blog/tags/digistan/digistan.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 digistan</title>
   5                 <description>Entries tagged digistan</description>
   6                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/</link>
   7
   8
   9         <item>
  10                 <title>Regjeringen, FAD og DIFI går inn for å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk standard i det offentlige</title>
  11                 <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>
  12                 <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>
  13                 <pubDate>Mon, 18 Mar 2013 21:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
  14                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I
  15 &lt;a href=&quot;http://standard.difi.no/hoyring/forslag-om-endring-av-forskrift-om-it-standarder-i-offentlig-forvaltning&quot;&gt;siste
  16 høring&lt;/a&gt; om
  17 &lt;a href=&quot;http://standard.difi.no/forvaltningsstandarder&quot;&gt;referansekatalogen
  18 for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor&lt;/a&gt;, med høringsfrist 2012-09-30
  19 (DIFI-sak 2012/498), ble det foreslått å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk
  20 standard når en publiserte dokumenter som skulle kunne redigeres
  21 videre av mottaker.  NUUG og andre protesterte på forslaget, som er et
  22 langt steg tilbake når det gjelder å sikre like rettigheter for alle
  23 når en kommuniserer med det offentlige.  For noen dager siden ble jeg
  24 oppmerksom på at Direktoratet for forvaltning og IKT (DIFI) og
  25 Fornyings-,administrasjons- og kirkedepartementet (FAD) har
  26 konkludert, og oversendt forslag til regjeringen i saken. FADs
  27 dokument
  28 &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,
  29 «Utkast til endring av standardiseringsforskriften» datert 2013-02-06
  30 har følgende triste oppsummering fra høringen i saken:&lt;/p&gt;
  31
  32 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
  33 Det kom noen innvendinger på forslaget om å fjerne ODF som
  34 obligatorisk standard for redigerbare dokumenter. Innvendingene har
  35 ikke blitt ilagt avgjørende vekt.
  36 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
  37
  38 &lt;p&gt;Ved å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk format ved publisering av
  39 redigerbare dokumenter setter en Norge tiår tilbake.  Det som vil skje
  40 er at offentlige etater går tilbake til kun å publisere dokumenter på
  41 et av de mange formatene til Microsoft Office, og alle som ikke
  42 aksepterer bruksvilkårene til Microsoft eller ikke har råd til å bruke
  43 penger på å få tilgang til Microsoft Office må igjen basere seg på
  44 verktøy fra utviklerne som er avhengig av å reversutvikle disse
  45 formatene.  I og med at ISO-spesifikasjonen for OOXML ikke komplett og
  46 korrekt spesifiserer formatene til MS Office (men er nyttige å titte i
  47 når en reversutvikler), er en tilbake til en situasjon der en ikke har
  48 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html&quot;&gt;en
  49 fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt; å forholde seg til, men i stedet må springe
  50 etter Microsoft.  Alle andre leverandører enn Microsoft vil dermed ha
  51 en seriøs ulempe.  Det er som å fjerne krav om bruk av meter som
  52 måleenhet, og heretter aksepterer alle måleenheter som like gyldige,
  53 når en vet at den mest brukte enheten vil være armlengden til Steve
  54 Ballmer slik Microsoft måler den.&lt;/p&gt;
  55
  56 &lt;p&gt;Jeg er ikke sikker på om forslaget er vedtatt av regjeringen ennå.
  57 Kristian Bergem hos DIFI nevnte på et møte forrige tirsdag at han
  58 trodde det var vedtatt i statsråd 8. mars, men jeg har ikke klart å
  59 finne en skriftlig kilde på regjeringen.no som bekrefter dette.
  60 Kanskje det ennå ikke er for sent...&lt;/p&gt;
  61
  62 &lt;p&gt;Jeg ba i forrige uke om innsyn i dokument 6, 7 og 8 i FAD-saken, og
  63 har i dag fått innsyn i dokument 7 og 8.  Ble nektet innsyn i
  64 dokumentet med tittelen «Oppsummering av høring om endringer i
  65 forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig forvaltning» med hjemmel i
  66 off. lovens §15.1, så det er vanskelig å vite hvordan argumentene fra
  67 høringen ble mottatt og forstått av saksbehandleren hos DIFI.  Lurer
  68 på hvordan jeg kan klage på at jeg ikke fikk se oppsummeringen.  Fikk
  69 tre PDFer tilsendt fra FAD,
  70 &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;,
  71 &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
  72 &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;
  73 </description>
  74         </item>
  75
  76         <item>
  77                 <title>Trenger en avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere og kringkaste H.264-video?</title>
  78                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html</link>
  79                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Trenger_en_avtale_med_MPEG_LA_for___publisere_og_kringkaste_H_264_video_.html</guid>
  80                 <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jun 2012 13:40:00 +0200</pubDate>
  81                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Trengs det avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lovlig rett til å
  82 distribuere og kringkaste video i MPEG4 eller med videokodingen H.264?
