the terms for Avid Artist Suite, according to their
1536 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.avid.com/US/about-avid/legal-notices/legal-enduserlicense2&quot;&gt;published
1537 end user&lt;/a&gt;
1538 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.avid.com/static/resources/common/documents/corporate/LICENSE.pdf&quot;&gt;license
1539 text&lt;/a&gt; (converted to lower case text for easier reading):&lt;/p&gt;
1540
1541 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1542 &lt;p&gt;18.2. MPEG-4. MPEG-4 technology may be included with the
1543 software. MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this notice: &lt;/p&gt;
1544
1545 &lt;p&gt;This product is licensed under the MPEG-4 visual patent portfolio
1546 license for the personal and non-commercial use of a consumer for (i)
1547 encoding video in compliance with the MPEG-4 visual standard (“MPEG-4
1548 video”) and/or (ii) decoding MPEG-4 video that was encoded by a
1549 consumer engaged in a personal and non-commercial activity and/or was
1550 obtained from a video provider licensed by MPEG LA to provide MPEG-4
1551 video.  No license is granted or shall be implied for any other
1552 use. Additional information including that relating to promotional,
1553 internal and commercial uses and licensing may be obtained from MPEG
1554 LA, LLC.  See http://www.mpegla.com. This product is licensed under
1555 the MPEG-4 systems patent portfolio license for encoding in compliance
1556 with the MPEG-4 systems standard, except that an additional license
1557 and payment of royalties are necessary for encoding in connection with
1558 (i) data stored or replicated in physical media which is paid for on a
1559 title by title basis and/or (ii) data which is paid for on a title by
1560 title basis and is transmitted to an end user for permanent storage
1561 and/or use, such additional license may be obtained from MPEG LA,
1562 LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com for additional details.&lt;/p&gt;
1563
1564 &lt;p&gt;18.3. H.264/AVC. H.264/AVC technology may be included with the
1565 software.  MPEG LA, L.L.C. requires this notice:&lt;/p&gt;
1566
1567 &lt;p&gt;This product is licensed under the AVC patent portfolio license for
1568 the personal use of a consumer or other uses in which it does not
1569 receive remuneration to (i) encode video in compliance with the AVC
1570 standard (“AVC video”) and/or (ii) decode AVC video that was encoded
1571 by a consumer engaged in a personal activity and/or was obtained from
1572 a video provider licensed to provide AVC video. No license is granted
1573 or shall be implied for any other use. Additional information may be
1574 obtained from MPEG LA, L.L.C. See http://www.mpegla.com.&lt;/p&gt;
1575 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1576
1577 &lt;p&gt;Note the requirement that the videos created can only be used for
1578 personal or non-commercial purposes.&lt;/p&gt;
1579
1580 &lt;p&gt;The Sorenson Media software have
1581 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sorensonmedia.com/terms/&quot;&gt;similar terms&lt;/a&gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
1582
1583 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1584
1585 &lt;p&gt;With respect to a license from Sorenson pertaining to MPEG-4 Video
1586 Decoders and/or Encoders: Any such product is licensed under the
1587 MPEG-4 visual patent portfolio license for the personal and
1588 non-commercial use of a consumer for (i) encoding video in compliance
1589 with the MPEG-4 visual standard (“MPEG-4 video”) and/or (ii) decoding
1590 MPEG-4 video that was encoded by a consumer engaged in a personal and
1591 non-commercial activity and/or was obtained from a video provider
1592 licensed by MPEG LA to provide MPEG-4 video. No license is granted or
1593 shall be implied for any other use. Additional information including
1594 that relating to promotional, internal and commercial uses and
1595 licensing may be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See
1596 http://www.mpegla.com.&lt;/p&gt;
1597
1598 &lt;p&gt;With respect to a license from Sorenson pertaining to MPEG-4
1599 Consumer Recorded Data Encoder, MPEG-4 Systems Internet Data Encoder,
1600 MPEG-4 Mobile Data Encoder, and/or MPEG-4 Unique Use Encoder: Any such
1601 product is licensed under the MPEG-4 systems patent portfolio license
1602 for encoding in compliance with the MPEG-4 systems standard, except
1603 that an additional license and payment of royalties are necessary for
1604 encoding in connection with (i) data stored or replicated in physical
1605 media which is paid for on a title by title basis and/or (ii) data
1606 which is paid for on a title by title basis and is transmitted to an
1607 end user for permanent storage and/or use. Such additional license may
1608 be obtained from MPEG LA, LLC. See http://www.mpegla.com for
1609 additional details.&lt;/p&gt;
1610
1611 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1612
1613 &lt;p&gt;Some free software like
1614 &lt;a href=&quot;https://handbrake.fr/&quot;&gt;Handbrake&lt;/A&gt; and
1615 &lt;a href=&quot;http://ffmpeg.org/&quot;&gt;FFMPEG&lt;/a&gt; uses GPL/LGPL licenses and do
1616 not have any such terms included, so for those, there is no
1617 requirement to limit the use to personal and non-commercial.&lt;/p&gt;
1618 </description>
1619         </item>
1620
1621         <item>
1622                 <title>Hvor godt fungerer Linux-klienter mot MS Exchange?</title>
1623                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvor_godt_fungerer_Linux_klienter_mot_MS_Exchange_.html</link>
1624                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvor_godt_fungerer_Linux_klienter_mot_MS_Exchange_.html</guid>
1625                 <pubDate>Tue, 26 Nov 2013 18:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
1626                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg
1627 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_pent_m_te_p__onsdag_om_bruken_av_Microsoft_Exchange_ved_Universitetet_i_Oslo.html&quot;&gt;skrev
1628 i juni om protestene&lt;/a&gt; på planene til min arbeidsplass,
1629 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uio.no/&quot;&gt;Universitetet i Oslo&lt;/a&gt;, om å gå bort fra
1630 fri programvare- og åpne standardløsninger for å håndtere epost,
1631 vekk fra IETF-standarden SIEVE for filtrering av epost og over til
1632 godseide spesifikasjoner og epostsystemet Microsoft Exchange.
1633 Protestene har fått litt ny omtale i media de siste dagene, i tillegg
1634 til de oppslagene som kom i mai.&lt;/p&gt;
1635
1636 &lt;ul&gt;
1637
1638 &lt;li&gt;2013-11-26 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.version2.dk/artikel/gigantisk-outlook-konvertering-moeder-protester-paa-universitet-55147&quot;&gt;Gigantisk Outlook-konvertering møder protester på universitet&lt;/a&gt; - versjon2.dk&lt;/li&gt;
1639
1640 &lt;li&gt;2013-11-25
1641   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article279407.ece&quot;&gt;Microsoft-protest
1642   på Universitetet&lt;/a&gt; - Computerworld&lt;/li&gt;
1643
1644 &lt;li&gt;2013-11-25
1645   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/2013/11/uio-bor-bruke-apen-programvare.html&quot;&gt;Kjemper
1646   mot innføring av Microsoft Exchange på UiO&lt;/a&gt; - Uniforum&lt;/li&gt;
1647
1648 &lt;li&gt;2013-11-25
1649   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/2013/11/uio-utsetter-innforing-av-nytt-e-postsystem.html&quot;&gt;Utsetter
1650   innføring av nytt e-postsystem&lt;/a&gt; - Uniforum&lt;/li&gt;
1651
1652 &lt;li&gt;2013-05-29
1653   &lt;a href=&quot;http://universitas.no/nyhet/58462/forsvarer-nytt-it-system&quot;&gt;Forsvarer
1654   nytt IT-system&lt;/a&gt; - Universitas&lt;/li&gt;
1655
1656 &lt;li&gt;2013-05-23
1657   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/2013/05/uio-innforer-nytt-epost-og-kalendersystem.html&quot;&gt;UiO
1658   innfører nytt epost- og kalenderverktøy&lt;/a&gt; - Uniforum&lt;/li&gt;
1659
1660 &lt;li&gt;2013-05-22
1661   &lt;a href=&quot;http://universitas.no/nyhet/58424/protestgruppe-vil-stanse-it-system&quot;&gt;Protestgruppe
1662   vil stanse IT-system&lt;/a&gt; - Universitas&lt;/li&gt;
1663
1664 &lt;li&gt;2013-05-15
1665   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uniforum.uio.no/leserbrev/2013/uio-ma-ha-kontroll-over-sitt-eget-epostsystem.html&quot;&gt;UiO
1666   må ha kontroll over sitt eget epostsystem&lt;/a&gt; - Uniforum&lt;/li&gt;
1667
1668 &lt;/ul&gt;
1669
1670 &lt;p&gt;Prosjektledelsen har fortalt at dette skal fungere like godt for
1671 Linux-brukere som for brukere av Microsoft Windows og Apple MacOSX,
1672 men jeg lurer på hva slags erfaringer Linux-brukere i eksisterende
1673 miljøer som bruker MS Exchange har gjort.  Hvis du har slik erfaring
1674 hadet det vært veldig fint om du kan send et leserbrev til
1675 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uniforum.uio.no/&quot;&gt;Uniforum&lt;/a&gt; og fortelle om hvor
1676 greit det er å bruke Exchange i kryss-platform-miljøer?  De jeg har
1677 snakket med sier en greit får lest e-posten sin hvis Exchange har
1678 slått på IMAP-funksjonalitet, men at kalender og møtebooking ikke
1679 fungerer godt for Linux-klienter. Jeg har ingen personlig erfaring å
1680 komme med, så jeg er nysgjerrig på hva andre kan dele av erfaringer
1681 med universitetet.&lt;/p&gt;
1682
1683 &lt;p&gt;Mitt ankerpunkt mot å bytte ut fri programvare som fungerer godt
1684 med godseid programvare er at en mister kontroll over egen
1685 infrastruktur, låser seg inn i en løsning det vil bli dyrt å komme ut
1686 av, uten at en får funksjonalitet en ikke kunne skaffet seg med fri
1687 programvare, eventuelt videreutviklet med de pengene som brukes på
1688 overgangen til MS Exchange.  Personlig planlegger jeg å fortsette å
1689 laste ned all eposten min til lokal maskin for indeksering og lesing
1690 med &lt;a href==&quot;http://notmuchmail.org&quot;&gt;notmuch&lt;/a&gt;, så jeg håper jeg
1691 ikke blir veldig skadelidende av overgangen.&lt;/p&gt;
1692
1693 &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://dinis.linguateca.pt/Diana/ImotMSUiO.html&quot;&gt;Underskriftslista
1694 for oss som er mot endringen&lt;/a&gt;, som omtales i artiklene, er fortsatt
1695 åpen for de som vil signere på oppropet.  Akkurat nå er det 298
1696 personer som har signert.&lt;/p&gt;
1697 </description>
1698         </item>
1699
1700         <item>
1701                 <title>Åpent møte på onsdag om bruken av Microsoft Exchange ved Universitetet i Oslo</title>
1702                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_pent_m_te_p__onsdag_om_bruken_av_Microsoft_Exchange_ved_Universitetet_i_Oslo.html</link>
1703                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_pent_m_te_p__onsdag_om_bruken_av_Microsoft_Exchange_ved_Universitetet_i_Oslo.html</guid>
1704                 <pubDate>Mon, 3 Jun 2013 14:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
1705                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg jobber til daglig ved &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uio.no/&quot;&gt;Universitetet
1706 i Oslo&lt;/a&gt;, en institusjon som lenge har vektlagt verdien av åpne
1707 standarder og fri programvare.  Men noe har endret seg, og for en
1708 liten stund tilbake annonserte USIT at dagens fungerende e-postsystemet
1709 basert på fri programvare skulle byttes ut med Microsoft Exchange og
1710 at Microsoft Outlook skulle bli den best fungerende men antagelig ikke
1711 eneste støttede e-postklienten.  Annonseringen har ført til flere
1712 protester og &lt;a href=&quot;http://folk.uio.no/dssantos/nooutlookatuio/&quot;&gt;en
1713 underskriftskampanje&lt;/a&gt;, initiert av Diana Santos, der så langt 253
1714 personer har signert.  Prosjektet
1715 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usit.uio.no/prosjekter/nike/&quot;&gt;NIKE (Ny integrert
1716 kalender/e-post)&lt;/a&gt; ble initiert for å se på mulige løsninger med
1717 utgangspunkt i at en kombinert epost/kalenderløsning var påkrevd, og
1718 prosjektet
1719 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usit.uio.no/prosjekter/nike-implementasjon/&quot;&gt;NIKE-implementasjon&lt;/a&gt;
1720 er igang med å rulle ut MS Exchange ved Universitetet i Oslo.&lt;/p&gt;
1721
1722 &lt;p&gt;For kun kort tid siden ble det annonsert at det blir et åpent møte
1723 med ledelsen hos universitetet i Oslo med disse planene som tema:&lt;/p&gt;
1724
1725 &lt;p&gt;Tid: &lt;strong&gt;Onsdag 2013-06-05 kl. 10:00&lt;/strong&gt;
1726 &lt;br&gt;Sted: &lt;strong&gt;9. etasje i Lucy Smiths hus (admin-bygget)&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1727
1728 &lt;p&gt; Det kan være en god plass å stille opp hvis en som meg ikke tror
1729 valget av Microsoft Exchange som sentral epostinfrastruktur er et
1730 heldig valg for Norges ledende forskningsuniversitet, men at en er mer
1731 tjent med å selv
1732 &lt;a href=&quot;http://nuug.no/dokumenter/kronikk-friprog-itsikkerhet.shtml&quot;&gt;beholde
1733 kontrollen over egen infrastruktur&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
1734
1735 &lt;p&gt;Saken har ført til endel presseoppslag så langt.  Her er de jeg har
1736 fått med meg:&lt;/p&gt;
1737
1738 &lt;ul&gt;
1739
1740 &lt;li&gt;2013-05-29
1741   &lt;a href=&quot;http://universitas.no/nyhet/58462/forsvarer-nytt-it-system&quot;&gt;Forsvarer
1742   nytt IT-system&lt;/a&gt; - Universitas&lt;/li&gt;
1743
1744 &lt;li&gt;2013-05-23
1745   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uniforum.uio.no/nyheter/2013/05/uio-innforer-nytt-epost-og-kalendersystem.html&quot;&gt;UiO
1746   innfører nytt epost- og kalenderverktøy&lt;/a&gt; - Uniforum&lt;/li&gt;
1747
1748
1749 &lt;li&gt;2013-05-22
1750   &lt;a href=&quot;http://universitas.no/nyhet/58424/protestgruppe-vil-stanse-it-system&quot;&gt;Protestgruppe
1751   vil stanse IT-system&lt;/a&gt; - Universitas&lt;/li&gt;
1752
1753
1754 &lt;li&gt;2013-05-15
1755   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uniforum.uio.no/leserbrev/2013/uio-ma-ha-kontroll-over-sitt-eget-epostsystem.html&quot;&gt;UiO
1756   må ha kontroll over sitt eget epostsystem&lt;/a&gt; - Uniforum&lt;/li&gt;
1757
1758 &lt;/ul&gt;
1759
1760
1761 </description>
1762         </item>
1763
1764         <item>
1765                 <title>Mer innsyn i bakgrunnen for fjerning av ODF fra statens standardkatalog</title>
1766                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_innsyn_i_bakgrunnen_for_fjerning_av_ODF_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html</link>
1767                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_innsyn_i_bakgrunnen_for_fjerning_av_ODF_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html</guid>
1768                 <pubDate>Tue, 9 Apr 2013 10:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
1769                 <description>&lt;p&gt;For cirka en måned siden
1770 &lt;ahref=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjeringen__Fornyingsdepartementet_og_DIFI_g_r_inn_for___fjerne_ODF_som_obligatorisk_standard_i_det_offentlige.html&quot;&gt;ba
1771 jeg om begrunnelse på nektet innsyn i dokumenter&lt;/a&gt; om
1772 standardkatalogen fra Fornyingsdepartementet.  I dag fikk jeg svar fra
1773 Fornyingsdepartementet, og tilgang til dokumentene.  Jeg fikk både
1774 innsyn i vedlegg sendt fra DIFI, og også innsyn i et notat brukt
1775 internt i Fornyingsdepartementet:&lt;/p&gt;
1776
1777 &lt;ul&gt;
1778
1779 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-Fornyingsdepartementet/sak-2012-2168/Oppsummering%20av%20h%f8ringen%20om%20endringer%20i%20forskrift%20om%20IT-standarder.pdf&quot;&gt;Epost fra DIFI til Fornyingsdepartementet, datert 2012-11-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
1780
1781 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-Fornyingsdepartementet/sak-2012-2168/Oppsummering%20og%20anbefaling%20etter%20h%f8ring.pdf&quot;&gt;vedlegg 1, Oppsummering og anbefalinger etter høring av endringer i forskrift om IT-standarer i offentlig forvaltning, datert 2012-11-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
1782
1783 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-Fornyingsdepartementet/sak-2012-2168/Vedlegg%20Om%20h%f8ringe.docx%20(L)(898066).pdf&quot;&gt;Notat fra avdeling for IKT og fornying til statsråd i Fornyingsdepartementet om høringen, datert 2013-01-03&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
1784
1785 &lt;/ul&gt;
1786
1787 &lt;p&gt;Det bør nevnes at da jeg ble nektet innsyn hos mottaker
1788 Fornyingsdepartementet på høringsoppsummeringen som DIFI hadde sendt
1789 ut, spurte jeg DIFI om innsyn i stedet.  Det fikk jeg i løpet av et
1790 par dager.  Moralen er at hvis ikke mottaker ikke vil gi innsyn, spør
1791 avsender i stedet.  Kanskje de har forskjellig forståelse av hva som
1792 bør holdes skjult for folket.  Her er de tilsvarende dokumentene jeg
1793 fikk innsyn i fra DIFI:&lt;/p&gt;
1794
1795 &lt;ul&gt;
1796
1797 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-DIFI/Epostforsendelse.pdf&quot;&gt;Epost fra DIFI til Fornyingsdepartementet, datert 2012-11-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
1798
1799 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-DIFI/Vedlegg%201,%20Oppsummering%20av%20h%f8ring%20om%20endringer%20i%20forskrift%20om%20IT-standarder.pdf&quot;&gt;vedlegg 1, Oppsummering og anbefalinger etter høring av endringer i forskrift om IT-standarer i offentlig forvaltning, datert 2012-11-23&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
1800
1801 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-DIFI/Vedlegg%202,%20Forslag%20til%20endringsforskrift.pdf&quot;&gt;Vedlegg 2, Forslag til endringsforskrift, udatert&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
1802
1803 &lt;li&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-DIFI/Vedlegg%203%20Forskrift%20om%20IT-standarder%20i%20offentlig%20forvaltning.pdf&quot;&gt;Vedlegg 3, Forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig forvaltning, udatert&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/li&gt;
1804
1805 &lt;/ul&gt;
1806
1807 &lt;p&gt;Det jeg synes er mest interessant er endel av aktørene som
1808 protesterte på fjerningen (Kartverket, Drammen kommune), og hvordan
1809 høringsoppsummeringen ikke tar stilling til effekten av å fjerne ODF
1810 fra katalogen.&lt;/p&gt;
1811 </description>
1812         </item>
1813
1814         <item>
1815                 <title>Regjeringen, FAD og DIFI går inn for å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk standard i det offentlige</title>
1816                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjeringen__FAD_og_DIFI_g_r_inn_for___fjerne_ODF_som_obligatorisk_standard_i_det_offentlige.html</link>
1817                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjeringen__FAD_og_DIFI_g_r_inn_for___fjerne_ODF_som_obligatorisk_standard_i_det_offentlige.html</guid>
1818                 <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
1819                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I
1820 &lt;a href=&quot;http://standard.difi.no/hoyring/forslag-om-endring-av-forskrift-om-it-standarder-i-offentlig-forvaltning&quot;&gt;siste
1821 høring&lt;/a&gt; om
1822 &lt;a href=&quot;http://standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder&quot;&gt;referansekatalogen
1823 for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor&lt;/a&gt;, med høringsfrist 2012-09-30
1824 (DIFI-sak 2012/498), ble det foreslått å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk
1825 standard når en publiserte dokumenter som skulle kunne redigeres
1826 videre av mottaker.  NUUG og andre protesterte på forslaget, som er et
1827 langt steg tilbake når det gjelder å sikre like rettigheter for alle
1828 når en kommuniserer med det offentlige.  For noen dager siden ble jeg
1829 oppmerksom på at Direktoratet for forvaltning og IKT (DIFI) og
1830 Fornyings-,administrasjons- og kirkedepartementet (FAD) har
1831 konkludert, og oversendt forslag til regjeringen i saken. FADs
1832 dokument
1833 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.oep.no/search/result.html?period=none&amp;descType=both&amp;caseNumber=2012%2F2168&amp;senderType=both&amp;documentType=all&amp;list2=94&amp;searchType=advanced&amp;Search=S%C3%B8k+i+journaler&quot;&gt;2012/2168&lt;/a&gt;-8,
1834 «Utkast til endring av standardiseringsforskriften» datert 2013-02-06
1835 har følgende triste oppsummering fra høringen i saken:&lt;/p&gt;
1836
1837 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
1838 Det kom noen innvendinger på forslaget om å fjerne ODF som
1839 obligatorisk standard for redigerbare dokumenter. Innvendingene har
1840 ikke blitt ilagt avgjørende vekt.
