blog/tags/standard/index.html

   1 <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
   2         "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
   3 <html>
   4  <head>
   5   <title>Petter Reinholdtsen: Entries Tagged standard</title>
   6   <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/style.css">
   7   <link rel="alternate" title="RSS Feed" href="standard.rss" type="application/rss+xml">
   8  </head>
   9  <body>
  10
  11  <div class="title">
  12   <h1>
  13        <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/">Petter Reinholdtsen</a>
  14
  15   </h1>
  16
  17  </div>
  18
  19  <p>Entries tagged "standard".</p>
  20
  21
  22
  23
  24 <div class="entry">
  25  <div class="title">
  26  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ODF_bruk_i_staten__ikke_helt_p___plass.html">ODF-bruk i staten, ikke helt på plass</a>
  27  </div>
  28  <div class="date">
  29   2009-01-22 23:00
  30  </div>
  31
  32  <div class="body">
  33
  34 <p>I går publiserte
  35 <a href="http://universitas.no/nyhet/52776/">Universitas</a>,
  36 <a href="http://www.dagensit.no/trender/article1588462.ece">Dagens-IT</a>
  37 og <a href="http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article118622.ece">Computerworld
  38 Norge</a> en sak om at de ansatte ved Universitetet i Oslo ikke følger
  39 regjeringens pålegg om å publisere i HTML, PDF eller ODF.  Det er bra
  40 at det kommer litt fokus på dette, og jeg håper noen journalister tar
  41 en titt på de andre statlige instansene også.</p>
  42
  43 <p>Skulle ønske det var en enkel måte å sjekke om ODF-dokumenter er i
  44 henholdt til ODF-spesifikasjonen, og en måte å teste om programmer som
  45 hevder å støtte ODF forstår alle delene av ODF-spesifikasjonen.
  46 Kjenner kun til ufullstendige løsninger for slikt.</p>
  47
  48  </div>
  49  <div class="tags">
  50
  51
  52
  53   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
  54
  55  </div>
  56 </div>
  57 <div class="padding"></div>
  58
  59 <div class="entry">
  60  <div class="title">
  61  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Fri_og___pen_standard__slik_Digistan_ser_det.html">Fri og åpen standard, slik Digistan ser det</a>
  62  </div>
  63  <div class="date">
  64   2009-01-31 23:10
  65  </div>
  66
  67  <div class="body">
  68
  69 <p>Det er mange ulike definisjoner om hva en åpen standard er for noe,
  70 og NUUG hadde <a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">en
  71 pressemelding om dette sommeren 2005</a>.  Der ble definisjonen til
  72 <a href="http://www.aaben-standard.dk/">DKUUG</a>,
  73 <a href="http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=19529">EU-kommissionens
  74 European Interoperability Framework ( side 9)</a> og
  75 <a href="http://www.teknologiradet.no/files/7polert_copy.htm">teknologirådet</a> omtalt.</p>
  76
  77 <p>Siden den gang har regjeringens standardiseringsråd dukket opp, og de
  78 ser ut til å har tatt utgangspunkt i EU-kommisjonens definisjon i
  79 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/kampanjer/standardiseringsradet/arbeidsmetodikk.html?id=476407">sin
  80 arbeidsmetodikk</a>.  Personlig synes jeg det er en god ide, da
  81 kravene som stilles der gjør at alle markedsaktører får like vilkår,
  82 noe som kommer kundene til gode ved hjelp av økt konkurranse.</p>
  83
  84 <p>I sommer kom det en ny definisjon på banen.