  83 &lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/&quot;&gt;H.264 og MPEG4 er jo ikke en
  84 fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt; i henhold til
  85 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html&quot;&gt;definisjonen
  86 til Digistan&lt;/a&gt;, så i enkelte land er det ingen tvil om at du må ha
  87 en slik avtale, men jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke vet om det også
  88 gjelder Norge.  Det ser uansett ut til å være en juridisk interessant
  89 problemstilling.  Men jeg tenkte her om dagen som så, at hvis det er
  90 nødvendig, så har store aktører som
  91 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nrk.no/&quot;&gt;NRK&lt;/a&gt; og
  92 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/&quot;&gt;regjeringen&lt;/a&gt; skaffet seg en
  93 slik avtale.  Jeg har derfor sendt forespørsel til begge (for
  94 regjeringen sin del er det Departementenes Servicesenter som gjør
  95 jobben), og bedt om kopi av eventuelle avtaler de har om bruk av MPEG
  96 og/eller H.264 med MPEG-LA eller andre aktører som opererer på vegne
  97 av MPEG-LA.  Her er kopi av eposten jeg har sendt til
  98 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dss.dep.no/&quot;&gt;Departementenes Servicesenter&lt;/a&gt;.
  99 Forespørselen til NRK er veldig lik.&lt;/p&gt;
 100
 101 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 102
 103 &lt;p&gt;Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:18:33 +0200
 104 &lt;br&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen
 105 &lt;br&gt;To: postmottak@dss.dep.no
 106 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H.264-relaterte avtaler
 107
 108 &lt;p&gt;Hei.  Jeg ber herved om innsyn og kopi av dokumenter i DSS relatert
 109 til avtaler rundt bruk av videoformatene MPEG og H.264.  Jeg er
 110 spesielt interessert i å vite om DSS har lisensavtale med MPEG-LA
 111 eller noen som representerer MPEG-LA i Norge.&lt;/p&gt;
 112
 113 &lt;p&gt;MPEG og H.264 er videoformater som brukes både til kringkasting
 114 (f.eks. i bakkenett og kabel-TV) og videopublisering på web, deriblant
 115 via Adobe Flash.  MPEG-LA, &amp;lt;URL:
 116 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpeg-la.com/&quot;&gt;http://www.mpeg-la.com/&lt;/a&gt; &amp;gt;, er
 117 en organisasjon som har fått oppgaven, av de kjente rettighetshavere
 118 av immaterielle rettigheter knyttet til MPEG og H.264, å selge
 119 bruksrett for MPEG og H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
 120
 121 &lt;p&gt;Via regjeringen.no kringkastes med MPEG og H.264-baserte
 122 videoformater, og dette ser ut til å være organisert av DSS.  Jeg
 123 antar dermed at DSS har avtale med en eller annen aktør om dette.&lt;/p&gt;
 124
 125 &lt;p&gt;F.eks. har Adobe Premiere Pro har følgende klausul i følge &amp;lt;URL:
 126 &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;
 127 &amp;gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
 128
 129 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 130
 131   &lt;p&gt;6.17. AVC DISTRIBUTION. The following notice applies to software
 132   containing AVC import and export functionality: THIS PRODUCT IS
 133   LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND
 134   NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (a) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE
 135   WITH THE AVC STANDARD (&quot;AVC VIDEO&quot;) AND/OR (b) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT
 136   WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL
 137   ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER
 138   LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE
 139   IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED
 140   FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE
 141   &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com&quot;&gt;http://www.mpegla.com&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 142
 143 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 144
 145 &lt;p&gt;Her er det kun &quot;non-commercial&quot; og &quot;personal and non-commercial&quot;
 146 aktivitet som er tillatt uten ekstra avtale med MPEG-LA.&lt;/p&gt;
 147
 148 &lt;p&gt;Et annet tilsvarende eksempel er Apple Final Cut Pro, som har
 149 følgende klausul i følge &amp;lt;URL:
 150 &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;
 151 &amp;gt;:&lt;/p&gt;
 152
 153 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 154
 155   &lt;p&gt;15. Merknad om H.264/AVC. Hvis Apple-programvaren inneholder
 156   funksjonalitet for AVC-koding og/eller AVC-dekoding, krever
 157   kommersiell bruk ekstra lisensiering og følgende gjelder:
 158   AVC-FUNKSJONALITETEN I DETTE PRODUKTET KAN KUN ANVENDES AV
 159   FORBRUKERE OG KUN FOR PERSONLIG OG IKKE- KOMMERSIELL BRUK TIL (i)
 160   KODING AV VIDEO I OVERENSSTEMMELSE MED AVC-STANDARDEN (&quot;AVC-VIDEO&quot;)
 161   OG/ELLER (ii) DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO SOM ER KODET AV EN FORBRUKER TIL
 162   PERSONLIG OG IKKE-KOMMERSIELL BRUK OG/ELLER DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO
 163   FRA EN VIDEOLEVERANDØR SOM HAR LISENS TIL Å TILBY
 164   AVC-VIDEO. INFORMASJON OM ANNEN BRUK OG LISENSIERING KAN INNHENTES
 165   FRA MPEG LA L.L.C. SE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.&lt;/p&gt;
 166 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 167
 168 &lt;p&gt;Tilsvarende gjelder for andre programvarepakker, kamera, etc som
 169 bruker MPEG og H.264, at en må ha en avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lov
 170 til å bruke programmet/utstyret hvis en skal lage noe annet enn
 171 private filmer og i ikke-kommersiell virksomhet.&lt;/p&gt;
 172
 173 &lt;p&gt;Jeg er altså interessert i kopi av avtaler DSS har som gjør at en
 174 ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som gjelder for
 175 utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H.264.&lt;/p&gt;
 176 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 177
 178 &lt;p&gt;Nå venter jeg spent på svaret.  Jeg planlegger å blogge om svaret
 179 her.&lt;/p&gt;
 180 </description>
 181         </item>
 182
 183         <item>
 184                 <title>HTC One X - Your video?  What do you mean?</title>
 185                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html</link>
 186                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/HTC_One_X___Your_video___What_do_you_mean_.html</guid>
 187                 <pubDate>Thu, 26 Apr 2012 13:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
 188                 <description>&lt;p&gt;In &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article243690.ece&quot;&gt;an
 189 article today&lt;/a&gt; published by Computerworld Norway, the photographer
 190 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.urke.com/eirik/&quot;&gt;Eirik Helland Urke&lt;/a&gt; reports
 191 that the video editor application included with
 192 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.htc.com/www/smartphones/htc-one-x/#specs&quot;&gt;HTC One