1841 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1842
1843 &lt;p&gt;Ved å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk format ved publisering av
1844 redigerbare dokumenter setter en Norge tiår tilbake.  Det som vil skje
1845 er at offentlige etater går tilbake til kun å publisere dokumenter på
1846 et av de mange formatene til Microsoft Office, og alle som ikke
1847 aksepterer bruksvilkårene til Microsoft eller ikke har råd til å bruke
1848 penger på å få tilgang til Microsoft Office må igjen basere seg på
1849 verktøy fra utviklerne som er avhengig av å reversutvikle disse
1850 formatene.  I og med at ISO-spesifikasjonen for OOXML ikke komplett og
1851 korrekt spesifiserer formatene til MS Office (men er nyttige å titte i
1852 når en reversutvikler), er en tilbake til en situasjon der en ikke har
1853 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html&quot;&gt;en
1854 fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt; å forholde seg til, men i stedet må springe
1855 etter Microsoft.  Alle andre leverandører enn Microsoft vil dermed ha
1856 en seriøs ulempe.  Det er som å fjerne krav om bruk av meter som
1857 måleenhet, og heretter aksepterer alle måleenheter som like gyldige,
1858 når en vet at den mest brukte enheten vil være armlengden til Steve
1859 Ballmer slik Microsoft måler den.&lt;/p&gt;
1860
1861 &lt;p&gt;Jeg er ikke sikker på om forslaget er vedtatt av regjeringen ennå.
1862 Kristian Bergem hos DIFI nevnte på et møte forrige tirsdag at han
1863 trodde det var vedtatt i statsråd 8. mars, men jeg har ikke klart å
1864 finne en skriftlig kilde på regjeringen.no som bekrefter dette.
1865 Kanskje det ennå ikke er for sent...&lt;/p&gt;
1866
1867 &lt;p&gt;Jeg ba i forrige uke om innsyn i dokument 6, 7 og 8 i FAD-saken, og
1868 har i dag fått innsyn i dokument 7 og 8.  Ble nektet innsyn i
1869 dokumentet med tittelen «Oppsummering av høring om endringer i
1870 forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig forvaltning» med hjemmel i
1871 off. lovens §15.1, så det er vanskelig å vite hvordan argumentene fra
1872 høringen ble mottatt og forstått av saksbehandleren hos DIFI.  Lurer
1873 på hvordan jeg kan klage på at jeg ikke fikk se oppsummeringen.  Fikk
1874 tre PDFer tilsendt fra FAD,
1875 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-FAD/sak-2012-2168/20130115%20Notat%20FAD%20-%20EHF.pdf%20(L)(889185).pdf&quot;&gt;Endring av underversjon i EHF&lt;/a&gt;,
1876 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-FAD/sak-2012-2168/Bakgrunnsnotat%20knyttet%20til%20versjon%20av%20EHF%20standarden%20i%20Forskrift%20om%20IT-standarder%20i%20offentlig%20sektor.pdf&quot;&gt;Bakgrunnsnotat knyttet til versjon av EHF standarden i Forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig sektor&lt;/a&gt; og
1877 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/pub/offentliginnsyn/from-FAD/sak-2012-2168/Utkast%20Kongelig%20resolusjon.docx%20(L)(898064).pdf&quot;&gt;Utkast til endring av standardiseringsforskriften&lt;/a&gt;, hvis du vil ta en titt.&lt;/p&gt;
1878 </description>
1879         </item>
1880
1881         <item>
1882                 <title>&quot;Electronic&quot; paper invoices - using vCard in a QR code</title>
1883                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_Electronic__paper_invoices___using_vCard_in_a_QR_code.html</link>
1884                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/_Electronic__paper_invoices___using_vCard_in_a_QR_code.html</guid>
1885                 <pubDate>Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
1886                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Here in Norway, electronic invoices are spreading, and the
1887 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.anskaffelser.no/e-handel/faktura&quot;&gt;solution promoted
1888 by the Norwegian government&lt;/a&gt; require that invoices are sent through
1889 one of the approved facilitators, and it is not possible to send
1890 electronic invoices without an agreement with one of these
1891 facilitators.  This seem like a needless limitation to be able to
1892 transfer invoice information between buyers and sellers.  My preferred
1893 solution would be to just transfer the invoice information directly
1894 between seller and buyer, for example using SMTP, or some HTTP based
1895 protocol like REST or SOAP.  But this might also be overkill, as the
1896 &quot;electronic&quot; information can be transferred using paper invoices too,
1897 using a simple bar code.  My bar code encoding of choice would be QR
1898 codes, as this encoding can be read by any smart phone out there.  The
1899 content of the code could be anything, but I would go with
1900 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCard&quot;&gt;the vCard format&lt;/a&gt;, as
1901 it too is supported by a lot of computer equipment these days.&lt;/p&gt;
1902
1903 &lt;p&gt;The vCard format support extentions, and the invoice specific
1904 information can be included using such extentions.  For example an
1905 invoice from SLX Debian Labs (picked because we
1906 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linuxiskolen.no/slxdebianlabs/donations.html&quot;&gt;ask
1907 for donations to the Debian Edu project&lt;/a&gt; and thus have bank account
1908 information publicly available) for NOK 1000.00 could have these extra
1909 fields:&lt;/p&gt;
1910
1911 &lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
1912 X-INVOICE-NUMBER:1
1913 X-INVOICE-AMOUNT:NOK1000.00
1914 X-INVOICE-KID:123412341234
1915 X-INVOICE-MSG:Donation to Debian Edu
1916 X-BANK-ACCOUNT-NUMBER:16040884339
1917 X-BANK-IBAN-NUMBER:NO8516040884339
1918 X-BANK-SWIFT-NUMBER:DNBANOKKXXX
1919 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1920
1921 &lt;p&gt;The X-BANK-ACCOUNT-NUMBER field was proposed in a stackoverflow
1922 answer regarding
1923 &lt;a href=&quot;http://stackoverflow.com/questions/10045664/storing-bank-account-in-vcard-file&quot;&gt;how
1924 to put bank account information into a vCard&lt;/a&gt;.  For payments in
1925 Norway, either X-INVOICE-KID (payment ID) or X-INVOICE-MSG could be
1926 used to pass on information to the seller when paying the invoice.&lt;/p&gt;
1927
1928 &lt;p&gt;The complete vCard could look like this:&lt;/p&gt;
1929
1930 &lt;p&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
1931 BEGIN:VCARD
1932 VERSION:2.1
1933 ORG:SLX Debian Labs Foundation
1934 ADR;WORK:;;Gunnar Schjelderups vei 29D;OSLO;;0485;Norway
1935 URL;WORK:http://www.linuxiskolen.no/slxdebianlabs/
1936 EMAIL;PREF;INTERNET:sdl-styret@rt.nuug.no
1937 REV:20130212T095000Z
1938 X-INVOICE-NUMBER:1
1939 X-INVOICE-AMOUNT:NOK1000.00
1940 X-INVOICE-MSG:Donation to Debian Edu
1941 X-BANK-ACCOUNT-NUMBER:16040884339
1942 X-BANK-IBAN-NUMBER:NO8516040884339
1943 X-BANK-SWIFT-NUMBER:DNBANOKKXXX
1944 END:VCARD
1945 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1946
1947 &lt;p&gt;The resulting QR code created using
1948 &lt;a href=&quot;http://fukuchi.org/works/qrencode/&quot;&gt;qrencode&lt;/a&gt; would look
1949 like this, and should be readable (and thus checkable) by any smart
1950 phone, or for example the &lt;a href=&quot;http://zbar.sourceforge.net/&quot;&gt;zbar
1951 bar code reader&lt;/a&gt; and feed right into the approval and accounting
1952 system.&lt;/p&gt;
1953
1954 &lt;p&gt;&lt;img src=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2013-02-12-qr-invoice.png&quot;&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1955
1956 &lt;p&gt;The extension fields will most likely not show up in any normal
1957 vCard reader, so those parts would have to go directly into a system
1958 handling invoices.  I am a bit unsure how vCards without name parts
1959 are handled, but a simple test indicate that this work just fine.&lt;/p&gt;
1960
1961 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Update 2013-02-12 11:30&lt;/strong&gt;: Added KID to the proposal
1962 based on feedback from Sturle Sunde.&lt;/p&gt;
1963 </description>
1964         </item>
1965
1966         <item>
1967                 <title>12 years of outages - summarised by Stuart Kendrick</title>
1968                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/12_years_of_outages___summarised_by_Stuart_Kendrick.html</link>
1969                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/12_years_of_outages___summarised_by_Stuart_Kendrick.html</guid>
1970                 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Oct 2012 14:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
1971                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I work at the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uio.no/&quot;&gt;University of Oslo&lt;/a&gt;
1972 looking after the computers, mostly on the unix side, but in general
1973 all over the place.  I am also a member (and currently leader) of
1974 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/&quot;&gt;the NUUG association&lt;/a&gt;, which in turn
1975 make me a member of &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.usenix.org/&quot;&gt;USENIX&lt;/a&gt;.  NUUG
1976 is an member organisation for us in Norway interested in free
1977 software, open standards and unix like operating systems, and USENIX
1978 is a US based member organisation with similar targets.  And thanks to
1979 these memberships, I get all issues of the great USENIX magazine
1980 &lt;a href=&quot;https://www.usenix.org/publications/login&quot;&gt;;login:&lt;/a&gt; in the
1981 mail several times a year.  The magazine is great, and I read most of
1982 it every time.&lt;/p&gt;
1983
1984 &lt;p&gt;In the last issue of the USENIX magazine ;login:, there is an
1985 article by &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.skendric.com/&quot;&gt;Stuart Kendrick&lt;/a&gt; from
1986 Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center titled
1987 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.usenix.org/publications/login/october-2012-volume-37-number-5/what-takes-us-down&quot;&gt;What
1988 Takes Us Down&lt;/a&gt;&quot; (longer version also
1989 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.skendric.com/problem/incident-analysis/2012-06-30/What-Takes-Us-Down.pdf&quot;&gt;available
1990 from his own site&lt;/a&gt;), where he report what he found when he
1991 processed the outage reports (both planned and unplanned) from the
1992 last twelve years and classified them according to cause, time of day,
1993 etc etc.  The article is a good read to get some empirical data on
1994 what kind of problems affect a data centre, but what really inspired
1995 me was the kind of reporting they had put in place since 2000.&lt;p&gt;
1996
1997 &lt;p&gt;The centre set up a mailing list, and started to send fairly
1998 standardised messages to this list when a outage was planned or when
1999 it already occurred, to announce the plan and get feedback on the
2000 assumtions on scope and user impact.  Here is the two example from the
2001 article: First the unplanned outage:
2002
2003 &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
2004 Subject:     Exchange 2003 Cluster Issues
2005 Severity:    Critical (Unplanned)
2006 Start:       Monday, May 7, 2012, 11:58
2007 End:         Monday, May 7, 2012, 12:38
2008 Duration:    40 minutes
2009 Scope:       Exchange 2003
2010 Description: The HTTPS service on the Exchange cluster crashed, triggering
2011              a cluster failover.
2012
2013 User Impact: During this period, all Exchange users were unable to
2014              access e-mail. Zimbra users were unaffected.
2015 Technician:  [xxx]
2016 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
2017
2018 Next the planned outage:
2019
2020 &lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;pre&gt;
2021 Subject:     H Building Switch Upgrades
2022 Severity:    Major (Planned)
2023 Start:       Saturday, June 16, 2012, 06:00
2024 End:         Saturday, June 16, 2012, 16:00
2025 Duration:    10 hours
2026 Scope:       H2 Transport
2027 Description: Currently, Catalyst 4006s provide 10/100 Ethernet to end-
2028              stations. We will replace these with newer Catalyst
2029              4510s.
2030 User Impact: All users on H2 will be isolated from the network during
2031              this work. Afterward, they will have gigabit
2032              connectivity.
2033 Technician:  [xxx]
2034 &lt;/pre&gt;&lt;/blockquote&gt;
2035
2036 &lt;p&gt;He notes in his article that the date formats and other fields have
2037 been a bit too free form to make it easy to automatically process them
2038 into a database for further analysis, and I would have used ISO 8601
2039 dates myself to make it easier to process (in other words I would ask
2040 people to write &#39;2012-06-16 06:00 +0000&#39; instead of the start time
2041 format listed above).  There are also other issues with the format
2042 that could be improved, read the article for the details.&lt;/p&gt;
2043
2044 &lt;p&gt;I find the idea of standardising outage messages seem to be such a
2045 good idea that I would like to get it implemented here at the
2046 university too.  We do register
2047 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.uio.no/tjenester/it/aktuelt/planlagte-tjenesteavbrudd/&quot;&gt;planned
2048 changes and outages in a calendar&lt;/a&gt;, and report the to a mailing
2049 list, but we do not do so in a structured format and there is not a
2050 report to the same location for unplanned outages.  Perhaps something
2051 for other sites to consider too?&lt;/p&gt;
2052 </description>
2053         </item>
2054
2055         <item>
2056                 <title>NUUGs høringsuttalelse til DIFIs forslag om å kaste ut ODF fra statens standardkatalog</title>
2057                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_h_ringsuttalelse_til_DIFIs_forslag_om___kaste_ut_ODF_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html</link>
2058                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_h_ringsuttalelse_til_DIFIs_forslag_om___kaste_ut_ODF_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html</guid>
2059                 <pubDate>Mon, 1 Oct 2012 08:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
2060                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Som jeg
2061 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html&quot;&gt;skrev
2062 i juni&lt;/a&gt; har DIFI foreslått å fjerne krav om å bruke ODF til
2063 utveksling av redigerbare dokumenter med det offentlige, og
2064 derigjennom tvinge innbyggerne til å forholde seg til formatene til MS
2065 Office når en kommuniserer med det offentlige.&lt;/p&gt;
2066
2067 &lt;p&gt;I går kveld fikk vi i &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/&quot;&gt;NUUG&lt;/a&gt;
2068 fullført vår høringsuttalelse og sendt den inn til DIFI.  Du finner
2069 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/201209-forskrift-standardkatalog&quot;&gt;uttalelsen
2070 på wikien&lt;/a&gt;.  Ta en titt.  Fristen for å sende inn uttalelse var i
2071 går søndag, men en får kanskje sitt innspill med hvis en sender i
2072 dag.&lt;/p&gt;
2073 </description>
2074         </item>
2075
2076         <item>
2077                 <title>Free software forced Microsoft to open Office (and don&#39;t forget Officeshots)</title>
2078                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Free_software_forced_Microsoft_to_open_Office__and_don_t_forget_Officeshots_.html</link>
2079                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Free_software_forced_Microsoft_to_open_Office__and_don_t_forget_Officeshots_.html</guid>
2080                 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
2081                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I came across a great comment from Simon Phipps today, about how
2082 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source-software/how-microsoft-was-forced-open-office-200233&quot;&gt;Microsoft
2083 have been forced to open Office&lt;/a&gt;, and it made me remember and
2084 revisit the great site
2085 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.officeshots.org/&quot;&gt;officeshots&lt;/a&gt; which allow you
2086 to check out how different programs present the ODF file format.  I
2087 recommend both to those of my readers interested in ODF. :)&lt;/p&gt;
2088 </description>
2089         </item>
2090
2091         <item>
2092                 <title>OOXML og standardisering</title>
2093                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OOXML_og_standardisering.html</link>
2094                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OOXML_og_standardisering.html</guid>
2095                 <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 21:10:00 +0200</pubDate>
2096                 <description>&lt;p&gt;DIFI har
2097 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html&quot;&gt;en
2098 høring gående&lt;/a&gt; om ny versjon av statens standardkatalog, med frist
2099 2012-09-30, der det foreslås å fjerne ODF fra katalogen og ta inn ISO
2100 OOXML.  I den anledning minnes jeg
2101 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Refkat_v2.pdf&quot;&gt;notatet
2102 FAD skrev&lt;/a&gt; da versjon 2 av standardkatalogen var under
2103 utarbeidelse, da FAD og DIFI fortsatt forsto poenget med og verdien av
2104 frie og åpne standarder.&lt;/p&gt;
2105
2106 &lt;p&gt;Det er mange som tror at OOXML er ett spesifikt format, men det
2107 brukes ofte som fellesbetegnelse for både formatet spesifisert av
2108 ECMA, ISO, og formatet produsert av Microsoft Office (aka docx), som
2109 dessverre ikke er det samme formatet.  Fra en av de som implementerte
2110 støtte for docx-formatet i KDE fikk jeg høre at ISO-spesifikasjonen
2111 var en nyttig referanse, men at det var mange avvik som gjorde at en
2112 ikke kunne gå ut ifra at Microsoft Office produserte dokumenter i
2113 henhold til ISO-spesifikasjonen.&lt;/p&gt;
2114
2115 &lt;p&gt;ISOs OOXML-spesifikasjon har (eller hadde, usikker på om
2116 kommentaren er oppdatert) i følge
2117 &lt;a href=&quot;http://surguy.net/articles/ooxml-validation-and-technical-review.xml&quot;&gt;Inigo
2118 Surguy&lt;/a&gt; feil i mer enn 10% av eksemplene, noe som i tillegg gjør
2119 det vanskelig å bruke spesifikasjonen til å implementere støtte for
2120 ISO OOXML.  Jeg har ingen erfaring med å validere OOXML-dokumenter
2121 selv, men ser at
2122 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=5124&quot;&gt;Microsoft
2123 har laget en validator&lt;/a&gt; som jeg ikke kan teste da den kun er
2124 tilgjengelig på MS Windows.  Finner også en annen kalt
2125 &lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/p/officeotron/&quot;&gt;Office-O-Tron&lt;/A&gt; som
2126 er oppdatert i fjor.  Lurer på om de validerer at dokumenter er i
2127 formatet til Microsoft office, eller om de validerer at de er i
2128 henhold til formatene spesifisert av ECMA og ISO. Det hadde også vært
2129 interessant å se om docx-dokumentene publisert av det offentlige er
2130 gyldige ISO OOXML-dokumenter.&lt;/p&gt;
2131 </description>
2132         </item>
2133
2134         <item>
2135                 <title>Mer oppfølging fra MPEG-LA om avtale med dem for å kringkaste og publisere H.264-video</title>
2136                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_oppf_lging_fra_MPEG_LA_om_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</link>
2137                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Mer_oppf_lging_fra_MPEG_LA_om_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</guid>
2138                 <pubDate>Thu, 5 Jul 2012 23:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
2139                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I føljetongen om H.264
2140 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html&quot;&gt;forlot
2141 jeg leserne i undring&lt;/a&gt; om hvor pakken fra MPEG-LA tok veien, og om
2142 hvilke selskaper i Norge som har avtale med MPEG-LA.  Da Ryan hos
2143 MPEG-LA dro på ferie sendte jeg min melding videre til hans kollega,
2144 og dagen etter fikk jeg følgende svar derfra:&lt;/p&gt;
2145
2146 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2147 &lt;p&gt;Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:32:34 +0000
2148 &lt;br&gt;From: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2149 &lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
2150 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2151 &lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
2152
2153 &lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;
2154
2155 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message. As you know, Ryan is currently our of the
2156 office, so it will be my pleasure to assist you.&lt;/p&gt;
2157
2158 &lt;p&gt;Per your request, attached please find an electronic copy of the
2159 AVC Patent Portfolio License. Please note that the electronic copy of
2160 the License is provided as a convenience and for informational
2161 purposes only. When concluding the Licenses, only the hard copies
2162 provided by MPEG LA may be used.&lt;/p&gt;
2163
2164 &lt;p&gt;To your question, MPEG LA lists our Licensees on our website
2165 according to each program.  The lists are in alphabetical order, so it
2166 is very easy to search.&lt;/p&gt;
2167
2168 &lt;p&gt;I hope that this was helpful. If we can be of additional
2169 assistance, please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;
2170
2171 &lt;p&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/p&gt;
2172
2173 &lt;p&gt;Sidney A. Wolf
2174 &lt;br&gt;Manager, Global Licensing
2175 &lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;
2176 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2177
2178 &lt;p&gt;Selv om et epostvedlegg er nyttig for mottakeren, så håpet jeg å få
2179 et dokument jeg kunne dele med alle leserne av bloggen min, og ikke et
2180 som må deles på individuell basis.  Opphavsretten krever godkjenning
2181 fra rettighetsinnehaver før en kan gjøre slikt, så dermed fulgte jeg
2182 opp med et spørsmål om dette var greit.&lt;/p&gt;
2183
2184 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2185 &lt;p&gt;Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2012 20:25:06 +0200
2186 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
2187 &lt;br&gt;To: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2188 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2189 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
2190
2191 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your reply.&lt;/p&gt;
2192
2193 &lt;p&gt;[Sidney Wolf]
2194 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Per your request, attached please find an electronic copy of the AVC
2195 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Patent Portfolio License. Please note that the electronic copy of
2196 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; the License is provided as a convenience and for informational
2197 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; purposes only. When concluding the Licenses, only the hard copies
2198 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; provided by MPEG LA may be used.&lt;/p&gt;
2199
2200 &lt;p&gt;This is useful for me to learn, but the reason I asked for the
2201 Internet address of the licensing document was to ensure I could
2202 publish a link to it when I discuss the topic of H.264 licensing here
2203 in Norway, and allow others to verify my observations.  I can not do
2204 the same with an email attachment.  Thus I would like to ask you if it
2205 is OK with MPEG LA that I publish this document on the Internet for
2206 others to read?&lt;/p&gt;
2207
2208 &lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; To your question, MPEG LA lists our Licensees on our website
2209 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; according to each program. The lists are in alphabetical order, so
2210 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; it is very easy to search.&lt;/p&gt;
2211
2212 &lt;p&gt;I am afraid this do not help me locate Norwegian companies in the
2213 list of Licensees.  I do not know the name of all companies and
2214 organisations in Norway, and thus do not know how to locate the
2215 Norwegian ones on that list.&lt;/p&gt;
2216
2217 &lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; I hope that this was helpful. If we can be of additional assistance,
2218 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; please let me know.&lt;/p&gt;
2219
2220 &lt;p&gt;Absoutely helpful to learn more about how MPEG LA handle licensing.&lt;/p&gt;
2221
2222 &lt;p&gt;--
2223 &lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
2224 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
2225 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2226
2227 &lt;p&gt;Jeg håpet også at det skulle være mulig å få vite hvilke av de
2228 mange hundre som har avtale med MPEG-LA om bruk av H.264 som holdt til
2229 i Norge.  Begge mine håp falt i grus med svaret fra MPEG-LA.