  85 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/">Digistan</a> lanserte
  86 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">en
  87 definisjon på en fri og åpen standard</a>.  Jeg liker måten de bryter
  88 ut av diskusjonen om hva som kreves for å kalle noe en åpen standard
  89 ved å legge på et ord og poengtere at en standard som er både åpen og
  90 fri har noen spesielle krav.  Her er den definisjonen etter rask
  91 oversettelse fra engelsk til norsk av meg:</p>
  92
  93 <blockquote>
  94 <p><strong>Definisjonen av en fri og åpen standard</strong></p>
  95
  96 <p>Den digitale standardorganisasjonen definierer fri og åpen standard
  97 som følger:</p>
  98 <ul>
  99 <li>En fri og åpen standard er immun for leverandørinnlåsing i alle
 100 stadier av dens livssyklus.  Immuniteten fra leverandørinnlåsing gjør
 101 det mulig å fritt bruke, forbedre, stole på og utvide en standard over
 102 tid.</li>
 103 <li>Standarden er adoptert og vil bli vedlikeholdt av en ikke-kommersiell
 104 organisasjon, og dens pågående utvikling gjøres med en åpen
 105 beslutningsprosedyre som er tilgjengelig for alle som er interessert i
 106 å delta.</li>
 107 <li>Standarden er publisert og spesifikasjonsdokumentet er fritt
 108 tilgjengelig.  Det må være tillatt for alle å kopiere, distribuere og
 109 bruke den uten begresninger.</li>
 110 <li>Patentene som muligens gjelder (deler av) standarden er gjort
 111 ugjenkallelig tilgjengelig uten krav om betaling.</li>
 112 <li>Det er ingen begresninger i gjenbruk av standarden.</li>
 113 </ul>
 114 <p>Det økonomiske resultatet av en fri og åpen standard, som kan
 115 måles, er at det muliggjør perfekt konkurranse mellom leverandører av
 116 produkter basert på standarden.</p>
 117 </blockquote>
 118
 119 <p>(Tar gjerne imot forbedringer av oversettelsen.)</p>
 120
 121  </div>
 122  <div class="tags">
 123
 124
 125
 126   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 127
 128  </div>
 129 </div>
 130 <div class="padding"></div>
 131
 132 <div class="entry">
 133  <div class="title">
 134  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hva_er_egentlig_en___pen_standard_.html">Hva er egentlig en åpen standard?</a>
 135  </div>
 136  <div class="date">
 137   2009-03-28 10:50
 138  </div>
 139
 140  <div class="body">
 141
 142 <p>Jeg møter alle slags interessante mennesker på min vei, og et møte
 143 jeg lærte mye av var å treffe på en svært kompetent IT-fyr som
 144 benektet ting jeg anser som åpenbart og selvfølgelig når det gjelder
 145 standarder.  Det var interessant, da det fikk meg til å tenke litt
 146 nøyere på hvilke mekanismer som ligger til grunn for at noe oppfattes
 147 som en standard.  Det hele startet med arbeid rundt integrering av NSS
 148 LDAP mot Active Directory, og problemer som oppstår pga. at Active
 149 Directory ikke følger LDAP-spesifikasjonen som dokumentert i RFCer fra
 150 IETF (konkret, AD returnerer kun et subset av attributter hvis det er
 151 mer enn 1500 atributter av en gitt type i et LDAP-objekt, og en må be
 152 om resten i bolker av 1500).  Jeg hevdet måten dette ble gjort på brøt
 153 med LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og henviste til hvor i LDAP-spesifikasjonen
 154 fra IETF det sto at oppførselen til AD ikke fulgte
 155 LDAP-spesifikasjonen.  AD-spesialisten overrasket meg da ved å
 156 fortelle at IETF var ikke de som definerte LDAP-spesifikasjonen, og at
 157 Active Directory ikke brøt den virkelige LDAP-spesifikasjonen som han
 158 mente lå til grunn.  Jeg ble spesielt overrasket over denne
 159 tilnærmingen til problemstillingen, da til og med Microsoft så vidt
 160 jeg kan se anerkjenner IETF som organisasjonen som definerer
 161 LDAP-spesifikasjonen.  Jeg fikk aldri spurt hvem han mente sto bak den
 162 egentlige LDAP-spesifikasjonen, da det var irrelevant for problemet vi
 163 måtte løse (få Linux og AD til å fungere sammen).  Dette møtet
 164 fortalte meg uansett at det ikke er gitt at alle aktører er enige om
 165 hva en standard er, og hva som er kilden til en gitt standard.  Det er
 166 vanskelig å enes om felles standarder før en først enes om hvem som
 167 bestemmer hva en gitt standard innebærer.</p>
 168
 169 <p>Hva er så en standard?  I sin abstrakte form er det noe å samles
 170 om.  På engelsk er en av betydningene fane brukt i krig, du vet, den
 171 type fane en samlet seg rundt på kamplassen i riddertiden.  En
 172 standard definerer altså et felleskap, noen som har noe felles.  Det
 173 er naturligvis mange måter å utgjøre et felleskap på.  En kan
 174 f.eks. enes om å gjøre alt slik som Ole gjør det, og dermed si at Oles
 175 oppførsel er standard.  Hver gang Ole endrer oppførsel endrer også
 176 standarden seg uten noe mer organisering og prosedyre.  En variant av
 177 dette er å gjøre slik som Ole har gjort det i stedet for slik Ole til
 178 enhver til gjør noe.  Dette er ofte litt enklere å forholde seg til,
 179 da en slipper å sjekke med Ole hver gang for å vite hvordan ting skal
 180 gjøres nå, men hvis det Ole gjorde noe dumt den gang en bestemte seg
 181 for å følge Ole, så er det vanskeligere å få endret oppførsel for å
 182 unngå dette dumme.</p>
 183
 184 <p>En kan også ta det et skritt videre, og istedet for å basere seg på
 185 enkeltpersoners oppførsel sette seg ned og bli enige om hvordan en
 186 skal gjøre ting, dvs. lage et felleskap basert på konsensus.  Dette
 187 tar naturligvis litt mer tid (en må diskutere ting i forkant før en
 188 kan sette igang), men det kan bidra til at den oppførselen en
 189 planlegger å benytte seg av er mer gjennomtenkt.  Det ender også
 190 typisk opp med en beskrivelse av ønsket oppførsel som flere kan forstå
 191 - da flere har vært involvert i å utarbeide beskrivelsen.</p>
 192
 193 <p>Dette er dessverre ikke alt som trengs for å forstå hva en åpen
 194 standard er for noe.  Der alle kan se på hvordan folk oppfører seg, og
 195 dermed har valget om de vil oppføre seg likt eller ikke, så er det
 196 endel juridiske faktorer som gjør det hele mer komplisert -
 197 opphavsretten og patentlovgivningen for å være helt konkret.  For å gi
 198 et eksempel. Hvis noen blir enige om å alltid plystre en bestemt
 199 melodi når de møtes, for å identifisere hverandre, så kan
 200 opphavsretten brukes til å styre hvem som får lov til å gjøre dette.