 193 X&lt;/a&gt; have some quite surprising terms of use.  The article is mostly
 194 based on the twitter message from mister Urke, stating:
 195
 196 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 197 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://twitter.com/urke/status/194062269724897280&quot;&gt;Drøy
 198 brukeravtale: HTC kan bruke MINE redigerte videoer kommersielt. Selv
 199 kan jeg KUN bruke dem privat.&lt;/a&gt;&quot;
 200 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 201
 202 &lt;p&gt;I quickly translated it to this English message:&lt;/p&gt;
 203
 204 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 205 &quot;Arrogant user agreement: HTC can use MY edited videos
 206 commercially.  Although I can ONLY use them privately.&quot;
 207 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 208
 209 &lt;p&gt;I&#39;ve been unable to find the text of the license term myself, but
 210 suspect it is a variation of the MPEG-LA terms I
 211 &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
 212 with my Canon IXUS 130&lt;/a&gt;.  The HTC One X specification specifies that
 213 the recording format of the phone is .amr for audio and .mp3 for
 214 video.  AMR is
 215 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_Multi-Rate_audio_codec#Licensing_and_patent_issues&quot;&gt;Adaptive
 216 Multi-Rate audio codec&lt;/a&gt; with patents which according to the
 217 Wikipedia article require an license agreement with
 218 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.voiceage.com/&quot;&gt;VoiceAge&lt;/a&gt;.  MP4 is
 219 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC#Patent_licensing&quot;&gt;MPEG4 with
 220 H.264&lt;/a&gt;, which according to Wikipedia require a licence agreement
 221 with &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.mpegla.com/&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 222
 223 &lt;p&gt;I know why I prefer
 224 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;free and open
 225 standards&lt;/a&gt; also for video.&lt;/p&gt;
 226 </description>
 227         </item>
 228
 229         <item>
 230                 <title>What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?</title>
 231                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html</link>
 232                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html</guid>
 233                 <pubDate>Thu, 30 Dec 2010 23:15:00 +0100</pubDate>
 234                 <description>&lt;p&gt;After trying to
 235 &lt;a href=&quot;http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html&quot;&gt;compare
 236 Ogg Theora&lt;/a&gt; to
 237 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;the Digistan
 238 definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
 239 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
 240 this.  As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
 241 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
 242 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others.  But to be able to complete this in a
 243 reasonable time frame, I will need help.&lt;/p&gt;
 244
 245 &lt;p&gt;If you want to help out with this work, please visit
 246 &lt;a href=&quot;http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse&quot;&gt;the
 247 wiki pages I have set up for this&lt;/a&gt;, and let me know that you want
 248 to help out.  The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
 249 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
 250 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
 251 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).&lt;/p&gt;
 252
 253 &lt;p&gt;The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do.  Do not be
 254 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)&lt;/p&gt;
 255 </description>
 256         </item>
 257
 258         <item>
 259                 <title>The many definitions of a open standard</title>
 260                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html</link>
 261                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html</guid>
 262                 <pubDate>Mon, 27 Dec 2010 14:45:00 +0100</pubDate>
 263                 <description>&lt;p&gt;One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
 264 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;Free and
 265 Open Standard&lt;/a&gt;&quot; is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
 266 the term has been decided by Digistan.  The term &quot;Open Standard&quot; has
 267 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
 268 about standards.  One end up discussing which definition is the best
 269 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
 270 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.&lt;/p&gt;
 271
 272 &lt;p&gt;But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
 273 standards, here are a few that I know about.  This list is not
 274 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
 275 complete survey.  More definitions are available on the
 276 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard&quot;&gt;wikipedia
 277 page&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;/p&gt;
 278
 279 &lt;p&gt;First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
 280 Interoperability Framework version 1.0.  Really sad to notice that BSA
 281 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the
 282 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
 283 their own people.  Anyway, the definition is still available and it
 284 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
 285 specification on equal terms.&lt;/p&gt;
 286
 287 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 288
 289 &lt;p&gt;The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
 290 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
 291 open standard:&lt;/p&gt;
 292
 293 &lt;ul&gt;
 294
 295 &lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
 296 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
 297 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
 298 (consensus or majority decision etc.).&lt;/li&gt;
 299
 300 &lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
 301 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
 302 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
 303 nominal fee.&lt;/li&gt;
 304
 305 &lt;li&gt;The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
 306 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
 307 free basis.&lt;/li&gt;
 308
 309 &lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;
 310
 311 &lt;/ul&gt;
 312 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 313
 314 &lt;p&gt;Another one originates from my friends over at
 315 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.dkuug.dk/&quot;&gt;DKUUG&lt;/a&gt;, who coined and gathered
 316 support for &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aaben-standard.dk/&quot;&gt;this
 317 definition&lt;/a&gt; in 2004.  It even made it into the Danish parlament as