2230
2231 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2232 &lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2012 17:42:39 +0000
2233 &lt;br&gt;From: Sidney Wolf &amp;lt;SWolf (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2234 &lt;br&gt;To: &#39;Petter Reinholdtsen&#39; &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
2235 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2236 &lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
2237
2238 &lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;
2239
2240 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your reply.&lt;/p&gt;
2241
2242 &lt;p&gt;We appreciate the additional explanation you have provided and for
2243 asking our permission to publish the electronic copy of the License in
2244 advance of doing so.  Typically, MPEG LA prefers to distribute the
2245 electronic copies of our Licenses to interested parties. Therefore,
2246 please feel free to send interested parties to the AVC portion of our
2247 website, http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Intro.aspx for
2248 their further reference.&lt;/p&gt;
2249
2250 &lt;p&gt;As previously mentioned, MPEG LA maintains a list of Licensees in good
2251 standing on our website according to each program. Due to the large
2252 volume of Licensees, it would be administratively impractical to
2253 provide this level of detail to interested parties.  Therefore, I am
2254 afraid we are not in a position to assist you with your request.&lt;/p&gt;
2255
2256 &lt;p&gt;Kind regards,&lt;/p&gt;
2257
2258 &lt;p&gt;Sidney A. Wolf
2259 &lt;br&gt;Manager, Global Licensing
2260 &lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;
2261 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2262
2263 &lt;p&gt;Men takket være epostvedlegget kunne jeg søke på Google etter
2264 setningen &quot;WHEREAS, a video standard commonly referred to as AVC has
2265 been defined and is referred to in this Agreement as the “AVC
2266 Standard” (as more fully defined herein below)&quot; som finnes i avtalen,
2267 og lokalisere en kopi fra 2007 av
2268 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1342960/000119312509050004/dex1024.htm&quot;&gt;lisensavtalen
2269 mellom MPEG-LA og DivX, Inc.&lt;/a&gt;, slik at mine lesere kan se hvordan
2270 avtalen så ut da.  Jeg har ikke sammenlignet tekstene for å se om noe
2271 har endret seg siden den tid, men satser på at teksten er representativ.&lt;/p&gt;
2272
2273 &lt;p&gt;Jeg aner fortsatt ikke hvor FedEx tok veien med pakken fra
2274 MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;
2275
2276 &lt;p&gt;Update 2012-07-06: Jeg er visst ikke den første som forsøker å få
2277 klarhet i problemstillinger rundt H.264, og kom nettopp over en veldig
2278 interessant bloggpost fra 2010 hos LibreVideo med tittelen
2279 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.librevideo.org/blog/2010/06/14/mpeg-la-answers-some-questions-about-avch-264-licensing/&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA
2280 answers some questions about AVC/H.264 licensing&lt;/a&gt;.  Anbefales!&lt;/p&gt;
2281 </description>
2282         </item>
2283
2284         <item>
2285                 <title>DIFI foreslår å kaste ut ODF og ta inn OOXML fra statens standardkatalog</title>
2286                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html</link>
2287                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/DIFI_foresl_r___kaste_ut_ODF_og_ta_inn_OOXML_fra_statens_standardkatalog.html</guid>
2288                 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 18:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
2289                 <description>&lt;p&gt;DIFI har nettopp annonsert høring om revisjon av
2290 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder&quot;&gt;standardkatalogen&lt;/a&gt;,
2291 og endelig har Microsoft fått viljen sin.  Se
2292 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/forslag-om-endring-av-forskrift-om-it-standarder-i-offentlig-forvaltning&quot;&gt;høringssiden&lt;/a&gt;
2293 for hele teksten.&lt;/p&gt;
2294
2295 &lt;p&gt;Her er forslaget i sin helhet:&lt;/p&gt;
2296
2297 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2298 &lt;p&gt;3.2 Revisjon av krav til redigerbare dokumenter&lt;/p&gt;
2299
2300 &lt;p&gt;I første versjon av referansekatalogen i 2007 ble det satt krav om
2301 Open Document Format (ODF), versjon 1.1 (OASIS, 1.2.2007) for
2302 redigerbare dokumenter. Kravet var obligatorisk for stat og sterkt
2303 anbefalt for kommunal sektor. I 2009 ble kravet gjort obligatorisk for
2304 hele offentlig sektor i
2305 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.lovdata.no/for/sf/fa/xa-20090925-1222.html&quot;&gt;forskrift
2306 om IT-standarder i forvaltningen&lt;/a&gt;. Anvendelsesområdet for kravet
2307 har vært begrenset til publisering av dokumenter som skal bearbeides
2308 videre (§ 4 nr. 1 andre ledd). I 2011 ble anvendelsesområdet utvidet
2309 til å omfatte utveksling av dokumenter beregnet for redigering som
2310 vedlegg til e-post (§4 nr.  2).&lt;/p&gt;
2311
2312 &lt;p&gt;Office Open XML ISO/IEC 29500:2011 (OOXML) er et dokumentformat
2313 opprinnelig utviklet av Microsoft med tilsvarende anvendelsesområde
2314 som ODF. Formatet er blant annet tatt i bruk i nyere versjoner av
2315 kontorstøtteprogamvaren MS Office.  Difi har foretatt en
2316 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/filearchive/revisjonsvurdering-standarder-for-redigerbare-dokumenter-v1-0.pdf&quot;&gt;revisjonsvurdering&lt;/a&gt;
2317 av krav som stilles til redigerbare dokumenter i Forskrift om
2318 IT-standarder i forvaltningen, og anbefaler at kravet til ODF
2319 fjernes. Dette innebærer at det ikke stilles krav til dokumentformater
2320 for redigerbare dokumenter ved publisering på offentlige virksomheters
2321 nettsider og for redigerbare vedlegg til e-post som sendes fra
2322 offentlige virksomheter til innbyggere og næringsliv. Offentlige
2323 virksomheter vil dermed stå fritt til å publisere eller sende
2324 redigerbare dokumenter i det format som ivaretar brukernes behov
2325 best.&lt;/p&gt;
2326
2327 &lt;p&gt;Forslaget innebærer at krav til ODF utgår § 4 nr. 1 tredje ledd og
2328 § 4 nr. 2 første ledd&lt;/p&gt;
2329
2330 &lt;P&gt;Imidlertid bør det stilles strengere krav til hvilke formater
2331 offentlige virksomheter plikter å motta redigerbare dokumenter. Vi
2332 mener at det ikke bør skilles mellom mottak av redigerbare dokumenter
2333 som sendes i ODF eller OOXML3, som begge er åpne standarder. Dette
2334 medfører at innbyggere og næringsliv skal kunne basere sitt valg av
2335 programvare på egne behov og ikke på de valg offentlige virksomheter
2336 tar. Kravet vil omfatte hele offentlig sektor, herunder
2337 utdanningssektoren, hvor det kanskje er størst bruk av ODF. Kravet er
2338 foreslått som ny § 4 nr.2 andre ledd&lt;/p&gt;
2339 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2340
2341 &lt;P&gt;De satser vel på at det hele blir glemt over sommeren, og at de
2342 fleste har glemt Standard Norge og ISOs fallitt fra da OOXML ble
2343 jukset igjennom som ISO-standard.  Jeg håper mine lesere sender inn
2344 høringsuttalelser til høringen.&lt;/p&gt;
2345
2346 &lt;p&gt;Anbefaler alle å friske opp sine argumenter ved å lese
2347 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html&quot;&gt;svaret
2348 fra senator Edgar Villanueva til Microsoft i Peru&lt;/a&gt;.  Det er en
2349 klassisk tekst som er like gyldig i dag som da det ble skrevet.&lt;/p&gt;
2350
2351 </description>
2352         </item>
2353
2354         <item>
2355                 <title>Departementenes servicesenter har ingen avtale om bruk av H.264 med MPEG-LA</title>
2356                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Departementenes_servicesenter_har_ingen_avtale_om_bruk_av_H_264_med_MPEG_LA.html</link>
2357                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Departementenes_servicesenter_har_ingen_avtale_om_bruk_av_H_264_med_MPEG_LA.html</guid>
2358                 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
2359                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Da fikk jeg nettopp svar fra
2360 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dss.dep.no/&quot;&gt;Departementenes servicesenter&lt;/a&gt;
2361 (DSS) på
2362 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;mitt
2363 spørsmål om avtale rundt bruk av H.264&lt;/a&gt;.  De har ingen avtale med
2364 MPEG LA eller dets representanter.  Her er svaret.
2365
2366 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2367
2368 &lt;p&gt;Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2012 07:04:42 +0000
2369 &lt;br&gt;From: Nielsen Mette Haga &amp;lt;Mette-Haga.Nielsen (at) dss.dep.no&amp;gt;
2370 &lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;petter.reinholdtsen (at) ...&amp;gt;
2371 &lt;br&gt;CC: Postmottak &amp;lt;Postmottak (at) dss.dep.no&amp;gt;
2372 &lt;br&gt;Subject: SV: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H.264-relaterte avtaler&lt;/p&gt;
2373
2374 &lt;p&gt;DSS har ikke inngått noen egen lisensavtale med MPEG-LA eller noen som
2375 representerer MPEG-LA i Norge. Videoløsningen på regjeringen.no er
2376 levert av Smartcom:tv. Lisensforholdet rundt H.264 er ikke omtalt i
2377 vår avtale med Smartcom.&lt;/p&gt;
2378
2379 &lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen&lt;/p&gt;
2380
2381 &lt;p&gt;Mette Haga Nielsen
2382 &lt;br&gt;Fung. seksjonssjef&lt;/p&gt;
2383
2384 &lt;p&gt;Departementenes servicesenter&lt;/p&gt;
2385
2386 &lt;p&gt;Informasjonsforvaltning
2387
2388 &lt;p&gt;Mobil 93 09 83 51
2389 &lt;br&gt;E-post mette-haga.nielsen (at) dss.dep.no&lt;/p&gt;
2390 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2391
2392 &lt;p&gt;Hvis den norske regjeringen representert ved DSS ikke har slik
2393 avtale, så kan en kanskje konkludere med at det ikke trengs?  Jeg er
2394 ikke trygg på at det er god juridisk grunn å stå på, men det er i det
2395 minste interessant å vite at hverken NRK eller DSS har funnet det
2396 nødvendig å ha avtale om bruk av H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
2397
2398 &lt;p&gt;Det forklarer ikke hvordan de kan ignorere bruksvilkårene knyttet
2399 til bruk av opphavsrettsbeskyttet materiale de bruker til
2400 videoproduksjon, med mindre slike vilkår kan ignoreres av selskaper og
2401 privatpersoner i Norge.  Har de lov til å bryte vilkårene, eller har
2402 de brutt dem og så langt sluppet unna med det?  Jeg aner ikke.&lt;/p&gt;
2403 </description>
2404         </item>
2405
2406         <item>
2407                 <title>MPEG-LA mener NRK må ha avtale med dem for å kringkaste og publisere H.264-video</title>
2408                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</link>
2409                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/MPEG_LA_mener_NRK_m__ha_avtale_med_dem_for___kringkaste_og_publisere_H_264_video.html</guid>
2410                 <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
2411                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Etter at NRK
2412 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html&quot;&gt;nektet
2413 å spore opp eventuell avtale med MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt; eller andre om bruk av
2414 MPEG/H.264-video etter at jeg &lt;a
2415 href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;ba
2416 om innsyn i slike avtaler&lt;/a&gt;, tenkte jeg at i stedet for å forsøke å
2417 få NRK til å finne en slik avtale, så burde det være like enkelt å
2418 spørre MPEG-LA om de hadde avtale med NRK.  Spørsmålet ble sendt før
2419 jeg fikk tips fra Kieran Kunhya om hvor listen over lisensinnehavere
2420 &quot;in Good Standing&quot; befant seg.  MPEG-LA svarte meg i dag, og kan
2421 fortelle at NRK ikke har noen avtale med dem, så da er i det minste det
2422 slått fast.  Ikke overraskende mener MPEG-LA at det trengs en avtale
2423 med MPEG-LA for å streame H.264, men deres rammer er jo
2424 rettstilstanden i USA og ikke Norge.  Jeg tar dermed den delen av
2425 svaret med en klype salt.  Jeg er dermed fortsatt ikke klok på om det
2426 trengs en avtale, og hvis det trengs en avtale her i Norge, heller
2427 ikke sikker på om NRK har en avtale med noen andre enn MPEG-LA som
2428 gjør at de ikke trenger avtale direkte med MPEG-LA.  Jeg håper NRKs
2429 jurister har vurdert dette, og at det er mulig å få tilgang til
2430 vurderingen uansett om de trenger en avtale eller ikke.&lt;/p&gt;
2431
2432 &lt;p&gt;Her er epostutvekslingen med MPEG-LA så langt.  Håper ikke
2433 utvekslingen fører til NRK plutselig får en litt uventet pakke fra
2434 MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;
2435
2436 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2437 &lt;p&gt;Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:29:37 +0200
2438 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
2439 &lt;br&gt;To: licensing-web (at) mpegla.com
2440 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
2441
2442 &lt;p&gt;Hi.  I have a small question for you, that I hope it is OK that I
2443 ask.&lt;/p&gt;
2444
2445 &lt;p&gt;Is there any license agreements between MPEG-LA and NRK, &amp;lt;URL:
2446 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/&quot;&gt;http://www.nrk.no/&lt;/a&gt; &amp;gt;, the
2447 Norwegian national broadcasting cooperation?  I am not sure if they
2448 need one, and am just curious if such agreeement exist.&lt;/p&gt;
2449
2450 &lt;p&gt;The postal address is&lt;/p&gt;
2451
2452 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2453   NRK
2454   &lt;br&gt;Postbox 8500, Majorstuen
2455   &lt;br&gt;0340 Oslo
2456   &lt;br&gt;Norway
2457 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2458
2459 &lt;p&gt;if it make it easier for you to locate such agreement.&lt;/p&gt;
2460
2461 &lt;p&gt;Can you tell me how many entities in Norway have an agreement with
2462 MPEG-LA, and the name of these entities?&lt;/p&gt;
2463
2464 &lt;p&gt;--
2465 &lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
2466 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen
2467 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2468
2469 &lt;p&gt;I dag, to dager senere, fikk jeg følgende svar:&lt;/p&gt;
2470
2471 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2472 &lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:11:17 +0000
2473 &lt;br&gt;From: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&gt;
2474 &lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&gt;
2475 &lt;br&gt;CC: MD Administration &amp;lt;MDAdministration (at) mpegla.com&gt;
2476 &lt;br&gt;Subject: RE: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
2477
2478 &lt;p&gt;Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;
2479
2480 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message and for your interest in MPEG LA. We
2481 appreciate hearing from you and I will be happy to assist you.&lt;/p&gt;
2482
2483 &lt;p&gt;To begin, I will assume that you are referring to AVC/H.264
2484 technology in your message below, as this technology is commonly used
2485 in the transmission of video content.  In that case, please allow me
2486 to briefly summarize the coverage provided by our AVC Patent Portfolio
2487 License.&lt;/p&gt;
2488
2489 &lt;P&gt;Our AVC License provides coverage for end products and video
2490 services that make use of AVC/H.264 technology.  Accordingly, the
2491 party offering such end products and video to End Users concludes the
2492 AVC License and is responsible for paying the applicable royalties
2493 associated with the end products/video they offer.&lt;/p&gt;
2494
2495 &lt;p&gt;While the Norwegian Broadcast Corporation (NRK) is not currently a
2496 Licensee to MPEG LA&#39;s AVC License (or any other Portfolio License
2497 offered by MPEG LA), if NRK offers AVC Video to End Users for
2498 remuneration (for example, Title-by-Title, Subscription, Free
2499 Television, or Internet Broadcast AVC Video), then NRK will need to
2500 conclude the AVC License and may be responsible for paying applicable
2501 royalties associated with the AVC Video it distributes.&lt;/p&gt;
2502
2503 &lt;p&gt;Today I will send you a FedEx package containing a copy of our AVC
2504 License for your review.  You should receive the License document
2505 within the next few days.&lt;/p&gt;
2506
2507 &lt;p&gt;Meanwhile, MPEG LA currently has several Norwegian Licensees that
2508 can be found under the &quot;Licensees&quot; header within the respective
2509 portion of our website.  For example, you may find our list of
2510 Licensees in Good Standing to our AVC License in the AVC portion of
2511 our website,
2512 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2513
2514 &lt;p&gt;I hope the above information is helpful.  If you have additional
2515 questions or need further assistance with the AVC License, please feel
2516 free to contact me directly.  I look forward to hearing from you again
2517 soon.&lt;/p&gt;
2518
2519 &lt;p&gt;Best regards,&lt;/p&gt;
2520
2521 &lt;p&gt;Ryan&lt;/p&gt;
2522
2523 &lt;p&gt;Ryan M. Rodriguez
2524 &lt;br&gt;Licensing Associate
2525 &lt;br&gt;MPEG LA
2526 &lt;br&gt;5425 Wisconsin Avenue
2527 &lt;br&gt;Suite 801
2528 &lt;br&gt;Chevy Chase, MD 20815
2529 &lt;br&gt;U.S.A.
2530 &lt;br&gt;Phone:  +1 (301) 986-6660 x211
2531 &lt;br&gt;Fax:    +1 (301) 986-8575
2532 &lt;br&gt;Email: rrodriguez (at) mpegla.com&lt;/p&gt;
2533
2534 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2535
2536 &lt;p&gt;Meldingen om utsendt FedEx-pakke var så merkelig at jeg
2537 øyeblikkelig sendte svar tilbake og spurte hva i alle dager han mente,
2538 da han jo ikke hadde fått noen postadresse som nådde meg.&lt;/p&gt;
2539
2540 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2541
2542 &lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:36:15 +0200
2543 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
2544 &lt;br&gt;To: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2545 &lt;br&gt;Cc: MD Administration &amp;lt;MDAdministration (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2546 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
2547
2548 &lt;p&gt;[Ryan Rodriguez]
2549 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Dear Mr. Reinholdtsen,&lt;/p&gt;
2550
2551 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your quick reply.&lt;/p&gt;
2552
2553 &lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Today I will send you a FedEx package containing a copy of our AVC
2554 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; License for your review.  You should receive the License document
2555 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; within the next few days.&lt;/p&gt;
2556
2557 &lt;p&gt;The part about sending a FedEx package confused me, though.  I did not
2558 &lt;br&gt;give you my address, nor am I associated with NRK in any way, so I hope
2559 &lt;br&gt;you did not try to send me a package using the address of NRK.  If you
2560 &lt;br&gt;would send me the Internet address of to the document, it would be more
2561 &lt;br&gt;useful to me to be able to download it as an electronic document.&lt;/p&gt;
2562
2563 &lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; Meanwhile, MPEG LA currently has several Norwegian Licensees that can
2564 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; be found under the &quot;Licensees&quot; header within the respective portion
2565 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; of our website.  For example, you may find our list of Licensees in
2566 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; Good Standing to our AVC License in the AVC portion of our website,
2567 &lt;br&gt;&amp;gt; http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&lt;/p&gt;
2568
2569 &lt;p&gt;How can I recognize the Norwegian licensees?&lt;/p&gt;
2570
2571 &lt;p&gt;--
2572 &lt;br&gt;Happy hacking
2573 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
2574 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2575
2576 &lt;p&gt;Selv om jeg svarte kun noen minutter etter at jeg fikk eposten fra
2577 MPEG-LA, fikk jeg eposten under som automatisk var beskjed på min
2578 siste epost.  Får håpe noen likevel følger opp &quot;FedEx-pakken&quot;.  For å
2579 øke sjansen for at noen revurderer utsending av pakke uten mottaker,
2580 videresendte jeg min epost til swolf (at) mpegla.com, så får vi se.
2581 Har ikke hørt noe mer 3 timer senere, så jeg mistenker at ingen leste
2582 min epost tidsnok.&lt;/p&gt;
2583
2584 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2585
2586 &lt;p&gt;Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2012 14:36:20 +0000
2587 &lt;br&gt;From: Ryan Rodriguez &amp;lt;RRodriguez (at) mpegla.com&amp;gt;
2588 &lt;br&gt;To: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere (at) hungry.com&amp;gt;
2589 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Automatic reply: Do NRK have a license agreement with MPEG-LA?&lt;/p&gt;
2590
2591 &lt;p&gt;Thank you for your message.&lt;/p&gt;
2592
2593 &lt;p&gt;I will be out of the office until Thursday, July 5 and will respond
2594 to all messages upon my return.  If this is a matter that requires
2595 immediate attention, please contact Sidney Wolf (swolf (at)
2596 mpegla.com)&lt;/p&gt;
2597
2598 &lt;p&gt;Best regards,&lt;/p&gt;
2599
2600 &lt;p&gt;Ryan&lt;/p&gt;
2601
2602 &lt;p&gt;Ryan M. Rodriguez
2603 &lt;br&gt;Licensing Associate
2604 &lt;br&gt;MPEG LA&lt;/p&gt;
2605
2606 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2607
2608 &lt;p&gt;Litt klokere, men fortsatt ikke klok på mitt opprinnelige spørsmål,
2609 som er om en trenger avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere eller
2610 kringkaste H.264-video i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
2611 </description>
2612         </item>
2613
2614         <item>
2615                 <title>NRK nekter å finne og utlevere eventuell avtale med MPEG-LA</title>
2616                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html</link>
2617                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NRK_nekter___finne_og_utlevere_eventuell_avtale_med_MPEG_LA.html</guid>
2618                 <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jun 2012 15:10:00 +0200</pubDate>
2619                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg fikk nettopp svar fra NRK på
2620 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html&quot;&gt;min
2621 forespørsel om kopi av avtale&lt;/a&gt; med MPEG-LA eller andre om bruk av
2622 MPEG og/eller H.264.  Svaret har fått saksreferanse 2011/371 (mon tro
2623 hva slags sak fra 2011 dette er?) hos NRK og lyder som følger:&lt;/p&gt;
2624
2625 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2626
2627 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Svar på innsynsbegjæring i MPEG / H.264-relaterte
2628 avtaler&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2629
2630 &lt;p&gt;Viser til innsynsbegjæring av 19. juni 2012. Kravet om innsyn
2631 gjelder avtale som gjør at NRK «ikke er begrenset av de generelle
2632 bruksvilkårene som gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller
2633 H.264».&lt;/p&gt;
2634
2635 &lt;p&gt;I henhold til offentleglova § 28 annet ledd må innsynskravet gjelde
2636 en bestemt sak eller i rimelig utstrekning saker av en bestemt
2637 sak. Det er på det rene at det aktuelle innsynskravet ikke gjelder en
2638 bestemt sak. Spørsmålet som reiser seg er om identifiseringsgraden er
2639 tilstrekkelig. I Justisdepartementets «Rettleiar til offentleglova»
2640 står følgende:&lt;/p&gt;
2641
2642 &lt;p&gt;«Kravet om at innsynskravet må gjelde ei bestemt sak er til hinder
2643 for at eit innsynskrav kan gjelde alle saker av ein bestemt art, utan
2644 at den enkelte saka blir identifisert.  Ein kan med andre ord i
2645 utgangspunktet ikkje krevje innsyn i til dømes alle saker om
2646 utsleppsløyve hos Statens forureiningstilsyn frå dei siste tre åra,
2647 med mindre ein identifiserer kvar enkelt sak, til dømes med tilvising
2648 til dato, partar eller liknande.»&lt;/p&gt;
2649
2650 &lt;p&gt;Vedrørende denne begrensningen har Justisdepartementet uttalt
2651 følgende (Lovavdelingens uttalelser JDLOV-2010-3295):&lt;/p&gt;
2652
2653 &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;«Bakgrunnen for avgrensinga av kva innsynskravet kan gjelde,
2654 er fyrst og fremst at meir generelle innsynskrav, utan noka form for
2655 identifikasjon av kva ein eigentleg ynskjer, ville vere svært
2656 vanskelege å handsame for forvaltninga.»&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2657
2658 &lt;p&gt;I samme sak uttaler Lovavdelingen følgende:&lt;/p&gt;
2659
2660 &lt;p&gt;&lt;em&gt;«Det følgjer vidare av offentleglova § 28 andre ledd at det `i
2661 rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan krevjast innsyn i `saker av ein bestemt
2662 art&#39;. Vilkåret om at eit innsynskrav berre `i rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan
2663 gjelde saker av ein bestemt art, er i hovudsak knytt til kor
2664 arbeidskrevjande det vil vere å finne fram til dei aktuelle
2665 dokumenta. I tillegg reknar vi med at vilkåret kan gje grunnlag for å
2666 nekte innsyn i tilfelle der innsynskravet er så omfattande (gjeld så
2667 mange dokument) at arbeidsmengda som ville gått med til å handsame
2668 det, er større enn det ein `i rimeleg utstrekning&#39; kan krevje (sjølv
2669 om det nok skal mykje til).»&lt;/em&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2670
2671 &lt;p&gt;NRK har ikke noen egen sammenstilling over avtaler innenfor
2672 bestemte områder som omtales i innsynsbegjæringen. De måtte søkes på
2673 vanlig måte. I tillegg finnes ikke noen automatisert måte å finne
2674 avtaler som «ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som
2675 gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H.264». En slik
2676 gjennomgang av avtaler måtte gjøres manuelt av en person med
2677 spesialistkunnskap. Dette vil kreve at NRK avsetter omfattende
2678 ressurser for å finne frem relevante avtaler og for deretter å vurdere
2679 om de dekkes av det innsynsbegjæringen omfattes.&lt;/p&gt;
2680
2681 &lt;p&gt;På bakgrunn av dette nekter NRK innsyn, med den begrunnelsen at
2682 innsynskravet er så omfattende at arbeidsmengden for å håndtere kravet
2683 vil være langt større enn det som i rimelig utstrekning kan kreves i
2684 henhold til offentleglova § 28 annet ledd.&lt;/p&gt;
2685
2686 &lt;p&gt;Avslag på deres innsynsbegjæring kan påklages til Kultur- og
2687 kirkedepartementet innen tre uker fra det tidspunkt avslaget kommer
2688 frem til mottakeren, i henhold til reglene i offentleglova § 32,
2689 jf. forvaltningsloven kapittel VI. Klagen skal stiles til Kultur- og
2690 kirkedepartementet, og sendes til NRK.&lt;/p&gt;
2691
2692 &lt;p&gt;NRK er imidlertid etter Offentleglova forpliktet å gi ut journaler,
2693 slik at en eventuell søknad om innsyn kan tydeligere identifisere
2694 hvilke dokumenter som det ønskes innsyn i. NRKs offentlige journaler
2695 for inneværende og forrige måned ligger ute på
2696 NRK.no/innsyn. Journaler som går lengre tilbake i tid, kan sendes ut
2697 på forespørsel til innsyn (at) nrk.no.&lt;/p&gt;
2698
2699 &lt;p&gt;Med hilsen
2700 &lt;br&gt;Dokumentarkivet i NRK
2701 &lt;br&gt;v/ Elin Brandsrud
2702 &lt;br&gt;Tel. direkte: 23 04 29 29
2703 &lt;br&gt;Post: RBM3, Postboks 8500 Majorstuen, 0340 Oslo
2704 &lt;br&gt;innsyn (at) nrk.no&lt;/p&gt;
2705
2706 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2707
2708 &lt;p&gt;Svaret kom
2709 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/images/2012-06-25-video-mpegla-nrk.pdf&quot;&gt;i
2710 PDF-form som vedlegg på epost&lt;/a&gt;.  Jeg er litt usikker på hvordan jeg
2711 best går videre for å bli klok, men jeg har jo i hvert fall tre uker
2712 på å vurdere om jeg skal klage.  Enten må nok forespørselen
2713 reformuleres eller så må jeg vel klage.  Synes jo det er merkelig at
2714 NRK ikke har bedre kontroll med hvilke avtaler de har inngått.  Det
2715 burde jo være noen i ledelsen som vet om de har signert en avtale med
2716 MPEG-LA eller ikke...&lt;/p&gt;
2717
2718 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-25 20:20: Et google-søk på &quot;2011/371 nrk&quot;
2719 sendte meg til postjournalen for
2720 &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.8212365!offentligjournal19062012.pdf&quot;&gt;2012-06-19&lt;/a&gt;
2721 og
2722 &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrk.no/contentfile/file/1.8214156!offentligjournal20062012.pdf&quot;&gt;2012-06-20&lt;/a&gt;
2723 hos NRK som viser mine forespørsler og viser at sakens tittel hos NRK
2724 er &quot;Graphic Systems Regions MA 2378/10E&quot;.  Videre søk etter &quot;Graphic
2725 Systems Regions&quot; viser at dette er saken til et anbud om
2726 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://no.mercell.com/m/mts/Tender/27179412.aspx&quot;&gt;a graphics
2727 system for 12 or 13 sites broadcasting regional news&lt;/a&gt;&quot; hos Mercell
2728 Sourcing Service, også omtalt på
2729 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.publictenders.net/tender/595705&quot;&gt;Public
2730 Tenders&lt;/a&gt; og
2731 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.doffin.no/search/show/search_view.aspx?ID=JAN155521&quot;&gt;Doffin&lt;/a&gt;.
2732 Jeg er dog usikker på hvordan dette er relatert til min
2733 forespørsel.&lt;/p&gt;
2734
2735 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-25 22:40: Ble tipset av Kieran Kunhya, fra
2736 miljøet rundt
2737 &lt;a href=&quot;http://code.google.com/p/open-broadcast-encoder/&quot;&gt;Open
2738 Broadcast Encoder&lt;/a&gt;, at listen over de som har lisensavtale med
2739 MPEG-LA er
2740 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpeg-la.com/main/programs/AVC/Pages/Licensees.aspx&quot;&gt;tilgjengelig
2741 på web&lt;/a&gt;.  Veldig fint å oppdage hvor den finnes, da jeg må ha lett
2742 etter feil ting da jeg forsøke å finne den.  Der står ikke NRK, men
2743 flere andre &quot;Broadcasting Company&quot;-oppføringer.  Lurer på om det betyr
2744 at NRK ikke trenger avtale, eller noe helt annet?&lt;/p&gt;
2745 </description>
2746         </item>
2747
2748         <item>
2749                 <title>Trenger en avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere og kringkaste H.264-video?</title>
2750                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html</link>
2751                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html</guid>
2752                 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
2753                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Trengs det avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lovlig rett til å
2754 distribuere og kringkaste video i MPEG4 eller med videokodingen H.264?
2755 &lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 og MPEG4 er jo ikke en
2756 fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt; i henhold til
2757 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html&quot;&gt;definisjonen
2758 til Digistan&lt;/a&gt;, så i enkelte land er det ingen tvil om at du må ha
2759 en slik avtale, men jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke vet om det også
2760 gjelder Norge.  Det ser uansett ut til å være en juridisk interessant
2761 problemstilling.  Men jeg tenkte her om dagen som så, at hvis det er
2762 nødvendig, så har store aktører som
2763 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/&quot;&gt;NRK&lt;/a&gt; og
2764 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/&quot;&gt;regjeringen&lt;/a&gt; skaffet seg en
2765 slik avtale.  Jeg har derfor sendt forespørsel til begge (for
2766 regjeringen sin del er det Departementenes Servicesenter som gjør
2767 jobben), og bedt om kopi av eventuelle avtaler de har om bruk av MPEG
2768 og/eller H.264 med MPEG-LA eller andre aktører som opererer på vegne
2769 av MPEG-LA.  Her er kopi av eposten jeg har sendt til
2770 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dss.dep.no/&quot;&gt;Departementenes Servicesenter&lt;/a&gt;.
2771 Forespørselen til NRK er veldig lik.&lt;/p&gt;
2772
2773 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2774
2775 &lt;p&gt;Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:18:33 +0200
2776 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen
2777 &lt;br&gt;To: postmottak@dss.dep.no
2778 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H.264-relaterte avtaler
2779
2780 &lt;p&gt;Hei.  Jeg ber herved om innsyn og kopi av dokumenter i DSS relatert
2781 til avtaler rundt bruk av videoformatene MPEG og H.264.  Jeg er
2782 spesielt interessert i å vite om DSS har lisensavtale med MPEG-LA
2783 eller noen som representerer MPEG-LA i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
2784
2785 &lt;p&gt;MPEG og H.264 er videoformater som brukes både til kringkasting
2786 (f.eks. i bakkenett og kabel-TV) og videopublisering på web, deriblant
2787 via Adobe Flash.  MPEG-LA, &amp;lt;URL:
2788 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpeg-la.com/&quot;&gt;http://www.mpeg-la.com/&lt;/a&gt; &amp;gt;, er
2789 en organisasjon som har fått oppgaven, av de kjente rettighetshavere
2790 av immaterielle rettigheter knyttet til MPEG og H.264, å selge
2791 bruksrett for MPEG og H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
2792
2793 &lt;p&gt;Via regjeringen.no kringkastes med MPEG og H.264-baserte
2794 videoformater, og dette ser ut til å være organisert av DSS.  Jeg
2795 antar dermed at DSS har avtale med en eller annen aktør om dette.&lt;/p&gt;
2796
2797 &lt;p&gt;F.eks. har Adobe Premiere Pro har følgende klausul i følge &amp;lt;URL:
2798 &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html&quot;&gt;http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html&lt;/a&gt;
2799 &amp;gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
2800
2801 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2802
2803   &lt;p&gt;6.17. AVC DISTRIBUTION. The following notice applies to software
2804   containing AVC import and export functionality: THIS PRODUCT IS
2805   LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND
2806   NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (a) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE
2807   WITH THE AVC STANDARD (&quot;AVC VIDEO&quot;) AND/OR (b) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT
2808   WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL
2809   ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER
2810   LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE
2811   IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED
2812   FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE
2813   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
2814
2815 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2816
2817 &lt;p&gt;Her er det kun &quot;non-commercial&quot; og &quot;personal and non-commercial&quot;
2818 aktivitet som er tillatt uten ekstra avtale med MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;
2819
2820 &lt;p&gt;Et annet tilsvarende eksempel er Apple Final Cut Pro, som har
2821 følgende klausul i følge &amp;lt;URL:
2822 &lt;a href=&quot;http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf&quot;&gt;http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
2823 &amp;gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
2824
2825 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2826
2827   &lt;p&gt;15. Merknad om H.264/AVC. Hvis Apple-programvaren inneholder
2828   funksjonalitet for AVC-koding og/eller AVC-dekoding, krever
2829   kommersiell bruk ekstra lisensiering og følgende gjelder:
2830   AVC-FUNKSJONALITETEN I DETTE PRODUKTET KAN KUN ANVENDES AV
2831   FORBRUKERE OG KUN FOR PERSONLIG OG IKKE- KOMMERSIELL BRUK TIL (i)
2832   KODING AV VIDEO I OVERENSSTEMMELSE MED AVC-STANDARDEN (&quot;AVC-VIDEO&quot;)
2833   OG/ELLER (ii) DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO SOM ER KODET AV EN FORBRUKER TIL
2834   PERSONLIG OG IKKE-KOMMERSIELL BRUK OG/ELLER DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO
2835   FRA EN VIDEOLEVERANDØR SOM HAR LISENS TIL Å TILBY
2836   AVC-VIDEO. INFORMASJON OM ANNEN BRUK OG LISENSIERING KAN INNHENTES
2837   FRA MPEG LA L.L.C. SE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.&lt;/p&gt;
2838 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2839
2840 &lt;p&gt;Tilsvarende gjelder for andre programvarepakker, kamera, etc som
2841 bruker MPEG og H.264, at en må ha en avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lov
2842 til å bruke programmet/utstyret hvis en skal lage noe annet enn
2843 private filmer og i ikke-kommersiell virksomhet.&lt;/p&gt;
2844
2845 &lt;p&gt;Jeg er altså interessert i kopi av avtaler DSS har som gjør at en
2846 ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som gjelder for
2847 utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
2848 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2849
2850 &lt;p&gt;Nå venter jeg spent på svaret.  Jeg planlegger å blogge om svaret
2851 her.&lt;/p&gt;
2852 </description>
2853         </item>
2854
2855         <item>
2856                 <title>The cost of ODF and OOXML</title>
2857                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html</link>
2858                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_cost_of_ODF_and_OOXML.html</guid>
2859                 <pubDate>Sat, 26 May 2012 18:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
2860                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I just come across a blog post from Glyn Moody reporting the
2861 claimed cost from Microsoft on requiring ODF to be used by the UK
2862 government.  I just sent him an email to let him know that his
2863 assumption are most likely wrong.  Sharing it here in case some of my
2864 blog readers have seem the same numbers float around in the UK.&lt;/p&gt;
2865
2866 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt; &lt;p&gt;Hi.  I just noted your
2867 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/does-microsoft-office-lock-in-cost-the-uk-government-500-million/index.htm&quot;&gt;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/does-microsoft-office-lock-in-cost-the-uk-government-500-million/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;
2868 comment:&lt;/p&gt;
2869
2870 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;They&#39;re all in Danish, not unreasonably, but even
2871 with the help of Google Translate I can&#39;t find any figures about the
2872 savings of &quot;moving to a flexible two standard&quot; as claimed by the
2873 Microsoft email. But I assume it is backed up somewhere, so let&#39;s take
2874 it, and the £500 million figure for the UK, on trust.&quot;
2875 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2876
2877 &lt;p&gt;I can tell you that the Danish reports are inflated.  I believe it is
2878 the same reports that were used in the Norwegian debate around 2007,
2879 and Gisle Hannemyr (a well known IT commentator in Norway) had a look
2880 at the content.  In short, the reason it is claimed that using ODF
2881 will be so costly, is based on the assumption that this mean every
2882 existing document need to be converted from one of the MS Office
2883 formats to ODF, transferred to the receiver, and converted back from
2884 ODF to one of the MS Office formats, and that the conversion will cost
2885 10 minutes of work time for both the sender and the receiver.  In
2886 reality the sender would have a tool capable of saving to ODF, and the
2887 receiver would have a tool capable of reading it, and the time spent
2888 would at most be a few seconds for saving and loading, not 20 minutes
2889 of wasted effort.&lt;/p&gt;
2890
2891 &lt;p&gt;Microsoft claimed all these costs were saved by allowing people to
2892 transfer the original files from MS Office instead of spending 10
2893 minutes converting to ODF. :)&lt;/p&gt;
2894
2895 &lt;p&gt;See
2896 &lt;a href=&quot;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12_vl02.php&quot;&gt;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12_vl02.php&lt;/a&gt;
2897 and
2898 &lt;a href=&quot;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12.php&quot;&gt;http://hannemyr.com/no/ms12.php&lt;/a&gt;
2899 for background information.  Norwegian only, sorry. :)&lt;/p&gt;
2900 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2901 </description>
2902         </item>
2903
2904         <item>
2905                 <title>OpenOffice.org fungerer da fint for blinde?</title>
2906                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OpenOffice_org_fungerer_da_fint_for_blinde_.html</link>
2907                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/OpenOffice_org_fungerer_da_fint_for_blinde_.html</guid>
2908                 <pubDate>Mon, 21 May 2012 23:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
2909                 <description>&lt;p&gt;De siste dagene har høringsuttalelsene om DIFIs forslag til
2910 standardkatalog v3.1 blitt
2911 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder?tab=comments&quot;&gt;publisert
2912 på DIFIs nettside&lt;/a&gt;, og jeg kunne der glede meg over at
2913 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/201204-standardkatalog-v3.1&quot;&gt;NUUGs&lt;/a&gt;
2914 uttalelse er kommet med.  En uttalelse som overrasker og forvirrer meg
2915 er
2916 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/filearchive/norges-blindeforbund.pdf&quot;&gt;den
2917 fra Norges Blindeforbund&lt;/a&gt;, som 5 år etter at Klaus Knopper sammen
2918 med sin blinde kone blant annet
2919 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20071211-accessibility/&quot;&gt;demonstrerte
2920 høyttalende OpenOffice.org på nynorsk for blinde&lt;/a&gt; på et NUUG-møte.&lt;/p&gt;
2921
2922 &lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;https://www.blindeforbundet.no/&quot;&gt;Norges Blindeforbund&lt;/a&gt;
2923 skriver følgende, som for meg virker å være formulert på sviktende
2924 grunnlag:&lt;/p&gt;
2925
2926 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
2927 &lt;p&gt;Bruk av fri programvare
2928
2929 &lt;p&gt;I FRIPROGSENTERET, RAPPORT 2009-02: Universell utforming
2930 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.kunnskapsbazaren.no/filer/Friprogsenteret-Rapport-Universell_utforming.pdf&quot;&gt;http://www.kunnskapsbazaren.no/filer/Friprogsenteret-Rapport-Universell_utforming.pdf&lt;/a&gt;
2931 sies det &quot;Det finnes i dag ikke mange fri programvare-rammeverk eller
2932 generelle løsninger som støtter tilgjengelighet eller som er
2933 universelt utformet.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
2934
2935 &lt;p&gt;Til tross for at det gjennom prinsippene i fri programvare åpnes
2936 for større frihet til selv å påvirke programvareløsninger i retning av
2937 universell utforming viser praksis at virkeligheten er en annen.