 318 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm&quot;&gt;their
 319 definition of a open standard&lt;/a&gt;.  Another from a different part of
 320 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.&lt;/p&gt;
 321
 322 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 323
 324 &lt;p&gt;En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:&lt;/p&gt;
 325
 326 &lt;ol&gt;
 327
 328 &lt;li&gt;Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
 329 tilgængelig.&lt;/li&gt;
 330
 331 &lt;li&gt;Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
 332 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.&lt;/li&gt;
 333
 334 &lt;li&gt;Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
 335 &quot;standardiseringsorganisation&quot;) via en åben proces.&lt;/li&gt;
 336
 337 &lt;/ol&gt;
 338
 339 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 340
 341 &lt;p&gt;Then there is &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html&quot;&gt;the
 342 definition&lt;/a&gt; from Free Software Foundation Europe.&lt;/p&gt;
 343
 344 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 345
 346 &lt;p&gt;An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is&lt;/p&gt;
 347
 348 &lt;ol&gt;
 349
 350 &lt;li&gt;subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
 351 manner equally available to all parties;&lt;/li&gt;
 352
 353 &lt;li&gt;without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
 354 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
 355 Standard themselves;&lt;/li&gt;
 356
 357 &lt;li&gt;free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
 358 any party or in any business model;&lt;/li&gt;
 359
 360 &lt;li&gt;managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
 361 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
 362 parties;&lt;/li&gt;
 363
 364 &lt;li&gt;available in multiple complete implementations by competing
 365 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
 366 parties.&lt;/li&gt;
 367
 368 &lt;/ol&gt;
 369
 370 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 371
 372 &lt;p&gt;A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
 373 its
 374 &lt;a href=&quot;http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf&quot;&gt;Open
 375 Standards Checklist&lt;/a&gt; with a fairly detailed description.&lt;/p&gt;
 376
 377 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 378 &lt;p&gt;Creation and Management of an Open Standard
 379
 380 &lt;ul&gt;
 381
 382 &lt;li&gt;Its development and management process must be collaborative and
 383   democratic:
 384
 385          &lt;ul&gt;
 386
 387          &lt;li&gt;Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
 388             participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
 389             imposed by the organization under which it is developed
 390             and managed.&lt;/li&gt;
 391
 392          &lt;li&gt;The processes must be documented and, through a known
 393             method, can be changed through input from all
 394             participants.&lt;/li&gt;
 395
 396          &lt;li&gt;The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
 397             the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.&lt;/li&gt;
 398
 399          &lt;li&gt;Development and management should strive for consensus,
 400             and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.&lt;/li&gt;
 401
 402          &lt;li&gt;The standard specification must be open to extensive
 403             public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
 404             comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.&lt;/li&gt;
 405
 406          &lt;/ul&gt;
 407
 408 &lt;/li&gt;
 409
 410 &lt;/ul&gt;
 411
 412 &lt;p&gt;Use and Licensing of an Open Standard&lt;/p&gt;
 413 &lt;ul&gt;
 414
 415 &lt;li&gt;The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
 416   and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
 417   implementations to the interface described in the standard without
 418   undue or restrictive constraints.  Interfaces include APIs,
 419   protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.&lt;/li&gt;
 420
 421 &lt;li&gt; The standard must not contain any proprietary &quot;hooks&quot; that create
 422   a technical or economic barriers&lt;/li&gt;
 423
 424 &lt;li&gt;Faithful implementations of the standard must
 425   interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
 426   program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
 427   programs and mutually to use the information which has been
 428   exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
 429   file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
 430   conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
 431   computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
 432   intended to function.&lt;/li&gt;
 433
 434 &lt;li&gt;It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
 435   standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
 436   must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.&lt;/li&gt;
 437
 438 &lt;li&gt;It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
 439   fees; also known as &quot;royalty free&quot;), worldwide, non-exclusive and
 440   perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
 441   sell products based on the standard.  The only exceptions are
 442   terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
 443   outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
 444   patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
 445   only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
 446
 447       &lt;ul&gt;
 448
 449       &lt;li&gt; May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
 450         licensees&#39; patent claims essential to practice that standard
 451         (also known as a reciprocity clause)&lt;/li&gt;
 452
 453       &lt;li&gt; May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
 454         or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
 455         essential to practice that standard (also known as a
 456         &quot;defensive suspension&quot; clause)&lt;/li&gt;
 457
 458       &lt;li&gt; The same licensing terms are available to every potential
 459         licensor&lt;/li&gt;
 460
 461       &lt;/ul&gt;
 462 &lt;/li&gt;
 463
 464 &lt;li&gt;The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
 465   implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
 466   or restricted licensing terms&lt;/li&gt;
 467
 468 &lt;/ul&gt;
 469
 470 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 471
 472 &lt;p&gt;It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
 473 there are so many of them.  As you can see, the same holds true for
 474 open standard definitions.  Most of the definitions have a lot in
 475 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
 476 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
 477 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