2938 Mange av de mest alminnelige frie programvarepakkene mangler delvis
2939 eller fullstendig tilgjengelighet for mennesker med nedsatt
2940 syn. Eksempler på dette er OpenOffice og LibreOffice m.fl.&lt;/p&gt;
2941
2942 &lt;p&gt;En annen utfordring ved bruk av fri programvare kan være manglende
2943 kundestøtte og muligheter til opplæring i bruk av løsningen. Svaksynte
2944 og blinde har et høyere behov for denne typen støtte enn andre brukere
2945 ettersom mange av dem har behov for tilleggsprogramvare som skal
2946 fungere sammen med den opprinnelige programvaren, og ettersom man ikke
2947 har de samme muligheter for overblikk over grensesnittet som en seende
2948 bruker. I tillegg til dette kommer de mer tilgjengelighetstekniske
2949 utfordringene som ofte må løses i samarbeid med
2950 programvareleverandør/produsent.&lt;/p&gt;
2951
2952 &lt;p&gt;Fri programvare er ikke på samme måte underlagt lovgivning gjennom
2953 for eksempel diskriminerings og tilgjengelighetsloven ettersom det
2954 ikke alltid finnes en produsent/tilbyder av tjenesten eller produktet.&lt;/p&gt;
2955
2956 &lt;p&gt;Norges Blindeforbund krever at universell utforming og
2957 brukskvalitet tas med som viktige hensyn i utredninger som ligger til
2958 grunn for valg av standarder som primært leder brukeren mot fri
2959 programvare. Et eksempel på dette er bruk av dokumentformatet ODF som
2960 leder brukeren i retning av OpenOffice, som er helt eller delvis
2961 utilgjengelig for svaksynte og blinde – noe avhengig av plattform og
2962 hjelpemiddelprogramvare.&lt;/p&gt;
2963
2964 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
2965
2966 &lt;p&gt;Jeg håper noen involvert i OpenOffice.org og/eller LibreOffice tar
2967 kontakt med Norges Blindeforbund og oppklarer det som for meg virker å
2968 være en misforståelse, i og med at OpenOffice.org så vidt jeg vet
2969 fungerer fint også for blinde.&lt;/p&gt;
2970
2971 &lt;p&gt;Jeg ble minnet på problemstillingen da jeg leste Slashdot-saken om
2972 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/05/21/1417221/the-state-of-linux-accessibility&quot;&gt;The
2973 State of Linux Accessibility&lt;/a&gt;&quot;, som også hevder at Linux fungerer
2974 utmerket for blinde.&lt;/p&gt;
2975 </description>
2976         </item>
2977
2978         <item>
2979                 <title>NUUGs leverer høringsuttalelse om v3.1 av statens referansekatalog</title>
2980                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_leverer_h_ringsuttalelse_om_v3_1_av_statens_referansekatalog.html</link>
2981                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/NUUGs_leverer_h_ringsuttalelse_om_v3_1_av_statens_referansekatalog.html</guid>
2982                 <pubDate>Fri, 27 Apr 2012 15:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
2983                 <description>&lt;p&gt;NUUG-styremedlem Hans-Petter Fjeld
2984 &lt;a href=&quot;https://plus.google.com/u/0/110394259537201279374/posts/AGzRmAuFdW1&quot;&gt;meldte
2985 nettopp&lt;/a&gt; at han har sendt inn &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/&quot;&gt;NUUG&lt;/a&gt;s
2986 høringsuttalelse angående Difi sin standardkatalog v3.1.  Jeg er veldig
2987 glad for at så mange bidro og sikret at vår stemme blir hørt i denne
2988 høringen.  Anbefaler alle å lese våre
2989 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/201204-standardkatalog-v3.1&quot;&gt;to
2990 sider med innspill&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
2991 </description>
2992         </item>
2993
2994         <item>
2995                 <title>HTC One X - Your video?  What do you mean?</title>
2996                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html</link>
2997                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html</guid>
2998                 <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
2999                 <description>&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article243690.ece&quot;&gt;an
3000 article today&lt;/a&gt; published by Computerworld Norway, the photographer
3001 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urke.com/eirik/&quot;&gt;Eirik Helland Urke&lt;/a&gt; reports
3002 that the video editor application included with
3003 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/htc-one-x/#specs&quot;&gt;HTC One
3004 X&lt;/a&gt; have some quite surprising terms of use.  The article is mostly
3005 based on the twitter message from mister Urke, stating:
3006
3007 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
3008 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/urke/status/194062269724897280&quot;&gt;Drøy
3009 brukeravtale: HTC kan bruke MINE redigerte videoer kommersielt. Selv
3010 kan jeg KUN bruke dem privat.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;
3011 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3012
3013 &lt;p&gt;I quickly translated it to this English message:&lt;/p&gt;
3014
3015 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
3016 &quot;Arrogant user agreement: HTC can use MY edited videos
3017 commercially.  Although I can ONLY use them privately.&quot;
3018 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3019
3020 &lt;p&gt;I&#39;ve been unable to find the text of the license term myself, but
3021 suspect it is a variation of the MPEG-LA terms I
3022 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&quot;&gt;discovered
3023 with my Canon IXUS 130&lt;/a&gt;.  The HTC One X specification specifies that
3024 the recording format of the phone is .amr for audio and .mp3 for
3025 video.  AMR is
3026 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Multi-Rate_audio_codec#Licensing_and_patent_issues&quot;&gt;Adaptive
3027 Multi-Rate audio codec&lt;/a&gt; with patents which according to the
3028 Wikipedia article require an license agreement with
3029 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.voiceage.com/&quot;&gt;VoiceAge&lt;/a&gt;.  MP4 is
3030 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing&quot;&gt;MPEG4 with
3031 H.264&lt;/a&gt;, which according to Wikipedia require a licence agreement
3032 with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
3033
3034 &lt;p&gt;I know why I prefer
3035 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;free and open
3036 standards&lt;/a&gt; also for video.&lt;/p&gt;
3037 </description>
3038         </item>
3039
3040         <item>
3041                 <title>RAND terms - non-reasonable and discriminatory</title>
3042                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/RAND_terms___non_reasonable_and_discriminatory.html</link>
3043                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/RAND_terms___non_reasonable_and_discriminatory.html</guid>
3044                 <pubDate>Thu, 19 Apr 2012 22:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
3045                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Here in Norway, the
3046 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad.html?id=339&quot;&gt; Ministry of
3047 Government Administration, Reform and Church Affairs&lt;/a&gt; is behind
3048 a &lt;a href=&quot;http://standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder&quot;&gt;directory of
3049 standards&lt;/a&gt; that are recommended or mandatory for use by the
3050 government.  When the directory was created, the people behind it made
3051 an effort to ensure that everyone would be able to implement the
3052 standards and compete on equal terms to supply software and solutions
3053 to the government.  Free software and non-free software could compete
3054 on the same level.&lt;/p&gt;
3055
3056 &lt;p&gt;But recently, some standards with RAND
3057 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing&quot;&gt;Reasonable
3058 And Non-Discriminatory&lt;/a&gt;) terms have made their way into the
3059 directory.  And while this might not sound too bad, the fact is that
3060 standard specifications with RAND terms often block free software from
3061 implementing them.  The reasonable part of RAND mean that the cost per
3062 user/unit is low,and the non-discriminatory part mean that everyone
3063 willing to pay will get a license.  Both sound great in theory.  In
3064 practice, to get such license one need to be able to count users, and
3065 be able to pay a small amount of money per unit or user.  By
3066 definition, users of free software do not need to register their use.
3067 So counting users or units is not possible for free software projects.
3068 And given that people will use the software without handing any money
3069 to the author, it is not really economically possible for a free
3070 software author to pay a small amount of money to license the rights
3071 to implement a standard when the income available is zero.  The result
3072 in these situations is that free software are locked out from
3073 implementing standards with RAND terms.&lt;/p&gt;
3074
3075 &lt;p&gt;Because of this, when I see someone claiming the terms of a
3076 standard is reasonable and non-discriminatory, all I can think of is
3077 how this really is non-reasonable and discriminatory.  Because free
3078 software developers are working in a global market, it does not really
3079 help to know that software patents are not supposed to be enforceable
3080 in Norway.  The patent regimes in other countries affect us even here.
3081 I really hope the people behind the standard directory will pay more
3082 attention to these issues in the future.&lt;/p&gt;
3083
3084 &lt;p&gt;You can find more on the issues with RAND, FRAND and RAND-Z terms
3085 from Simon Phipps
3086 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/11/rand-not-so-reasonable/&quot;&gt;RAND:
3087 Not So Reasonable?&lt;/a&gt;).&lt;/p&gt;
3088
3089 &lt;p&gt;Update 2012-04-21: Just came across a
3090 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2012/04/of-microsoft-netscape-patents-and-open-standards/index.htm&quot;&gt;blog
3091 post from Glyn Moody&lt;/a&gt; over at Computer World UK warning about the
3092 same issue, and urging people to speak out to the UK government.  I
3093 can only urge Norwegian users to do the same for
3094 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.standard.difi.no/hoyring/hoyring-om-nye-anbefalte-it-standarder&quot;&gt;the
3095 hearing taking place at the moment&lt;/a&gt; (respond before 2012-04-27).
3096 It proposes to require video conferencing standards including
3097 specifications with RAND terms.&lt;/p&gt;
3098 </description>
3099         </item>
3100
3101         <item>
3102                 <title>The video format most supported in web browsers?</title>
3103                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html</link>
3104                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html</guid>
3105                 <pubDate>Sun, 16 Jan 2011 00:20:00 +0100</pubDate>
3106                 <description>&lt;p&gt;The video format struggle on the web continues, and the three
3107 contenders seem to be Ogg Theora, H.264 and WebM.  Most video sites
3108 seem to use H.264, while others use Ogg Theora.  Interestingly enough,
3109 the comments I see give me the feeling that a lot of people believe
3110 H.264 is the most supported video format in browsers, but according to
3111 the Wikipedia article on
3112 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video&quot;&gt;HTML5 video&lt;/a&gt;,
3113 this is not true.  Check out the nice table of supprted formats in
3114 different browsers there.  The format supported by most browsers is
3115 Ogg Theora, supported by released versions of Mozilla Firefox, Google
3116 Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Origyn Web Browser and
3117 BOLT browser, while not supported by Internet Explorer nor Safari.
3118 The runner up is WebM supported by released versions of Google Chrome
3119 Chromium Opera and Origyn Web Browser, and test versions of Mozilla
3120 Firefox.  H.264 is supported by released versions of Safari, Origyn
3121 Web Browser and BOLT browser, and the test version of Internet
3122 Explorer.  Those wanting Ogg Theora support in Internet Explorer and
3123 Safari can install plugins to get it.&lt;/p&gt;
3124
3125 &lt;p&gt;To me, the simple conclusion from this is that to reach most users
3126 without any extra software installed, one uses Ogg Theora with the
3127 HTML5 video tag.   Of course to reach all those without a browser
3128 handling HTML5, one need fallback mechanisms.  In
3129 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/&quot;&gt;NUUG&lt;/a&gt;, we provide first fallback to a
3130 plugin capable of playing MPEG1 video, and those without such support
3131 we have a second fallback to the Cortado java applet playing Ogg
3132 Theora.  This seem to work quite well, as can be seen in an &lt;a
3133 href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20110111-semantic-web/&quot;&gt;example
3134 from last week&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
3135
3136 &lt;p&gt;The reason Ogg Theora is the most supported format, and H.264 is
3137 the least supported is simple.  Implementing and using H.264
3138 require royalty payment to MPEG-LA, and the terms of use from MPEG-LA
3139 are incompatible with free software licensing.  If you believed H.264
3140 was without royalties and license terms, check out
3141 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 – Not The Kind Of
3142 Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Simon Phipps.&lt;/p&gt;
3143
3144 &lt;p&gt;A incomplete list of sites providing video in Ogg Theora is
3145 available from
3146 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/List_of_Theora_videos&quot;&gt;the
3147 Xiph.org wiki&lt;/a&gt;, if you want to have a look.  I&#39;m not aware of a
3148 similar list for WebM nor H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
3149
3150 &lt;p&gt;Update 2011-01-16 09:40: A question from Tollef on IRC made me
3151 realise that I failed to make it clear enough this text is about the
3152 &amp;lt;video&amp;gt; tag support in browsers and not the video support
3153 provided by external plugins like the Flash plugins.&lt;/p&gt;
3154 </description>
3155         </item>
3156
3157         <item>
3158                 <title>Chrome plan to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &amp;lt;video&amp;gt;</title>
3159                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html</link>
3160                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html</guid>
3161                 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Jan 2011 22:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
3162                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Today I discovered
3163 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digi.no/860070/google-dropper-h264-stotten-i-chrome&quot;&gt;via
3164 digi.no&lt;/a&gt; that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement,
3165 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html&quot;&gt;yesterday
3166 announced&lt;/a&gt; plans to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &amp;lt;video&amp;gt; in
3167 the browser.  The argument used is that H.264 is not a &quot;completely
3168 open&quot; codec technology.  If you believe H.264 was free for everyone
3169 to use, I recommend having a look at the essay
3170 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 – Not The Kind Of
3171 Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.  It is not free of cost for creators of video
3172 tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the
3173 terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from
3174 licensing the patents needed for H.264.  Some background information
3175 on the Google announcement is available from
3176 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/24243/Google_To_Drop_H264_Support_from_Chrome&quot;&gt;OSnews&lt;/a&gt;.
3177 A good read. :)&lt;/p&gt;
3178
3179 &lt;p&gt;Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to
3180 promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on
3181 the Internet.  This can only be done by publishing using free and open
3182 standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support
3183 for these free and open standards.  At the moment there seem to be two
3184 camps in the web browser world when it come to video support.  Some
3185 browsers support H.264, and others support
3186 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theora.org/&quot;&gt;Ogg Theora&lt;/a&gt; and
3187 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.webmproject.org/&quot;&gt;WebM&lt;/a&gt;
3188 (&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.diracvideo.org/&quot;&gt;Dirac&lt;/a&gt; is not really an option
3189 yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet
3190 and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for
3191 H.264 to not reach all potential viewers.
3192 Wikipedia keep &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video&quot;&gt;an
3193 updated summary&lt;/a&gt; of the current browser support.&lt;/p&gt;
3194
3195 &lt;p&gt;Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep
3196 promoting H.264, and John Gruber
3197 &lt;a href=&quot;http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions&quot;&gt;presents
3198 the mind set&lt;/a&gt; of these people quite well.  His rhetorical questions
3199 provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions
3200 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM&quot;&gt;presenting
3201 the issues with H.264&lt;/a&gt;. Both are worth a read.&lt;/p&gt;
3202
3203 &lt;p&gt;Some argue that if Google is dropping H.264 because it isn&#39;t free,
3204 they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin.  This
3205 argument was covered by Simon Phipps in
3206 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/01/google-and-h264---far-from-hypocritical/index.htm&quot;&gt;todays
3207 blog post&lt;/a&gt;, which I find to put the issue in context.  To me it
3208 make perfect sense to drop native H.264 support for HTML5 in the
3209 browser while still allowing plugins.&lt;/p&gt;
3210
3211 &lt;p&gt;I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest,
3212 is that all the users and promoters of H.264 suddenly get an uneasy
3213 feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse.  A lot of TV
3214 broadcasters have been moving to H.264 the last few years, and a lot
3215 of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they
3216 could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web
3217 publishing.  Suddenly this belief is shaken.&lt;/p&gt;
3218
3219 &lt;p&gt;An interesting question is why Google is doing this.  While the
3220 presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only
3221 present the argument if the change make sense from a business
3222 perspective.  One reason might be that they are currently negotiating
3223 with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the
3224 feeling that dropping H.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and
3225 Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google.
3226 Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having
3227 to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a
3228 video format not requiring royalties at all.  A third reason might be
3229 that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the
3230 Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome.