 478 competition to downplay the significance of open standards.  I hope we
 479 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
 480 Standards.&lt;/p&gt;
 481 </description>
 482         </item>
 483
 484         <item>
 485                 <title>Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?</title>
 486                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</link>
 487                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html</guid>
 488                 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 20:25:00 +0100</pubDate>
 489                 <description>&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;The
 490 Digistan definition&lt;/a&gt; of a free and open standard reads like this:&lt;/p&gt;
 491
 492 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 493
 494 &lt;p&gt;The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
 495 as follows:&lt;/p&gt;
 496
 497 &lt;ol&gt;
 498
 499 &lt;li&gt;A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
 500 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
 501 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.&lt;/li&gt;
 502
 503 &lt;li&gt;The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
 504 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
 505 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
 506 parties.&lt;/li&gt;
 507
 508 &lt;li&gt;The standard has been published and the standard specification
 509 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
 510 distribute, and use it freely.&lt;/li&gt;
 511
 512 &lt;li&gt;The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
 513 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.&lt;/li&gt;
 514
 515 &lt;li&gt;There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.&lt;/li&gt;
 516
 517 &lt;/ol&gt;
 518
 519 &lt;p&gt;The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
 520 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
 521 products based on the standard.&lt;/p&gt;
 522 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 523
 524 &lt;p&gt;For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
 525 and open standard according to this definition.  Here is a short
 526 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far.  I brought up the
 527 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
 528 &lt;a href=&quot;http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html&quot;&gt;in
 529 July 2009&lt;/a&gt;, for those that want to see some background information.
 530 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
 531 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;
 532
 533 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Free from vendor capture?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 534
 535 &lt;p&gt;As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
 536 Ogg Theora specification.  It can be argued that the
 537 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/&quot;&gt;Xiph foundation&lt;/A&gt; is such vendor, but
 538 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
 539 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
 540 obvious that this is a real risk.  One issue with the Xiph
 541 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
 542 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web.  I&#39;ve
 543 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
 544 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
 545 where is is spent in the foundation.  It is thus not obvious for an
 546 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
 547 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
 548 specification.  But it seem unlikely.&lt;/p&gt;
 549
 550 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 551
 552 &lt;p&gt;Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
 553 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled.  If Xiph foundation is
 554 controlled by a single vendor, it isn&#39;t, but I have not found any
 555 documentation indicating this.&lt;/p&gt;
 556
 557 &lt;p&gt;According to
 558 &lt;a href=&quot;http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf&quot;&gt;a report&lt;/a&gt;
 559 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
 560 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
 561 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
 562 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
 563 report is correct.&lt;/p&gt;
 564
 565 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Specification freely available?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 566
 567 &lt;p&gt;The specification for the &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/&quot;&gt;Ogg
 568 container format&lt;/a&gt; and both the
 569 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/&quot;&gt;Vorbis&lt;/a&gt; and
 570 &lt;a href=&quot;http://theora.org/doc/&quot;&gt;Theora&lt;/a&gt; codeces are available on
 571 the web.  This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
 572
 573 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 574
 575 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
 576 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
 577 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
 578 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
 579 specification compliance.
 580
 581 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 582
 583 &lt;p&gt;The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
 584 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt&quot;&gt;RFC 3533&lt;/a&gt;, and
 585 this is the term:&lt;p&gt;
 586
 587 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 588
 589 &lt;p&gt;This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
 590 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
 591 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
 592 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
 593 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
 594 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
 595 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
 596 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
 597 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
 598 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
 599 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
 600 translate it into languages other than English.&lt;/p&gt;
 601
 602 &lt;p&gt;The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
 603 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.&lt;/p&gt;
 604 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 605
 606 &lt;p&gt;All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
 607 this term seem to be fulfilled.  There might be a problem with the
 608 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
 609 thus reuse it in other specifications.  Not quite sure if that is a
 610 requirement for the Digistan definition.&lt;/p&gt;
 611
 612 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Royalty-free?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 613
 614 &lt;p&gt;There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
 615 Theora format.
 616 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782&quot;&gt;MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;
 617 and
 618 &lt;a href=&quot;http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit&quot;&gt;Steve
 619 Jobs&lt;/a&gt; in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
 620 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
 621 them.  Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
 622 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
 623 without paying any royalties.  For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
 624 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
 625 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.&lt;/p&gt;
 626
 627 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;No constraints on re-use?&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 628
 629 &lt;p&gt;I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.&lt;/p&gt;
 630
 631 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 632
 633 &lt;p&gt;3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
 634 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation.  Given the
 635 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
 636 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
 637 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
 638 this.&lt;/p&gt;
 639
 640 &lt;p&gt;It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
 641 see if they are free and open standards.&lt;/p&gt;
 642 </description>
 643         </item>
 644
 645         <item>
 646                 <title>The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru</title>
 647                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html</link>
 648                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html</guid>
 649                 <pubDate>Sat, 25 Dec 2010 10:50:00 +0100</pubDate>
 650                 <description>&lt;p&gt;A few days ago
 651 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece&quot;&gt;an
 652 article&lt;/a&gt; in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
 653 2.0 of
 654 &lt;a href=&quot;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework&quot;&gt;European
 655 Interoperability Framework&lt;/a&gt; has been successfully lobbied by the
 656 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
 657 Nothing very surprising there, given
 658 &lt;a href=&quot;http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe&quot;&gt;earlier
 659 reports&lt;/a&gt; on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
 660 this work.  But I find this very sad.   The definition of
 661 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt&quot;&gt;an
 662 open standard from version 1&lt;/a&gt; was very good, and something I
 663 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
 664 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;the
 665 definition from Digistan&lt;/A&gt;.  Version 2 have removed the open
 666 standard definition from its content.&lt;/p&gt;
 667
 668 &lt;p&gt;Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
 669 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
 670 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
 671 in the public sector in Peru.  As the text was not available from a
 672 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
 673 &lt;a href=&quot;http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html&quot;&gt;my
 674 source&lt;/a&gt; to ensure it is available also in the future.  Some
 675 background information about that story is available in
 676 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099&quot;&gt;an article&lt;/a&gt; from
 677 Linux Journal in 2002.&lt;/p&gt;
 678
 679 &lt;blockquote&gt;
 680 &lt;p&gt;Lima, 8th of April, 2002&lt;br&gt;
 681 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ&lt;br&gt;
 682 General Manager of Microsoft Perú&lt;/p&gt;
 683
 684 &lt;p&gt;Dear Sir:&lt;/p&gt;
 685
 686 &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;
 687
 688 &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;
 689
 690 &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;
 691
 692 &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;
 693
 694 &lt;p&gt;
 695 &lt;ul&gt;
 696 &lt;li&gt;Free access to public information by the citizen. &lt;/li&gt;
 697 &lt;li&gt;Permanence of public data. &lt;/li&gt;
 698 &lt;li&gt;Security of the State and citizens.&lt;/li&gt;
 699 &lt;/ul&gt;
 700 &lt;/p&gt;
 701
 702 &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;
 703
 704 &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;
 705
 706 &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;
 707
 708 &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;
 709
 710 &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;
 711
 712
 713 &lt;p&gt;From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:&lt;br&gt;
 714 &lt;li&gt;the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software&lt;/li&gt;
 715 &lt;li&gt;the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software&lt;/li&gt;
 716 &lt;li&gt;the law does not specify which concrete software to use&lt;/li&gt;
 717 &lt;li&gt;the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought&lt;/li&gt;
 718 &lt;li&gt;the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.&lt;/li&gt;
 719
 720 &lt;/p&gt;
 721
 722 &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;
 723
 724 &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;
 725
 726 &lt;p&gt;As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:&lt;/p&gt;
 727
 728 &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;
 729
 730 &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;
 731
 732 &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;
 733
 734 &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;
 735
 736 &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;
 737
 738 &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;
 739
 740 &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;
 741
 742 &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;
 743
 744 &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;
 745
 746 &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;
 747
 748 &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;
 749
 750 &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;
 751
 752 &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;
 753
 754 &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;
 755
 756 &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;
 757
 758 &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;
 759
 760 &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;
 761
 762 &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;
 763
 764 &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;
 765
 766 &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;
 767
 768 &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;
 769
 770 &lt;p&gt;On security:&lt;/p&gt;
 771
 772 &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;
 773
 774 &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;
 775
 776 &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;
 777
 778 &lt;p&gt;In respect of the guarantee:&lt;/p&gt;
 779
 780 &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;
 781
 782 &lt;p&gt;On Intellectual Property:&lt;/p&gt;
 783
 784 &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;
 785
 786 &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;
 787
 788 &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;
 789
 790 &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;
 791
 792 &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;
 793
 794 &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;
 795
 796 &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;
 797
 798 &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;
 799
 800 &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;
 801
 802 &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;
 803
 804 &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;
 805
 806 &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;
 807
 808 &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;
 809
 810 &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;
 811
 812 &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;
 813
 814 &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;
 815
 816 &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;
 817
 818 &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;
 819
 820 &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;
 821
 822 &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;
 823
 824 &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;
 825
 826 &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;
 827
 828 &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;
 829
 830 &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;
 831
 832 &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;
 833
 834 &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;
 835
 836 &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;
 837
 838 &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;
 839
 840 &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;
 841
 842 &lt;p&gt;Cordially,&lt;br&gt;
 843 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ&lt;br&gt;
 844 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.&lt;/p&gt;
 845 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
 846 </description>
 847         </item>
 848
 849         <item>
 850                 <title>Best å ikke fortelle noen at streaming er nedlasting...</title>
 851                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html</link>
 852                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best___ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html</guid>
 853                 <pubDate>Sat, 30 Oct 2010 11:20:00 +0200</pubDate>
 854                 <description>&lt;p&gt;I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta
 855 &lt;a href=&quot;http://nrkbeta.no/2010/10/27/bakom-blindpassasjer-del-1/&quot;&gt;om
 856 hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget&lt;/a&gt; i forbindelse med at
 857 filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et
 858 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;fritt og
 859 åpent format&lt;/a&gt;.  Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der 07:39.&lt;/p&gt;
 860
 861 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 862 &lt;p&gt;&quot;Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra
 863 nedlasting.  Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer
 864 som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den
 865 nødvendige forkunnskapen.&quot;&lt;/p&gt;
 866
 867 &lt;p&gt;Haha.  Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å
 868 beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig.  Å skrive noe slikt
 869 er å forlede leseren.&lt;/p&gt;
 870
 871 &lt;p&gt;Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun
 872 vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.&lt;/p&gt;
 873
 874 &lt;p&gt;Anbefaler forresten å lese
 875 &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;
 876 om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer
 877 (DRM) fungerte.  Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo
 878 derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass,
 879 men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge
 880 opp under.&lt;/p&gt;
 881 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 882
 883 &lt;p&gt;Ca. 20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i
 884 NRKBeta:&lt;/p&gt;
 885
 886 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 887 &lt;p&gt;From: Anders Hofseth &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
 888 &lt;br&gt;To: &quot;pere@hungry.com&quot; &amp;lt;pere@hungry.com&gt;
 889 &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;
 890 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: &quot;Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1&quot;
 891 &lt;br&gt;Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:58:44 +0200&lt;/p&gt;
 892
 893 &lt;p&gt;Hei Petter.