3231 I guess time will tell.&lt;/p&gt;
3232
3233 &lt;p&gt;Update 2011-01-15: The Google Chrome team provided
3234 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html&quot;&gt;more
3235 background and information on the move&lt;/a&gt; it a blog post yesterday.&lt;/p&gt;
3236 </description>
3237         </item>
3238
3239         <item>
3240                 <title>What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?</title>
3241                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html</link>
3242                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html</guid>
3243                 <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:15:00 +0100</pubDate>
3244                 <description>&lt;p&gt;After trying to
3245 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html&quot;&gt;compare
3246 Ogg Theora&lt;/a&gt; to
3247 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;the Digistan
3248 definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
3249 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
3250 this.  As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
3251 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
3252 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others.  But to be able to complete this in a
3253 reasonable time frame, I will need help.&lt;/p&gt;
3254
3255 &lt;p&gt;If you want to help out with this work, please visit
3256 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse&quot;&gt;the
3257 wiki pages I have set up for this&lt;/a&gt;, and let me know that you want
3258 to help out.  The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
3259 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
3260 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
3261 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).&lt;/p&gt;
3262
3263 &lt;p&gt;The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do.  Do not be
3264 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)&lt;/p&gt;
3265 </description>
3266         </item>
3267
3268         <item>
3269                 <title>The many definitions of a open standard</title>
3270                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html</link>
3271                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html</guid>
3272                 <pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:45:00 +0100</pubDate>
3273                 <description>&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
3274 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;Free and
3275 Open Standard&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
3276 the term has been decided by Digistan.  The term &quot;Open Standard&quot; has
3277 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
3278 about standards.  One end up discussing which definition is the best
3279 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
3280 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.&lt;/p&gt;
3281
3282 &lt;p&gt;But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
3283 standards, here are a few that I know about.  This list is not
3284 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
3285 complete survey.  More definitions are available on the
3286 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard&quot;&gt;wikipedia
3287 page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
3288
3289 &lt;p&gt;First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
3290 Interoperability Framework version 1.0.  Really sad to notice that BSA
3291 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the
3292 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
3293 their own people.  Anyway, the definition is still available and it
3294 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
3295 specification on equal terms.&lt;/p&gt;
3296
3297 &lt;blockquote&gt;
3298
3299 &lt;p&gt;The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
3300 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
3301 open standard:&lt;/p&gt;
3302
3303 &lt;ul&gt;
3304
3305 &lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
3306 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
3307 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
3308 (consensus or majority decision etc.).&lt;/li&gt;
3309
3310 &lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
3311 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
3312 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
3313 nominal fee.&lt;/li&gt;
3314
3315 &lt;li&gt;The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
3316 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
3317 free basis.&lt;/li&gt;
3318
3319 &lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;
3320
3321 &lt;/ul&gt;
3322 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
3323
3324 &lt;p&gt;Another one originates from my friends over at
3325 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dkuug.dk/&quot;&gt;DKUUG&lt;/a&gt;, who coined and gathered
3326 support for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aaben-standard.dk/&quot;&gt;this
3327 definition&lt;/a&gt; in 2004.  It even made it into the Danish parlament as
3328 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm&quot;&gt;their
3329 definition of a open standard&lt;/a&gt;.  Another from a different part of
3330 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.&lt;/p&gt;
3331
3332 &lt;blockquote&gt;
3333
3334 &lt;p&gt;En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:&lt;/p&gt;
3335
3336 &lt;ol&gt;
3337
3338 &lt;li&gt;Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
3339 tilgængelig.&lt;/li&gt;
3340
3341 &lt;li&gt;Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
3342 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.&lt;/li&gt;
3343
3344 &lt;li&gt;Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
3345 &quot;standardiseringsorganisation&quot;) via en åben proces.&lt;/li&gt;
3346
3347 &lt;/ol&gt;
3348
3349 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
3350
3351 &lt;p&gt;Then there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html&quot;&gt;the
3352 definition&lt;/a&gt; from Free Software Foundation Europe.&lt;/p&gt;
3353
3354 &lt;blockquote&gt;
3355
3356 &lt;p&gt;An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is&lt;/p&gt;
3357
3358 &lt;ol&gt;
3359
3360 &lt;li&gt;subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
3361 manner equally available to all parties;&lt;/li&gt;
3362
3363 &lt;li&gt;without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
3364 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
3365 Standard themselves;&lt;/li&gt;
3366
3367 &lt;li&gt;free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
3368 any party or in any business model;&lt;/li&gt;
3369
3370 &lt;li&gt;managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
3371 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
3372 parties;&lt;/li&gt;
3373
3374 &lt;li&gt;available in multiple complete implementations by competing
3375 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
3376 parties.&lt;/li&gt;
3377
3378 &lt;/ol&gt;
3379
3380 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
3381
3382 &lt;p&gt;A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
3383 its
3384 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf&quot;&gt;Open
3385 Standards Checklist&lt;/a&gt; with a fairly detailed description.&lt;/p&gt;
3386
3387 &lt;blockquote&gt;
3388 &lt;p&gt;Creation and Management of an Open Standard
3389
3390 &lt;ul&gt;
3391
3392 &lt;li&gt;Its development and management process must be collaborative and
3393   democratic:
3394
3395          &lt;ul&gt;
3396
3397          &lt;li&gt;Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
3398             participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
3399             imposed by the organization under which it is developed
3400             and managed.&lt;/li&gt;
3401
3402          &lt;li&gt;The processes must be documented and, through a known
3403             method, can be changed through input from all
3404             participants.&lt;/li&gt;
3405
3406          &lt;li&gt;The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
3407             the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.&lt;/li&gt;
3408
3409          &lt;li&gt;Development and management should strive for consensus,
3410             and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.&lt;/li&gt;
3411
3412          &lt;li&gt;The standard specification must be open to extensive
3413             public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
3414             comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.&lt;/li&gt;
3415
3416          &lt;/ul&gt;
3417
3418 &lt;/li&gt;
3419
3420 &lt;/ul&gt;
3421
3422 &lt;p&gt;Use and Licensing of an Open Standard&lt;/p&gt;
3423 &lt;ul&gt;
3424
3425 &lt;li&gt;The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
3426   and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
3427   implementations to the interface described in the standard without
3428   undue or restrictive constraints.  Interfaces include APIs,
3429   protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.&lt;/li&gt;
3430
3431 &lt;li&gt; The standard must not contain any proprietary &quot;hooks&quot; that create
3432   a technical or economic barriers&lt;/li&gt;
3433
3434 &lt;li&gt;Faithful implementations of the standard must
3435   interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
3436   program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
3437   programs and mutually to use the information which has been
3438   exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
3439   file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
3440   conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
3441   computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
3442   intended to function.&lt;/li&gt;
3443
3444 &lt;li&gt;It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
3445   standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
3446   must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.&lt;/li&gt;
3447
3448 &lt;li&gt;It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
3449   fees; also known as &quot;royalty free&quot;), worldwide, non-exclusive and
3450   perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
3451   sell products based on the standard.  The only exceptions are
3452   terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
3453   outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
3454   patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
3455   only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
3456
3457       &lt;ul&gt;
3458
3459       &lt;li&gt; May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
3460         licensees&#39; patent claims essential to practice that standard
3461         (also known as a reciprocity clause)&lt;/li&gt;
3462
3463       &lt;li&gt; May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
3464         or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
3465         essential to practice that standard (also known as a
3466         &quot;defensive suspension&quot; clause)&lt;/li&gt;
3467
3468       &lt;li&gt; The same licensing terms are available to every potential
3469         licensor&lt;/li&gt;
3470
3471       &lt;/ul&gt;
3472 &lt;/li&gt;
3473
3474 &lt;li&gt;The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
3475   implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
3476   or restricted licensing terms&lt;/li&gt;
3477
3478 &lt;/ul&gt;
3479
3480 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
3481
3482 &lt;p&gt;It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
3483 there are so many of them.  As you can see, the same holds true for
3484 open standard definitions.  Most of the definitions have a lot in
3485 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
3486 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
3487 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
3488 competition to downplay the significance of open standards.  I hope we
3489 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
3490 Standards.&lt;/p&gt;
3491 </description>
3492         </item>
3493
3494         <item>
3495                 <title>Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?</title>
3496                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</link>
3497                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</guid>
3498                 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
3499                 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;The
3500 Digistan definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard reads like this:&lt;/p&gt;
3501
3502 &lt;blockquote&gt;
3503
3504 &lt;p&gt;The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
3505 as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
3506
3507 &lt;ol&gt;
3508
3509 &lt;li&gt;A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
3510 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
3511 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.&lt;/li&gt;
3512
3513 &lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
3514 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
3515 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
3516 parties.&lt;/li&gt;
3517
3518 &lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
3519 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
3520 distribute, and use it freely.&lt;/li&gt;
3521
3522 &lt;li&gt;The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
3523 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.&lt;/li&gt;
3524
3525 &lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;
3526
3527 &lt;/ol&gt;
3528
3529 &lt;p&gt;The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
3530 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
3531 products based on the standard.&lt;/p&gt;
3532 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
3533
3534 &lt;p&gt;For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
3535 and open standard according to this definition.  Here is a short
3536 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far.  I brought up the
3537 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
3538 &lt;a href=&quot;http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html&quot;&gt;in
3539 July 2009&lt;/a&gt;, for those that want to see some background information.
3540 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
3541 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;
3542
3543 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free from vendor capture?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3544
3545 &lt;p&gt;As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
3546 Ogg Theora specification.  It can be argued that the
3547 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/&quot;&gt;Xiph foundation&lt;/A&gt; is such vendor, but
3548 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
3549 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
3550 obvious that this is a real risk.  One issue with the Xiph
3551 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
3552 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web.  I&#39;ve
3553 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
3554 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
3555 where is is spent in the foundation.  It is thus not obvious for an
3556 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
3557 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
3558 specification.  But it seem unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;
3559
3560 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3561
3562 &lt;p&gt;Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
3563 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled.  If Xiph foundation is
3564 controlled by a single vendor, it isn&#39;t, but I have not found any
3565 documentation indicating this.&lt;/p&gt;
3566
3567 &lt;p&gt;According to
3568 &lt;a href=&quot;http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf&quot;&gt;a report&lt;/a&gt;
3569 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
3570 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
3571 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
3572 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
3573 report is correct.&lt;/p&gt;
3574
3575 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Specification freely available?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3576
3577 &lt;p&gt;The specification for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/&quot;&gt;Ogg
3578 container format&lt;/a&gt; and both the
3579 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/&quot;&gt;Vorbis&lt;/a&gt; and
3580 &lt;a href=&quot;http://theora.org/doc/&quot;&gt;Theora&lt;/a&gt; codeces are available on
3581 the web.  This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
3582
3583 &lt;blockquote&gt;
3584
3585 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
3586 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
3587 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
3588 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
3589 specification compliance.
3590
3591 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
3592
3593 &lt;p&gt;The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
3594 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 3533&lt;/a&gt;, and
3595 this is the term:&lt;p&gt;
3596
3597 &lt;blockquote&gt;
3598
3599 &lt;p&gt;This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
3600 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
3601 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
3602 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
3603 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
3604 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
3605 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
3606 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
3607 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
3608 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
3609 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
3610 translate it into languages other than English.&lt;/p&gt;
3611
3612 &lt;p&gt;The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
3613 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.&lt;/p&gt;
3614 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
3615
3616 &lt;p&gt;All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
3617 this term seem to be fulfilled.  There might be a problem with the
3618 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
3619 thus reuse it in other specifications.  Not quite sure if that is a
3620 requirement for the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;
3621
3622 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Royalty-free?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3623
3624 &lt;p&gt;There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
3625 Theora format.
3626 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;
3627 and
3628 &lt;a href=&quot;http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit&quot;&gt;Steve
3629 Jobs&lt;/a&gt; in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
3630 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
3631 them.  Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
3632 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
3633 without paying any royalties.  For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
3634 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
3635 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.&lt;/p&gt;
3636
3637 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No constraints on re-use?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3638
3639 &lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.&lt;/p&gt;
3640
3641 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3642
3643 &lt;p&gt;3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
3644 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation.  Given the
3645 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
3646 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
3647 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
3648 this.&lt;/p&gt;
3649
3650 &lt;p&gt;It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
3651 see if they are free and open standards.&lt;/p&gt;
3652 </description>
3653         </item>
3654
3655         <item>
3656                 <title>The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru</title>
3657                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html</link>
3658                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html</guid>
3659                 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
3660                 <description>&lt;p&gt;A few days ago
3661 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece&quot;&gt;an
3662 article&lt;/a&gt; in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
3663 2.0 of
3664 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework&quot;&gt;European
3665 Interoperability Framework&lt;/a&gt; has been successfully lobbied by the
3666 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
3667 Nothing very surprising there, given
3668 &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe&quot;&gt;earlier
3669 reports&lt;/a&gt; on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
3670 this work.  But I find this very sad.   The definition of
3671 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt&quot;&gt;an
3672 open standard from version 1&lt;/a&gt; was very good, and something I
3673 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
3674 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;the
3675 definition from Digistan&lt;/A&gt;.  Version 2 have removed the open
3676 standard definition from its content.&lt;/p&gt;
3677
3678 &lt;p&gt;Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
3679 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
3680 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
3681 in the public sector in Peru.  As the text was not available from a
3682 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
3683 &lt;a href=&quot;http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html&quot;&gt;my
3684 source&lt;/a&gt; to ensure it is available also in the future.  Some
3685 background information about that story is available in
3686 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099&quot;&gt;an article&lt;/a&gt; from
3687 Linux Journal in 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
3688
3689 &lt;blockquote&gt;
3690 &lt;p&gt;Lima, 8th of April, 2002&lt;br&gt;
3691 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ&lt;br&gt;
3692 General Manager of Microsoft Perú&lt;/p&gt;
3693
3694 &lt;p&gt;Dear Sir:&lt;/p&gt;
3695
3696 &lt;p&gt;First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter.&lt;/p&gt;
3697
3698 &lt;p&gt;While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.&lt;/p&gt;
3699
3700 &lt;p&gt;With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call &quot;open source software&quot; is what the Bill defines as &quot;free software&quot;, since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call &quot;commercial software&quot; is what the Bill defines as &quot;proprietary&quot; or &quot;unfree&quot;, given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.&lt;/p&gt;
3701
3702 &lt;p&gt;It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:&lt;/p&gt;
3703
3704 &lt;p&gt;
3705 &lt;ul&gt;
3706 &lt;li&gt;Free access to public information by the citizen. &lt;/li&gt;
3707 &lt;li&gt;Permanence of public data. &lt;/li&gt;
3708 &lt;li&gt;Security of the State and citizens.&lt;/li&gt;
3709 &lt;/ul&gt;
3710 &lt;/p&gt;
3711
3712 &lt;p&gt;To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.&lt;/p&gt;
3713
3714 &lt;p&gt;To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.&lt;/p&gt;
3715
3716 &lt;p&gt;To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*. &lt;/p&gt;
3717
3718 &lt;p&gt;In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.&lt;/p&gt;
3719
3720 &lt;p&gt;In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles.&lt;/p&gt;
3721
3722
3723 &lt;p&gt;From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:&lt;br&gt;
3724 &lt;li&gt;the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software&lt;/li&gt;
3725 &lt;li&gt;the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software&lt;/li&gt;
3726 &lt;li&gt;the law does not specify which concrete software to use&lt;/li&gt;
3727 &lt;li&gt;the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought&lt;/li&gt;
3728 &lt;li&gt;the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.&lt;/li&gt;
3729
3730 &lt;/p&gt;
3731
3732 &lt;p&gt;What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning.&lt;/p&gt;
3733
3734 &lt;p&gt;We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.&lt;/p&gt;
3735
3736 &lt;p&gt;As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:&lt;/p&gt;
3737
3738 &lt;p&gt;Firstly, you point out that: &quot;1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3739
3740 &lt;p&gt;This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter.&lt;/p&gt;
3741
3742 &lt;p&gt;The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No. 012-2001-PCM).&lt;/p&gt;
3743
3744 &lt;p&gt;The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions.&lt;/p&gt;
3745
3746 &lt;p&gt;It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill.&lt;/p&gt;
3747
3748 &lt;p&gt;By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office &quot;suite&quot;, under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved.&lt;/p&gt;
3749
3750 &lt;p&gt;To continue; you note that:&quot; 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies...&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3751
3752 &lt;p&gt;This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding &quot;non-competitive ... practices.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3753
3754 &lt;p&gt;Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them &quot;a priori&quot;, but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles.&lt;/p&gt;
3755
3756 &lt;p&gt;Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement.&lt;/p&gt;
3757
3758 &lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms&#39; expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.&lt;/p&gt;
3759
3760 &lt;p&gt;It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: &quot;update your software to the new version&quot; (at the user&#39;s expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider&#39;s judgment alone, are &quot;old&quot;; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays &quot;trapped&quot; in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).&lt;/p&gt;
3761
3762 &lt;p&gt;You add: &quot;3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3763
3764 &lt;p&gt;I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs.&lt;/p&gt;
3765
3766 &lt;p&gt;On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software.&lt;/p&gt;
3767
3768 &lt;p&gt;In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.&lt;/p&gt;
3769
3770 &lt;p&gt;In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.&lt;/p&gt;
3771
3772 &lt;p&gt;It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of &quot;ad hoc&quot; software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive.&lt;/p&gt;
3773
3774 &lt;p&gt;With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model.&lt;/p&gt;
3775
3776 &lt;p&gt;Your letter continues: &quot;4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3777
3778 &lt;p&gt;Alluding in an abstract way to &quot;the dangers this can bring&quot;, without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.&lt;/p&gt;
3779
3780 &lt;p&gt;On security:&lt;/p&gt;
3781
3782 &lt;p&gt;National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or &quot;bugs&quot; (in programmers&#39; slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.&lt;/p&gt;
3783
3784 &lt;p&gt;What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors.&lt;/p&gt;
3785
3786 &lt;p&gt;It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product.&lt;/p&gt;
3787
3788 &lt;p&gt;In respect of the guarantee:&lt;/p&gt;
3789
3790 &lt;p&gt;As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the &quot;End User License Agreement&quot; of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS&#39;&#39;, that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.&lt;/p&gt;
3791
3792 &lt;p&gt;On Intellectual Property:&lt;/p&gt;
3793
3794 &lt;p&gt;Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one&#39;s own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).&lt;/p&gt;
3795
3796 &lt;p&gt;You go on to say that: &quot;The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3797
3798 &lt;p&gt;This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL).&lt;/p&gt;
3799
3800 &lt;p&gt;Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats.&lt;/p&gt;
3801
3802 &lt;p&gt;If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State.&lt;/p&gt;
3803
3804 &lt;p&gt;You continue: &quot;6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3805
3806 &lt;p&gt;This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.&lt;/p&gt;
3807
3808 &lt;p&gt;In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software (&quot;blue screens of death&quot;, malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability.&lt;/p&gt;
3809
3810 &lt;p&gt;You further state that: &quot;7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3811
3812 &lt;p&gt;I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you.&lt;/p&gt;
3813
3814 &lt;p&gt;On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.&lt;/p&gt;
3815
3816 &lt;p&gt;You continue: &quot;8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3817
3818 &lt;p&gt;Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely.&lt;/p&gt;
3819
3820 &lt;p&gt;The second argument refers to &quot;problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector&quot; This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code.&lt;/p&gt;
3821
3822 &lt;p&gt;You then say that: &quot;9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3823
3824 &lt;p&gt;This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software.&lt;/p&gt;
3825
3826 &lt;p&gt;On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.&lt;/p&gt;
3827
3828 &lt;p&gt;You continue by observing that: &quot;10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3829
3830 &lt;p&gt;It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.&lt;/p&gt;
3831
3832 &lt;p&gt;What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments.&lt;/p&gt;
3833
3834 &lt;p&gt;You go on to say that: &quot;11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3835
3836 &lt;p&gt;This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad.&lt;/p&gt;
3837
3838 &lt;p&gt;You then state that: &quot;12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3839
3840 &lt;p&gt;In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn&#39;t have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That&#39;s exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software.&lt;/p&gt;
3841
3842 &lt;p&gt;You end with a rhetorical question: &quot;13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn&#39;t it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3843
3844 &lt;p&gt;We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.&lt;/p&gt;
3845
3846 &lt;p&gt;The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public.&lt;/p&gt;
3847
3848 &lt;p&gt;In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.&lt;/p&gt;
3849
3850 &lt;p&gt;I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.&lt;/p&gt;
3851
3852 &lt;p&gt;Cordially,&lt;br&gt;
3853 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ&lt;br&gt;
3854 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.&lt;/p&gt;
3855 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
3856 </description>
3857         </item>
3858
3859         <item>
3860                 <title>Officeshots still going strong</title>
3861                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html</link>
3862                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html</guid>
3863                 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 09:40:00 +0100</pubDate>
3864                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Half a year ago I
3865 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html&quot;&gt;wrote
3866 a bit&lt;/a&gt; about &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.officeshots.org/&quot;&gt;OfficeShots&lt;/a&gt;,
3867 a web service to allow anyone to test how ODF documents are handled by
3868 the different programs reading and writing the ODF format.&lt;/p&gt;
3869
3870 &lt;p&gt;I just had a look at the service, and it seem to be going strong.
3871 Very interesting to see the results reported in the gallery, how
3872 different Office implementations handle different ODF features.  Sad
3873 to see that KOffice was not doing it very well, and happy to see that
3874 LibreOffice has been tested already (but sadly not listed as a option
3875 for OfficeShots users yet).  I am glad to see that the ODF community
3876 got such a great test tool available.&lt;/p&gt;
3877 </description>
3878         </item>
3879
3880         <item>
3881                 <title>Best å ikke fortelle noen at streaming er nedlasting...</title>
3882                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html</link>
3883                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html</guid>
3884                 <pubDate>Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
3885                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta
3886 &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrkbeta.no/2010/10/27/bakom-blindpassasjer-del-1/&quot;&gt;om
3887 hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget&lt;/a&gt; i forbindelse med at
3888 filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et
3889 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;fritt og
3890 åpent format&lt;/a&gt;.  Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der 07:39.&lt;/p&gt;
3891
3892 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
3893 &lt;p&gt;&quot;Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra
3894 nedlasting.  Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer
3895 som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den
3896 nødvendige forkunnskapen.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
3897
3898 &lt;p&gt;Haha.  Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å
3899 beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig.  Å skrive noe slikt
3900 er å forlede leseren.&lt;/p&gt;
3901
3902 &lt;p&gt;Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun
3903 vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.&lt;/p&gt;
3904
3905 &lt;p&gt;Anbefaler forresten å lese
3906 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm&quot;&gt;http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm&lt;/a&gt;
3907 om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer
3908 (DRM) fungerte.  Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo
3909 derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass,
3910 men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge
3911 opp under.&lt;/p&gt;
3912 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3913
3914 &lt;p&gt;Ca. 20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i
3915 NRKBeta:&lt;/p&gt;
3916
3917 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
3918 &lt;p&gt;From: Anders Hofseth &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
3919 &lt;br&gt;To: &quot;pere@hungry.com&quot; &amp;lt;pere@hungry.com&gt;
3920 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Eirik Solheim &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;, Jon Ståle Carlsen &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;, Henrik Lied &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
3921 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: &quot;Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1&quot;
3922 &lt;br&gt;Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:58:44 +0200&lt;/p&gt;
3923
3924 &lt;p&gt;Hei Petter.
3925 &lt;br&gt;Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon,
3926 men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt
3927 om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
3928 særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.&lt;/p&gt;
3929
3930 &lt;p&gt;Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er
3931 fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
3932 konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...&lt;/p&gt;
3933
3934 &lt;p&gt;Med hilsen,
3935 &lt;br&gt;-anders&lt;/p&gt;
3936
3937 &lt;p&gt;Ring meg om noe er uklart: 95XXXXXXX&lt;/p&gt;
3938 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
3939
3940 &lt;p&gt;Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte
3941 over følgende svar.  I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas
3942 kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet.