 894 &lt;br&gt;Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon,
 895 men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt
 896 om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
 897 særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.&lt;/p&gt;
 898
 899 &lt;p&gt;Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er
 900 fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
 901 konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...&lt;/p&gt;
 902
 903 &lt;p&gt;Med hilsen,
 904 &lt;br&gt;-anders&lt;/p&gt;
 905
 906 &lt;p&gt;Ring meg om noe er uklart: 95XXXXXXX&lt;/p&gt;
 907 &lt;/blockquote&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
 908
 909 &lt;p&gt;Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte
 910 over følgende svar.  I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas
 911 kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet.
 912 Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å
 913 unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.&lt;/p&gt;
 914
 915 &lt;p&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;
 916 &lt;p&gt;From: Petter Reinholdtsen &amp;lt;pere@hungry.com&gt;
 917 &lt;br&gt;To: Anders Hofseth &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
 918 &lt;br&gt;Cc: Eirik Solheim &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;,
 919 &lt;br&gt;        Jon Ståle Carlsen &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;,
 920 &lt;br&gt;        Henrik Lied &amp;lt;XXX@gmail.com&gt;
 921 &lt;br&gt;Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: &quot;Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1&quot;
 922 &lt;br&gt;Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:24:34 +0200&lt;/p&gt;
 923
 924 &lt;p&gt;[Anders Hofseth]
 925 &lt;br&gt;&gt; Hei Petter.&lt;/p&gt;
 926
 927 &lt;p&gt;Hei.&lt;/p&gt;
 928
 929 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
 930 &lt;br&gt;&gt; om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
 931 &lt;br&gt;&gt; å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
 932 &lt;br&gt;&gt; særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.&lt;/p&gt;
 933
 934 &lt;p&gt;Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon.  Den
 935 vil nok fortsette en stund til.  :)&lt;/p&gt;
 936
 937 &lt;p&gt;Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med
 938 vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne
 939 fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.&lt;/p&gt;
 940
 941 &lt;p&gt;Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke
 942 faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold
 943 som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker
 944 det.&lt;/p&gt;
 945
 946 &lt;p&gt;Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på
 947 web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta.
 948 Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)&lt;/p&gt;
 949
 950 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
 951 &lt;br&gt;&gt; og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
 952 &lt;br&gt;&gt; konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...&lt;/p&gt;
 953
 954 &lt;p&gt;Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og
 955 heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen
 956 mot de som vil låse kulturen inne.  Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK
 957 godtar å forlede publikum.  Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som
 958 skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i
 959 formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til
 960 H.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).&lt;/p&gt;
 961
 962 &lt;p&gt;At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive
 963 påstander om at &quot;streaming beskytter mot nedlasting&quot; som bare er egnet
 964 til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.&lt;/p&gt;
 965
 966 &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
 967 titt på
 968 &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;.
 969 for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H.264 innebærer.&lt;/p&gt;
 970
 971 &lt;p&gt;Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke
 972 kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade
 973 samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall
 974 synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er
 975 langt på overtid.&lt;/p&gt;
 976
 977 &lt;p&gt;&gt; Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX&lt;/p&gt;
 978
 979 &lt;p&gt;Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på.
 980 Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en
 981 gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted
 982 for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med
 983 ryggraden på plass.&lt;/p&gt;
 984
 985 &lt;p&gt;PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.&lt;/p&gt;
 986
 987 &lt;p&gt;Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet.
 988 &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
 989 &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
 990 NRK1. :)&lt;/p&gt;
 991
 992 &lt;p&gt;Vennlig hilsen,
 993 &lt;br&gt;--
 994 &lt;br&gt;Petter Reinholdtsen&lt;/p&gt;
 995 </description>
 996         </item>
 997
 998         <item>
 999                 <title>Terms of use for video produced by a Canon IXUS 130 digital camera</title>
1000                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</link>
1001                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</guid>
1002                 <pubDate>Thu, 9 Sep 2010 23:55:00 +0200</pubDate>
1003                 <description>&lt;p&gt;A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital
1004 camera, a Canon IXUS 130.  It was instructive and very disturbing to
1005 be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to
1006 specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera.
1007 Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras
1008 are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway.  What is the
1009 problem, you might ask?  It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the
1010 MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences
1011 without asking for permissions that is at risk.
1012
1013 &lt;p&gt;On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is
1014 written:&lt;/p&gt;
1015
1016 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1017 &lt;p&gt;This product is licensed under AT&amp;T patents for the MPEG-4 standard
1018 and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding
1019 MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and
1020 non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the
1021 AT&amp;T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.&lt;/p&gt;
1022
1023 &lt;p&gt;No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4
1024 standard.&lt;/p&gt;
1025 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1026
1027 &lt;p&gt;In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology
1028 (MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and
1029 non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations
1030 holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.&lt;/p&gt;
1031
1032 &lt;p&gt;This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to
1033 read
1034 &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
1035 Our Civilization&#39;s Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the
1036 MPEG-LA&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Eugenia Loli-Queru and
1037 &quot;&lt;a href=&quot;http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/&quot;&gt;H.264 Is Not
1038 The Sort Of Free That Matters&lt;/a&gt;&quot; by Simon Phipps to learn more about
1039 the issue.  The solution is to support the
1040 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;free and
1041 open standards&lt;/a&gt; for video, like &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.theora.org/&quot;&gt;Ogg
1042 Theora&lt;/a&gt;, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.&lt;/p&gt;
1043 </description>
1044         </item>
1045
1046         <item>
1047                 <title>Fri og åpen standard, slik Digistan ser det</title>
1048                 <link>http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html</link>
1049                 <guid isPermaLink="true">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og__pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html</guid>
1050                 <pubDate>Sat, 31 Jan 2009 23:10:00 +0100</pubDate>
1051                 <description>&lt;p&gt;Det er mange ulike definisjoner om hva en åpen standard er for noe,
1052 og NUUG hadde &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt&quot;&gt;en
1053 pressemelding om dette sommeren 2005&lt;/a&gt;.  Der ble definisjonen til
1054 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.aaben-standard.dk/&quot;&gt;DKUUG&lt;/a&gt;,
1055 &lt;a href=&quot;http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=19529&quot;&gt;EU-kommissionens
1056 European Interoperability Framework ( side 9)&lt;/a&gt; og
1057 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.teknologiradet.no/files/7polert_copy.htm&quot;&gt;teknologirådet&lt;/a&gt; omtalt.&lt;/p&gt;
1058
1059 &lt;p&gt;Siden den gang har regjeringens standardiseringsråd dukket opp, og de
1060 ser ut til å har tatt utgangspunkt i EU-kommisjonens definisjon i
1061 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/kampanjer/standardiseringsradet/arbeidsmetodikk.html?id=476407&quot;&gt;sin
1062 arbeidsmetodikk&lt;/a&gt;.  Personlig synes jeg det er en god ide, da
1063 kravene som stilles der gjør at alle markedsaktører får like vilkår,
1064 noe som kommer kundene til gode ved hjelp av økt konkurranse.&lt;/p&gt;
1065
1066 &lt;p&gt;I sommer kom det en ny definisjon på banen.
1067 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/&quot;&gt;Digistan&lt;/a&gt; lanserte
1068 &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition&quot;&gt;en
1069 definisjon på en fri og åpen standard&lt;/a&gt;.  Jeg liker måten de bryter
1070 ut av diskusjonen om hva som kreves for å kalle noe en åpen standard
1071 ved å legge på et ord og poengtere at en standard som er både åpen og
1072 fri har noen spesielle krav.  Her er den definisjonen etter rask
1073 oversettelse fra engelsk til norsk av meg:&lt;/p&gt;
1074
1075 &lt;blockquote&gt;
1076 &lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Definisjonen av en fri og åpen standard&lt;/strong&gt;&lt;/p&gt;
1077
1078 &lt;p&gt;Den digitale standardorganisasjonen definierer fri og åpen standard
1079 som følger:&lt;/p&gt;
1080 &lt;ul&gt;
1081 &lt;li&gt;En fri og åpen standard er immun for leverandørinnlåsing i alle
1082 stadier av dens livssyklus.  Immuniteten fra leverandørinnlåsing gjør
1083 det mulig å fritt bruke, forbedre, stole på og utvide en standard over
1084 tid.&lt;/li&gt;
1085 &lt;li&gt;Standarden er adoptert og vil bli vedlikeholdt av en ikke-kommersiell
1086 organisasjon, og dens pågående utvikling gjøres med en åpen
1087 beslutningsprosedyre som er tilgjengelig for alle som er interessert i
1088 å delta.&lt;/li&gt;
1089 &lt;li&gt;Standarden er publisert og spesifikasjonsdokumentet er fritt
1090 tilgjengelig.  Det må være tillatt for alle å kopiere, distribuere og
1091 bruke den uten begresninger.&lt;/li&gt;
1092 &lt;li&gt;Patentene som muligens gjelder (deler av) standarden er gjort
1093 ugjenkallelig tilgjengelig uten krav om betaling.&lt;/li&gt;
1094 &lt;li&gt;Det er ingen begresninger i gjenbruk av standarden.&lt;/li&gt;
1095 &lt;/ul&gt;
1096 &lt;p&gt;Det økonomiske resultatet av en fri og åpen standard, som kan
1097 måles, er at det muliggjør perfekt konkurranse mellom leverandører av
1098 produkter basert på standarden.&lt;/p&gt;
1099 &lt;/blockquote&gt;
1100
1101 &lt;p&gt;(Tar gjerne imot forbedringer av oversettelsen.)&lt;/p&gt;
1102 </description>
1103         </item>
1104
1105         </channel>
1106 </rss>