3943 Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å
3944 unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.&lt;/p&gt;
3945
3946 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
3947 &lt;p&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere@hungry.com&gt;
3948 &lt;br&gt;To: Anders Hofseth &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
3949 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Eirik Solheim &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;,
3950 &lt;br&gt;        Jon Ståle Carlsen &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;,
3951 &lt;br&gt;        Henrik Lied &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
3952 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: &quot;Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1&quot;
3953 &lt;br&gt;Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:24:34 +0200&lt;/p&gt;
3954
3955 &lt;p&gt;[Anders Hofseth]
3956 &lt;br&gt;&gt; Hei Petter.&lt;/p&gt;
3957
3958 &lt;p&gt;Hei.&lt;/p&gt;
3959
3960 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
3961 &lt;br&gt;&gt; om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
3962 &lt;br&gt;&gt; å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
3963 &lt;br&gt;&gt; særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.&lt;/p&gt;
3964
3965 &lt;p&gt;Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon.  Den
3966 vil nok fortsette en stund til.  :)&lt;/p&gt;
3967
3968 &lt;p&gt;Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med
3969 vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne
3970 fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.&lt;/p&gt;
3971
3972 &lt;p&gt;Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke
3973 faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold
3974 som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker
3975 det.&lt;/p&gt;
3976
3977 &lt;p&gt;Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på
3978 web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta.
3979 Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)&lt;/p&gt;
3980
3981 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
3982 &lt;br&gt;&gt; og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
3983 &lt;br&gt;&gt; konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...&lt;/p&gt;
3984
3985 &lt;p&gt;Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og
3986 heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen
3987 mot de som vil låse kulturen inne.  Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK
3988 godtar å forlede publikum.  Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som
3989 skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i
3990 formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til
3991 H.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).&lt;/p&gt;
3992
3993 &lt;p&gt;At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive
3994 påstander om at &quot;streaming beskytter mot nedlasting&quot; som bare er egnet
3995 til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.&lt;/p&gt;
3996
3997 &lt;p&gt;Anbefaler &amp;lt;URL:&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&quot;&gt;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&lt;/a&gt;&gt; og en
3998 titt på
3999 &amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&quot;&gt;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html&lt;/a&gt; &gt;.
4000 for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H.264 innebærer.&lt;/p&gt;
4001
4002 &lt;p&gt;Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke
4003 kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade
4004 samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall
4005 synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er
4006 langt på overtid.&lt;/p&gt;
4007
4008 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX&lt;/p&gt;
4009
4010 &lt;p&gt;Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på.
4011 Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en
4012 gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted
4013 for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med
4014 ryggraden på plass.&lt;/p&gt;
4015
4016 &lt;p&gt;PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.&lt;/p&gt;
4017
4018 &lt;p&gt;Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet.
4019 &amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft&quot;&gt;http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft&lt;/a&gt; &gt; og
4020 &amp;lt;URL: &lt;a href=&quot;http://patentabsurdity.com/&quot;&gt;http://patentabsurdity.com/&lt;/a&gt; &gt; hadde vært noe å kringkaste på
4021 NRK1. :)&lt;/p&gt;
4022
4023 &lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen,
4024 &lt;br&gt;--
4025 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
4026 </description>
4027         </item>
4028
4029         <item>
4030                 <title>Standardkrav inn i anbudstekster?</title>
4031                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html</link>
4032                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html</guid>
4033                 <pubDate>Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
4034                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Hvis det å følge standarder skal ha noen effekt overfor
4035 leverandører, så må slike krav og ønsker komme inn i anbudstekster når
4036 systemer kjøpes inn.  Har ikke sett noen slike formuleringer i anbud
4037 så langt, men har tenkt litt på hva som bør inn.  Her er noen ideer og
4038 forslag.  Min drøm er at en kan sette krav til slik støtte i
4039 anbudstekster, men så langt er det nok mer sannsynlig at en må nøye
4040 seg med å skrive at det er en fordel om slik støtte er tilstede i
4041 leveranser.&lt;/p&gt;
4042
4043 &lt;p&gt;Som systemadministrator på Universitetet er det typisk to områder
4044 som er problematiske for meg.  Det ene er admin-grensesnittene på
4045 tjenermaskiner, som vi ønsker å bruke via ssh.  Det andre er nettsider
4046 som vi ønsker å bruke via en nettleser.  For begge deler er det viktig
4047 at protokollene og formatene som brukes følger standarder våre verktøy
4048 støtter.&lt;/p&gt;
4049
4050 &lt;p&gt;De fleste har nå støtte for SSH som overføringsprotkoll for
4051 admin-grensesnittet, men det er ikke tilstrekkelig for å kunne stille
4052 inn f.eks BIOS og RAID-kontroller via ssh-forbindelsen.  Det er flere
4053 aktuelle protokoller for fremvisning av BIOS-oppsett og
4054 oppstartmeldinger, og min anbefaling ville være å kreve
4055 VT100-kompatibel protokoll, for å sikre at flest mulig
4056 terminalemulatorer kan forstå hva som kommer fra admin-grensesnittet
4057 via ssh.  Andre aktuelle alternativer er ANSI-terminalemulering og
4058 VT220.  Kanskje en formulering ala dette i anbudsutlysninger vil
4059 fungere:&lt;/p&gt;
4060
4061 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
4062 BIOS og oppstartmeldinger i administrasjonsgrensesnittet til maskinen
4063 bør/skal være tilgjengelig via SSH-protokollen som definert av IETF
4064 (RFC 4251 mfl.) og følge terminalfremvisningprotokollen VT100 (ref?)
4065 når en kobler seg til oppstart via ssh.
4066 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
4067
4068 &lt;p&gt;Har ikke lykkes med å finne en god referanse for
4069 VT100-spesifikasjonen.&lt;/p&gt;
4070
4071 &lt;p&gt;Når det gjelder nettsider, så er det det HTML, CSS og
4072 JavaScript-spesifikasjonen til W3C som gjelder.&lt;/p&gt;
4073
4074 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
4075 Alle systemets nettsider bør/skal være i henhold til statens
4076 standardkatalogs krav om nettsider og følge HTML-standarden som
4077 definert av W3C, og validere uten feil hos W3Cs HTML-validator
4078 (http://validator.w3.org).  Hvis det brukes CSS så bør/skal denne
4079 validere uten feil hos W3Cs CSS-validator
4080 (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/).  Eventuelle JavaScript skal
4081 være i henhold til EcmaScript-standarden.  I tillegg til å følge de
4082 overnevnte standardene skal websidene fungere i nettleserne (fyll inn
4083 relevant liste for organisasjonen) Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer 8,
4084 Opera 9, etc.
4085 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
4086
4087 &lt;p&gt;Vil et slikt avsnitt være konkret nok til å få leverandørene til å
4088 lage nettsider som følger standardene og fungerer i flere
4089 nettlesere?&lt;/p&gt;
4090
4091 &lt;p&gt;Tar svært gjerne imot innspill på dette temaet til aktive (at)
4092 nuug.no, og er spesielt interessert i hva andre skriver i sine anbud
4093 for å oppmuntre leverandører til å følge standardene.  Kanskje NUUG
4094 burde lage et dokument med forslag til standardformuleringer å ta med
4095 i anbudsutlysninger?&lt;/p&gt;
4096
4097 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2010-12-03: I følge Wikipedias oppføring om
4098 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code&quot;&gt;ANSI escape
4099 code&lt;/a&gt;, så bruker VT100-terminaler ECMA-48-spesifikasjonen som
4100 basis for sin oppførsel.  Det kan dermed være et alternativ når en
4101 skal spesifisere hvordan seriell-konsoll skal fungere.&lt;/p&gt;
4102 </description>
4103         </item>
4104
4105         <item>
4106                 <title>Terms of use for video produced by a Canon IXUS 130 digital camera</title>
4107                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</link>
4108                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</guid>
4109                 <pubDate>Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:55:00 +0200</pubDate>
4110                 <description>&lt;p&gt;A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital
4111 camera, a Canon IXUS 130.  It was instructive and very disturbing to
4112 be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to
4113 specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera.
4114 Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras
4115 are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway.  What is the
4116 problem, you might ask?  It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the
4117 MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences
4118 without asking for permissions that is at risk.
4119
4120 &lt;p&gt;On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is
4121 written:&lt;/p&gt;
4122
4123 &lt;blockquote&gt;
4124 &lt;p&gt;This product is licensed under AT&amp;T patents for the MPEG-4 standard
4125 and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding
4126 MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and
4127 non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the
4128 AT&amp;T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.&lt;/p&gt;
4129
4130 &lt;p&gt;No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4
4131 standard.&lt;/p&gt;
4132 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
4133
4134 &lt;p&gt;In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology
4135 (MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and
4136 non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations
4137 holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.&lt;/p&gt;
4138
4139 &lt;p&gt;This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to
4140 read
4141 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA&quot;&gt;Why
4142 Our Civilization&#39;s Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the
4143 MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Eugenia Loli-Queru and
4144 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&quot;&gt;H.264 Is Not
4145 The Sort Of Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Simon Phipps to learn more about
4146 the issue.  The solution is to support the
4147 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;free and
4148 open standards&lt;/a&gt; for video, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theora.org/&quot;&gt;Ogg
4149 Theora&lt;/a&gt;, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.&lt;/p&gt;
4150 </description>
4151         </item>
4152
4153         <item>
4154                 <title>Officeshots taking shape</title>
4155                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html</link>
4156                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html</guid>
4157                 <pubDate>Sun, 13 Jun 2010 11:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
4158                 <description>&lt;p&gt;For those of us caring about document exchange and
4159 interoperability, &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.officeshots.org/&quot;&gt;OfficeShots&lt;/a&gt;
4160 is a great service.  It is to ODF documents what
4161 &lt;a href=&quot;http://browsershots.org/&quot;&gt;BrowserShots&lt;/a&gt; is for web
4162 pages.&lt;/p&gt;
4163
4164 &lt;p&gt;A while back, I was contacted by Knut Yrvin at the part of Nokia
4165 that used to be Trolltech, who wanted to help the OfficeShots project
4166 and wondered if the University of Oslo where I work would be
4167 interested in supporting the project.  I helped him to navigate his
4168 request to the right people at work, and his request was answered with
4169 a spot in the machine room with power and network connected, and Knut
4170 arranged funding for a machine to fill the spot.  The machine is
4171 administrated by the OfficeShots people, so I do not have daily
4172 contact with its progress, and thus from time to time check back to
4173 see how the project is doing.&lt;/p&gt;
4174
4175 &lt;p&gt;Today I had a look, and was happy to see that the Dell box in our
4176 machine room now is the host for several virtual machines running as
4177 OfficeShots factories, and the project is able to render ODF documents
4178 in 17 different document processing implementation on Linux and
4179 Windows.  This is great.&lt;/p&gt;
4180 </description>
4181         </item>
4182
4183         <item>
4184                 <title>A manual for standards wars...</title>
4185                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html</link>
4186                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html</guid>
4187                 <pubDate>Sun, 6 Jun 2010 14:15:00 +0200</pubDate>
4188                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Via the
4189 &lt;a href=&quot;http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/robweir/antic-atom/~3/QzU4RgoAGMg/weekly-links-10.html&quot;&gt;blog
4190 of Rob Weir&lt;/a&gt; I came across the very interesting essay named
4191 &lt;a href=&quot;http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/wars.pdf&quot;&gt;The Art of
4192 Standards Wars&lt;/a&gt; (PDF 25 pages).  I recommend it for everyone
4193 following the standards wars of today.&lt;/p&gt;
4194 </description>
4195         </item>
4196
4197         <item>
4198                 <title>Danmark går for ODF?</title>
4199                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Danmark_g_r_for_ODF_.html</link>
4200                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Danmark_g_r_for_ODF_.html</guid>
4201                 <pubDate>Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
4202                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Ble nettopp gjort oppmerksom på en
4203 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13690-breaking-odf-vinder-dokumentformat-krigen &quot;&gt;nyhet fra Version2&lt;/a&gt;
4204 fra Danmark, der det hevdes at Folketinget har vedtatt at ODF skal
4205 brukes som dokumentutvekslingsformat i Staten.&lt;/p&gt;
4206
4207 &lt;p&gt;Hyggelig lesning, spesielt hvis det viser seg at de av vedtatt
4208 kravlisten for hva som skal aksepteres som referert i kommentarfeltet
4209 til artikkelen og
4210 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13693-er-ooxml-doemt-ude-her-er-kravene-til-en-offentlig-dokumentstandard&quot;&gt;en
4211 annen artikkel&lt;/a&gt; i samme nett-avis.  Liker spesielt godt denne:&lt;/p&gt;
4212
4213 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt; Det skal demonstreres, at standarden i sin helhed kan
4214 implementeres af alle direkte i sin helhed på flere
4215 platforme.&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
4216
4217 &lt;p&gt;Noe slikt burde være et krav også i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
4218 </description>
4219         </item>
4220
4221         <item>
4222                 <title>Relative popularity of document formats (MS Office vs. ODF)</title>
4223                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html</link>
4224                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html</guid>
4225                 <pubDate>Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
4226                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Just for fun, I did a search right now on Google for a few file ODF
4227 and MS Office based formats (not to be mistaken for ISO or ECMA
4228 OOXML), to get an idea of their relative usage.  I searched using
4229 &#39;filetype:odt&#39; and equvalent terms, and got these results:&lt;/P&gt;
4230
4231 &lt;table&gt;
4232 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4233 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:282000&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:308000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4234 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:75600&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:183000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4235 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:26500     &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:145000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4236 &lt;/table&gt;
4237
4238 &lt;p&gt;Next, I added a &#39;site:no&#39; limit to get the numbers for Norway, and
4239 got these numbers:&lt;/p&gt;
4240
4241 &lt;table&gt;
4242 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4243 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:2480 &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:4460&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4244 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:299   &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:741&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4245 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:187       &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:372&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4246 &lt;/table&gt;
4247
4248 &lt;p&gt;I wonder how these numbers change over time.&lt;/p&gt;
4249
4250 &lt;p&gt;I am aware of Google returning different results and numbers based
4251 on where the search is done, so I guess these numbers will differ if
4252 they are conduced in another country.  Because of this, I did the same
4253 search from a machine in California, USA, a few minutes after the
4254 search done from a machine here in Norway.&lt;/p&gt;
4255
4256
4257 &lt;table&gt;
4258 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4259 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:129000&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:308000&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4260 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:44200&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:93900&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4261 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:26500     &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:82400&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4262 &lt;/table&gt;
4263
4264 &lt;p&gt;And with &#39;site:no&#39;:
4265
4266 &lt;table&gt;
4267 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;th&gt;Type&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;ODF&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th&gt;MS Office&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4268 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Tekst&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odt:2480&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;docx:3410&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4269 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Presentasjon&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;odp:175&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;pptx:604&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4270 &lt;tr&gt;&lt;td&gt;Regneark&lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;ods:186       &lt;/td&gt; &lt;td&gt;xlsx:296&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;
4271 &lt;/table&gt;
4272
4273 &lt;p&gt;Interesting difference, not sure what to conclude from these
4274 numbers.&lt;/p&gt;
4275 </description>
4276         </item>
4277
4278         <item>
4279                 <title>ISO still hope to fix OOXML</title>
4280                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html</link>
4281                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html</guid>
4282                 <pubDate>Sat, 8 Aug 2009 14:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
4283                 <description>&lt;p&gt;According to &lt;a
4284 href=&quot;http://twerner.blogspot.com/2009/08/defects-of-office-open-xml.html&quot;&gt;a
4285 blog post from Torsten Werner&lt;/a&gt;, the current defect report for ISO
4286 29500 (ISO OOXML) is 809 pages.  His interesting point is that the
4287 defect report is 71 pages more than the full ODF 1.1 specification.
4288 Personally I find it more interesting that ISO still believe ISO OOXML
4289 can be fixed in ISO.  Personally, I believe it is broken beyon repair,
4290 and I completely lack any trust in ISO for being able to get anywhere
4291 close to solving the problems.  I was part of the Norwegian committee
4292 involved in the OOXML fast track process, and was not impressed with
4293 Standard Norway and ISO in how they handled it.&lt;/p&gt;
4294
4295 &lt;p&gt;These days I focus on ODF instead, which seem like a specification
4296 with the future ahead of it.  We are working in NUUG to organise a ODF
4297 seminar this autumn.&lt;/p&gt;
4298 </description>
4299         </item>
4300
4301         <item>
4302                 <title>Regjerningens oppsummering av høringen om standardkatalogen versjon 2</title>
4303                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h_ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</link>
4304                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h_ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</guid>
4305                 <pubDate>Thu, 9 Jul 2009 14:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
4306                 <description>&lt;p&gt;For å forstå mer om hvorfor standardkatalogens versjon 2 ble som
4307 den ble, har jeg bedt om kopi fra FAD av dokumentene som ble lagt frem
4308 for regjeringen da de tok sin avgjørelse.  De er nå lagt ut på NUUGs
4309 wiki, direkte tilgjengelig via &quot;&lt;a
4310 href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&amp;do=get&amp;target=kongelig-resolusjon.pdf&quot;&gt;Referansekatalogen
4311 v2.0 - Oppsummering av høring&lt;/a&gt;&quot; og &quot;&lt;a
4312 href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&amp;do=get&amp;target=kongelig-resolusjon-katalogutkast.pdf&quot;&gt;Referansekatalog
4313 for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor Versjon 2.0, dd.mm.åååå -
4314 UTKAST&lt;/a&gt;&quot;.&lt;/p&gt;
4315
4316 &lt;p&gt;Det er tre ting jeg merker meg i oppsummeringen fra
4317 høringsuttalelsen da jeg skummet igjennom den.  Det første er at
4318 forståelsen av hvordan programvarepatenter påvirker fri
4319 programvareutvikling også i Norge når en argumenterer med at
4320 royalty-betaling ikke er et relevant problem i Norge.  Det andre er at
4321 FAD ikke har en prinsipiell forståelse av verdien av en enkelt
4322 standard innenfor hvert område.  Det siste er at påstander i
4323 høringsuttalelsene ikke blir etterprøvd (f.eks. påstanden fra
4324 Microsoft om hvordan Ogg blir standardisert og påstanden fra
4325 politidirektoratet om patentproblemer i Theora).&lt;/p&gt;
4326 </description>
4327         </item>
4328
4329         <item>
4330                 <title>Regjerningen forlater prinsippet om ingen royalty-betaling i standardkatalogen versjon 2</title>
4331                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</link>
4332                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html</guid>
4333                 <pubDate>Mon, 6 Jul 2009 21:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
4334                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg ble glad da regjeringen
4335 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digi.no/817635/her-er-statens-nye-it-standarder&quot;&gt;annonserte&lt;/a&gt;
4336 versjon 2 av
4337 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Referansekatalogen_versjon2.pdf&quot;&gt;statens
4338 referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;, men trist da jeg leste hva som
4339 faktisk var vedtatt etter
4340 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html&quot;&gt;høringen&lt;/a&gt;.
4341 De fleste av de valgte åpne standardene er gode og vil bidra til at
4342 alle kan delta på like vilkår i å lage løsninger for staten, men
4343 noen av dem blokkerer for de som ikke har anledning til å benytte
4344 spesifikasjoner som krever betaling for bruk (såkalt
4345 royalty-betaling).  Det gjelder spesifikt for H.264 for video og MP3
4346 for lyd.  Så lenge bruk av disse var valgfritt mens Ogg Theora og Ogg
4347 Vorbis var påkrevd, kunne alle som ønsket å spille av video og lyd
4348 fra statens websider gjøre dette uten å måtte bruke programmer der
4349 betaling for bruk var nødvendig.  Når det nå er gjort valgfritt for
4350 de statlige etatene å bruke enten H.264 eller Theora (og MP3 eler
4351 Vorbis), så vil en bli tvunget til å forholde seg til
4352 royalty-belastede standarder for å få tilgang til videoen og
4353 lyden.&lt;/p&gt;
4354
4355 &lt;p&gt;Det gjør meg veldig trist at regjeringen har forlatt prinsippet om
4356 at alle standarder som ble valgt til å være påkrevd i katalogen skulle
4357 være uten royalty-betaling.  Jeg håper det ikke betyr at en har mistet
4358 all forståelse for hvilke prinsipper som må følges for å oppnå
4359 likeverdig konkurranse mellom aktørene i IT-bransjen.  NUUG advarte
4360 mot dette i
4361 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2&quot;&gt;sin
4362 høringsuttalelse&lt;/a&gt;, men ser ut til å ha blitt ignorert.&lt;/p&gt;
4363
4364 &lt;p&gt;Oppdatering 2012-06-29: Kom over &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Refkat_v2.pdf&quot;&gt;en
4365 rapport til FAD&lt;/a&gt; fra da versjon 1 av katalogen ble vedtatt, og der
4366 er det tydelig at problemstillingen var kjent og forstått.&lt;/p&gt;
4367 </description>
4368         </item>
4369
4370         <item>
4371                 <title>Microsofts misvisende argumentasjon rundt multimediaformater</title>
4372                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html</link>
4373                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html</guid>
4374                 <pubDate>Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
4375                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I
4376 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/Hoeringer/Refkat_V2/MicrosoftNorge.pdf&quot;&gt;Microsoft
4377 sin høringsuttalelse&lt;/a&gt; til
4378 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html?id=549422&quot;&gt;forslag
4379 til versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;, lirer
4380 de av seg følgende FUD-perle:&lt;/p&gt;
4381
4382 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&quot;Vorbis, OGG, Theora og FLAC er alle tekniske
4383   spesifikasjoner overordnet styrt av xiph.org, som er en
4384   ikke-kommersiell organisasjon.  Etablerte og anerkjente
4385   standardiseringsorganisasjoner, som Oasis, W3C og Ecma, har en godt
4386   innarbeidet vedlikeholds- og forvaltningsprosess av en standard.
4387   Det er derimot helt opp til hver enkelt organisasjon å bestemme
4388   hvordan tekniske spesifikasjoner videreutvikles og endres, og disse
4389   spesifikasjonene bør derfor ikke defineres som åpne
4390   standarder.&quot;&lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
4391
4392 &lt;p&gt;De vokter seg vel for å nevne den anerkjente
4393 standardiseringsorganisasjonen IETF, som er organisasjonen bak HTTP,
4394 IP og det meste av protokoller på Internet, og RFC-standardene som
4395 IETF står bak.  Ogg er spesifisert i
4396 &lt;a href=&quot;http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3533.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 3533&lt;/a&gt;, og er uten
4397 tvil å anse som en åpen standard.  Vorbis er
4398 &lt;a href=&quot;http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc5215.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 5215&lt;/a&gt;.  Theora er
4399
4400 under standardisering via IETF, med
4401 &lt;a href=&quot;http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/theora/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-theora-00.txt&quot;&gt;siste
4402 utkast publisert 2006-07-21&lt;/a&gt; (riktignok er dermed teksten ikke
4403 skrevet i stein ennå, men det blir neppe endringer som ikke er
4404 bakoverkompatibel).  De kan være inne på noe når det gjelder FLAC da
4405 jeg ikke finner tegn til at &lt;a
4406 href=&quot;http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html&quot;&gt;spesifikasjonen
4407 tilgjengelig på web&lt;/a&gt; er på tur via noen
4408 standardiseringsorganisasjon, men i og med at folkene bak Ogg, Theora
4409 og Vorbis også har involvert seg i Flac siden 2003, så ser jeg ikke
4410 bort fra at også den organiseres via IETF.  Jeg kjenner personlig lite
4411 til FLAC.&lt;/p&gt;
4412
4413 &lt;p&gt;Uredelig argumentasjon bør en holde seg for god til å komme med,
4414 spesielt når det er så enkelt i dagens Internet-hverdag å gå
4415 misvisende påstander etter i sømmene.&lt;/p&gt;
4416 </description>
4417         </item>
4418
4419         <item>
4420                 <title>Standarder fungerer best når en samler seg rundt dem</title>
4421                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n_r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html</link>
4422                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n_r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html</guid>
4423                 <pubDate>Tue, 19 May 2009 11:30:00 +0200</pubDate>
4424                 <description>&lt;p&gt;En standard er noe man samler seg rundt, ut fra ideen om at en får
4425 fordeler når mange står sammen.  Jo flere som står sammen, jo
4426 bedre.  Når en vet dette, blir det litt merkelig å lese noen av
4427 uttalelsene som er kommet inn til
4428 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2/horingsuttalelser.html?id=549423&quot;&gt;høringen
4429 om versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder&lt;/a&gt;.  Blant
4430 annet Abelia, NHO og Microsoft tror det er lurt med flere standarder
4431 innenfor samme område.  Det blir som å si at det er fint om Norge
4432 standardiserte både på A4- og Letter-størrelser på arkene, ulik
4433 sporvidde på jernbaneskinnene, meter og fot som lengemål, eller
4434 høyre- og venstrekjøring - slik at en kan konkurrere på hvilken
4435 standard som er best.  De fleste forstår heldigvis at dette ikke
4436 bidrar positivt.&lt;/p&gt;
4437 </description>
4438         </item>
4439
4440         <item>
4441                 <title>Hvorfor jeg ikke bruker eFaktura</title>
4442                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html</link>
4443                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html</guid>
4444                 <pubDate>Thu, 23 Apr 2009 23:00:00 +0200</pubDate>
4445                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Telenors annonsering om å kreve 35 kroner i gebyr fra alle som
4446 ønsker papirfaktura har satt sinnene i kok, og pressedekningen så
4447 langt snakker om at eldre og folk som ikke behersker data vil få en
4448 urimelig ekstrakostnad.  Jeg tror ikke jeg passer inn i noen av de
4449 kategoriene, men velger å holde meg unna eFaktura - som er det
4450 Telenor ønsker å få folk over på - pga. systemets egenskaper.&lt;/p&gt;
4451
4452 &lt;p&gt;Slik jeg har sett eFaktura til forbrukere så langt, så sender
4453 selger en elektronisk beskjed til kundens bank, som legger ut
4454 informasjon om fakturaen i nettbanken for godkjenning.  Personlig
4455 ville jeg sett det som mer naturlig at det gikk en elektronisk beskjed
4456 fra selger til kunde, dvs meg, og at jeg så kunne bruke den videre
4457 mot banken eller andre hvis jeg ønsket dette.  Mine innkjøp og
4458 regninger er jo en sak mellom meg og mine leverandører, ikke en sak
4459 mellom min bank og mine leverandører.  Kun hvis jeg ønsker å betale
4460 fakturaen skal banken involveres.  En faktura bør jo inn i
4461 regnskapet, og jeg ønsker mulighet til å legge det inn der.  Når
4462 fakturaen sendes til banken i stedet for meg, blir det vanskeligere.
4463 Hele eFaktura-modellen virker på meg som en umyndiggjøring av meg
4464 som kunde.&lt;/p&gt;
4465
4466 &lt;p&gt;I tillegg har jeg ikke vært i stand til å finne
4467 eFaktura-formatets spesifikasjon, og det ser ut til at utsending av
4468 slike krever dyre avtaler med bankene for å få lov til å sende ut
4469 eFaktura til kunder.  Jeg ser vel helst at fakturering på
4470 elektroniske formater kan gjøres f.eks. via epost eller HTTP uten å
4471 måtte betale mellommenn for retten til å lever ut en faktura, og
4472 liker rett og slett ikke dagens faktureringsmodeller.&lt;/p&gt;
4473 </description>
4474         </item>
4475
4476         <item>
4477                 <title>Standardize on protocols and formats, not vendors and applications</title>
4478                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html</link>
4479                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html</guid>
4480                 <pubDate>Mon, 30 Mar 2009 11:50:00 +0200</pubDate>
4481                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Where I work at the University of Oslo, one decision stand out as a
4482 very good one to form a long lived computer infrastructure.  It is the
4483 simple one, lost by many in todays computer industry: Standardize on
4484 open network protocols and open exchange/storage formats, not applications.
4485 Applications come and go, while protocols and files tend to stay, and
4486 thus one want to make it easy to change application and vendor, while
4487 avoiding conversion costs and locking users to a specific platform or
4488 application.&lt;/p&gt;
4489
4490 &lt;p&gt;This approach make it possible to replace the client applications
4491 independently of the server applications.  One can even allow users to
4492 use several different applications as long as they handle the selected
4493 protocol and format.  In the normal case, only one client application
4494 is recommended and users only get help if they choose to use this
4495 application, but those that want to deviate from the easy path are not
4496 blocked from doing so.&lt;/p&gt;
4497
4498 &lt;p&gt;It also allow us to replace the server side without forcing the
4499 users to replace their applications, and thus allow us to select the
4500 best server implementation at any moment, when scale and resouce
4501 requirements change.&lt;/p&gt;
4502
4503 &lt;p&gt;I strongly recommend standardizing - on open network protocols and
4504 open formats, but I would never recommend standardizing on a single
4505 application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.&lt;/p&gt;
4506 </description>
4507         </item>
4508
4509         <item>
4510                 <title>Hva er egentlig en åpen standard?</title>
4511                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en__pen_standard_.html</link>
4512                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en__pen_standard_.html</guid>
4513                 <pubDate>Sat, 28 Mar 2009 10:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
4514                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Jeg møter alle slags interessante mennesker på min vei, og et møte
4515 jeg lærte mye av var å treffe på en svært kompetent IT-fyr som
4516 benektet ting jeg anser som åpenbart og selvfølgelig når det gjelder
4517 standarder.  Det var interessant, da det fikk meg til å tenke litt
4518 nøyere på hvilke mekanismer som ligger til grunn for at noe oppfattes
4519 som en standard.  Det hele startet med arbeid rundt integrering av NSS
4520 LDAP mot Active Directory, og problemer som oppstår pga. at Active
4521 Directory ikke følger LDAP-spesifikasjonen som dokumentert i RFCer fra
4522 IETF (konkret, AD returnerer kun et subset av attributter hvis det er
4523 mer enn 1500 atributter av en gitt type i et LDAP-objekt, og en må be
4524 om resten i bolker av 1500).  Jeg hevdet måten dette ble gjort på brøt
4525 med LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og henviste til hvor i LDAP-spesifikasjonen
4526 fra IETF det sto at oppførselen til AD ikke fulgte
4527 LDAP-spesifikasjonen.  AD-spesialisten overrasket meg da ved å
4528 fortelle at IETF var ikke de som definerte LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og at
4529 Active Directory ikke brøt den virkelige LDAP-spesifikasjonen som han
4530 mente lå til grunn.  Jeg ble spesielt overrasket over denne
4531 tilnærmingen til problemstillingen, da til og med Microsoft så vidt
4532 jeg kan se anerkjenner IETF som organisasjonen som definerer
4533 LDAP-spesifikasjonen.  Jeg fikk aldri spurt hvem han mente sto bak den
4534 egentlige LDAP-spesifikasjonen, da det var irrelevant for problemet vi
4535 måtte løse (få Linux og AD til å fungere sammen).  Dette møtet
4536 fortalte meg uansett at det ikke er gitt at alle aktører er enige om
4537 hva en standard er, og hva som er kilden til en gitt standard.  Det er
4538 vanskelig å enes om felles standarder før en først enes om hvem som
4539 bestemmer hva en gitt standard innebærer.&lt;/p&gt;
4540
4541 &lt;p&gt;Hva er så en standard?  I sin abstrakte form er det noe å samles
4542 om.  På engelsk er en av betydningene fane brukt i krig, du vet, den
4543 type fane en samlet seg rundt på kamplassen i riddertiden.  En
4544 standard definerer altså et felleskap, noen som har noe felles.  Det
4545 er naturligvis mange måter å utgjøre et felleskap på.  En kan
4546 f.eks. enes om å gjøre alt slik som Ole gjør det, og dermed si at Oles
4547 oppførsel er standard.  Hver gang Ole endrer oppførsel endrer også
4548 standarden seg uten noe mer organisering og prosedyre.  En variant av
4549 dette er å gjøre slik som Ole har gjort det i stedet for slik Ole til
4550 enhver til gjør noe.  Dette er ofte litt enklere å forholde seg til,
4551 da en slipper å sjekke med Ole hver gang for å vite hvordan ting skal
4552 gjøres nå, men hvis det Ole gjorde noe dumt den gang en bestemte seg
4553 for å følge Ole, så er det vanskeligere å få endret oppførsel for å
4554 unngå dette dumme.&lt;/p&gt;
4555
4556 &lt;p&gt;En kan også ta det et skritt videre, og istedet for å basere seg på
4557 enkeltpersoners oppførsel sette seg ned og bli enige om hvordan en
4558 skal gjøre ting, dvs. lage et felleskap basert på konsensus.  Dette
4559 tar naturligvis litt mer tid (en må diskutere ting i forkant før en
4560 kan sette igang), men det kan bidra til at den oppførselen en
4561 planlegger å benytte seg av er mer gjennomtenkt.  Det ender også
4562 typisk opp med en beskrivelse av ønsket oppførsel som flere kan forstå
4563 - da flere har vært involvert i å utarbeide beskrivelsen.&lt;/p&gt;
4564
4565 &lt;p&gt;Dette er dessverre ikke alt som trengs for å forstå hva en åpen
4566 standard er for noe.  Der alle kan se på hvordan folk oppfører seg, og
4567 dermed har valget om de vil oppføre seg likt eller ikke, så er det
4568 endel juridiske faktorer som gjør det hele mer komplisert -
4569 opphavsretten og patentlovgivningen for å være helt konkret.  For å gi
4570 et eksempel. Hvis noen blir enige om å alltid plystre en bestemt
4571 melodi når de møtes, for å identifisere hverandre, så kan
4572 opphavsretten brukes til å styre hvem som får lov til å gjøre dette.
4573 De har standardisert hvordan de kjenner igjen alle som følger denne
4574 standarden, men ikke alle har nødvendigvis lov til å følge den.
4575 Musikk er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, og fremføring av musikk i
4576 offentligheten er opphavsmannens enerett (dvs. et monopol).  Det vil i
4577 sin ytterste konsekvens si at alle som skal plystre en
4578 opphavsrettsbeskyttet melodi i det offentlige rom må ha godkjenning
4579 fra opphavsmannen.  Har en ikke dette, så bryter en loven og kan
4580 straffes.  Det er dermed mulig for opphavsmannen å kontrollere hvem
4581 som får lov til å benytte seg av denne standarden.  En annen variant
4582 er hvis en standard er dokumentert, så er dokumentet som definerer
4583 standarden (spesifikasjonen) beskyttet av opphavsretten, og det er
4584 dermed mulig for rettighetsinnehaver å begrense tilgang til
4585 spesifikasjonen, og slik styre hvem som kan ta i bruk standarden på
4586 den måten.&lt;/p&gt;
4587
4588 &lt;p&gt;Der opphavsretten innvilger et monopol på kunstneriske uttrykk med
4589 verkshøyde, innvilger patentlovgivningen monopol på ideer.  Hvis en
4590 slik patentert idé (fortrinnsvis uttrykt i en teknisk innretning, men
4591 det er kompliserende faktorer som gjør at det ikke er et krav) trengs
4592 for å ta i bruk en standard, så vil den som innehar patent kunne styre
4593 hvem som får ta i bruk standarden.  Det er dermed ikke gitt at alle
4594 kan delta i et standard-felleskap, og hvis de kan delta, så er det
4595 ikke sikkert at det er på like vilkår.  F.eks. kan rettighetsinnehaver
4596 sette vilkår som gjør at noen faller utenfor, det være seg av
4597 finansielle, avtalemessige eller prinsipielle årsaker.  Vanlige slike
4598 vilkår er &quot;må betale litt for hver kunde/bruker&quot; som utelukker de som
4599 gir bort en løsning gratis og &quot;må gi fra seg retten til å håndheve
4600 sine egne patentrettigheter ovenfor rettighetshaver&quot; som utelukker
4601 alle som ønsker å beholde den muligheten.&lt;/p&gt;
4602
4603 &lt;p&gt;En åpen standard innebærer for meg at alle kan få innsikt i en
4604 komplett beskrivelse av oppførsel som standarden skal dekke, og at
4605 ingen kan nektes å benytte seg av standarden.  Noen mener at det
4606 holder at alle med tilstrekkelig finansiering kan få tilgang til
4607 spesifikasjonen og at en kun har finansielle krav til bruk.
4608 Pga. denne konflikten har et nytt begrep spredt seg de siste årene,
4609 nemlig fri og åpen standard, der en har gjort det klart at alle må ha
4610 komplett og lik tilgang til spesifikasjoner og retten til å gjøre bruk
4611 av en standard for at en standard skal kunne kalles fri og åpen.&lt;/p&gt;
4612 </description>
4613         </item>
4614
4615         <item>
4616                 <title>Fri og åpen standard, slik Digistan ser det</title>
4617                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html</link>
4618                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html</guid>
4619                 <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
4620                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Det er mange ulike definisjoner om hva en åpen standard er for noe,
4621 og NUUG hadde &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt&quot;&gt;en
4622 pressemelding om dette sommeren 2005&lt;/a&gt;.  Der ble definisjonen til
4623 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aaben-standard.dk/&quot;&gt;DKUUG&lt;/a&gt;,
4624 &lt;a href=&quot;http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=19529&quot;&gt;EU-kommissionens
4625 European Interoperability Framework ( side 9)&lt;/a&gt; og
4626 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.teknologiradet.no/files/7polert_copy.htm&quot;&gt;teknologirådet&lt;/a&gt; omtalt.&lt;/p&gt;
4627
4628 &lt;p&gt;Siden den gang har regjeringens standardiseringsråd dukket opp, og de
4629 ser ut til å har tatt utgangspunkt i EU-kommisjonens definisjon i
4630 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/kampanjer/standardiseringsradet/arbeidsmetodikk.html?id=476407&quot;&gt;sin
4631 arbeidsmetodikk&lt;/a&gt;.  Personlig synes jeg det er en god ide, da
4632 kravene som stilles der gjør at alle markedsaktører får like vilkår,
4633 noe som kommer kundene til gode ved hjelp av økt konkurranse.&lt;/p&gt;
4634
4635 &lt;p&gt;I sommer kom det en ny definisjon på banen.
4636 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/&quot;&gt;Digistan&lt;/a&gt; lanserte
4637 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;en
4638 definisjon på en fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt;.  Jeg liker måten de bryter
4639 ut av diskusjonen om hva som kreves for å kalle noe en åpen standard
4640 ved å legge på et ord og poengtere at en standard som er både åpen og
4641 fri har noen spesielle krav.  Her er den definisjonen etter rask
4642 oversettelse fra engelsk til norsk av meg:&lt;/p&gt;
4643
4644 &lt;blockquote&gt;
4645 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definisjonen av en fri og åpen standard&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
4646
4647 &lt;p&gt;Den digitale standardorganisasjonen definierer fri og åpen standard
4648 som følger:&lt;/p&gt;
4649 &lt;ul&gt;
4650 &lt;li&gt;En fri og åpen standard er immun for leverandørinnlåsing i alle
4651 stadier av dens livssyklus.  Immuniteten fra leverandørinnlåsing gjør
4652 det mulig å fritt bruke, forbedre, stole på og utvide en standard over
4653 tid.&lt;/li&gt;
4654 &lt;li&gt;Standarden er adoptert og vil bli vedlikeholdt av en ikke-kommersiell
4655 organisasjon, og dens pågående utvikling gjøres med en åpen
4656 beslutningsprosedyre som er tilgjengelig for alle som er interessert i
4657 å delta.&lt;/li&gt;
4658 &lt;li&gt;Standarden er publisert og spesifikasjonsdokumentet er fritt
4659 tilgjengelig.  Det må være tillatt for alle å kopiere, distribuere og
4660 bruke den uten begresninger.&lt;/li&gt;
4661 &lt;li&gt;Patentene som muligens gjelder (deler av) standarden er gjort
4662 ugjenkallelig tilgjengelig uten krav om betaling.&lt;/li&gt;
4663 &lt;li&gt;Det er ingen begresninger i gjenbruk av standarden.&lt;/li&gt;
4664 &lt;/ul&gt;
4665 &lt;p&gt;Det økonomiske resultatet av en fri og åpen standard, som kan
4666 måles, er at det muliggjør perfekt konkurranse mellom leverandører av
4667 produkter basert på standarden.&lt;/p&gt;
4668 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
4669
4670 &lt;p&gt;(Tar gjerne imot forbedringer av oversettelsen.)&lt;/p&gt;
4671 </description>
4672         </item>
4673
4674         <item>
4675                 <title>ODF-bruk i staten, ikke helt på plass</title>
4676                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p__plass.html</link>
4677                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p__plass.html</guid>
4678                 <pubDate>Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
4679                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I går publiserte
4680 &lt;a href=&quot;http://universitas.no/nyhet/52776/&quot;&gt;Universitas&lt;/a&gt;,
4681 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dagensit.no/trender/article1588462.ece&quot;&gt;Dagens-IT&lt;/a&gt;
4682 og &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article118622.ece&quot;&gt;Computerworld
4683 Norge&lt;/a&gt; en sak om at de ansatte ved Universitetet i Oslo ikke følger
4684 regjeringens pålegg om å publisere i HTML, PDF eller ODF.  Det er bra
4685 at det kommer litt fokus på dette, og jeg håper noen journalister tar
4686 en titt på de andre statlige instansene også.&lt;/p&gt;
4687
4688 &lt;p&gt;Skulle ønske det var en enkel måte å sjekke om ODF-dokumenter er i
4689 henholdt til ODF-spesifikasjonen, og en måte å teste om programmer som
4690 hevder å støtte ODF forstår alle delene av ODF-spesifikasjonen.
4691 Kjenner kun til ufullstendige løsninger for slikt.&lt;/p&gt;
4692 </description>
4693         </item>
4694
4695         </channel>
4696 </rss>