 201 De har standardisert hvordan de kjenner igjen alle som følger denne
 202 standarden, men ikke alle har nødvendigvis lov til å følge den.
 203 Musikk er opphavsrettsbeskyttet, og fremføring av musikk i
 204 offentligheten er opphavsmannens enerett (dvs. et monopol).  Det vil i
 205 sin ytterste konsekvens si at alle som skal plystre en
 206 opphavsrettsbeskyttet melodi i det offentlige rom må ha godkjenning
 207 fra opphavsmannen.  Har en ikke dette, så bryter en loven og kan
 208 straffes.  Det er dermed mulig for opphavsmannen å kontrollere hvem
 209 som får lov til å benytte seg av denne standarden.  En annen variant
 210 er hvis en standard er dokumentert, så er dokumentet som definerer
 211 standarden (spesifikasjonen) beskyttet av opphavsretten, og det er
 212 dermed mulig for rettighetsinnehaver å begrense tilgang til
 213 spesifikasjonen, og slik styre hvem som kan ta i bruk standarden på
 214 den måten.</p>
 215
 216 <p>Der opphavsretten innvilger et monopol på kunstneriske uttrykk med
 217 verkshøyde, innvilger patentlovgivningen monopol på ideer.  Hvis en
 218 slik patentert idé (fortrinnsvis uttrykt i en teknisk innretning, men
 219 det er kompliserende faktorer som gjør at det ikke er et krav) trengs
 220 for å ta i bruk en standard, så vil den som innehar patent kunne styre
 221 hvem som får ta i bruk standarden.  Det er dermed ikke gitt at alle
 222 kan delta i et standard-felleskap, og hvis de kan delta, så er det
 223 ikke sikkert at det er på like vilkår.  F.eks. kan rettighetsinnehaver
 224 sette vilkår som gjør at noen faller utenfor, det være seg av
 225 finansielle, avtalemessige eller prinsipielle årsaker.  Vanlige slike
 226 vilkår er "må betale litt for hver kunde/bruker" som utelukker de som
 227 gir bort en løsning gratis og "må gi fra seg retten til å håndheve
 228 sine egne patentrettigheter ovenfor rettighetshaver" som utelukker
 229 alle som ønsker å beholde den muligheten.</p>
 230
 231 <p>En åpen standard innebærer for meg at alle kan få innsikt i en
 232 komplett beskrivelse av oppførsel som standarden skal dekke, og at
 233 ingen kan nektes å benytte seg av standarden.  Noen mener at det
 234 holder at alle med tilstrekkelig finansiering kan få tilgang til
 235 spesifikasjonen og at en kun har finansielle krav til bruk.
 236 Pga. denne konflikten har et nytt begrep spredt seg de siste årene,
 237 nemlig fri og åpen standard, der en har gjort det klart at alle må ha
 238 komplett og lik tilgang til spesifikasjoner og retten til å gjøre bruk
 239 av en standard for at en standard skal kunne kalles fri og åpen.</p>
 240
 241  </div>
 242  <div class="tags">
 243
 244
 245
 246   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 247
 248  </div>
 249 </div>
 250 <div class="padding"></div>
 251
 252 <div class="entry">
 253  <div class="title">
 254  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardize_on_protocols_and_formats__not_vendors_and_applications.html">Standardize on protocols and formats, not vendors and applications</a>
 255  </div>
 256  <div class="date">
 257   2009-03-30 11:50
 258  </div>
 259
 260  <div class="body">
 261
 262 <p>Where I work at the University of Oslo, one decision stand out as a
 263 very good one to form a long lived computer infrastructure.  It is the
 264 simple one, lost by many in todays computer industry: Standardize on
 265 open network protocols and open exchange/storage formats, not applications.
 266 Applications come and go, while protocols and files tend to stay, and
 267 thus one want to make it easy to change application and vendor, while
 268 avoiding conversion costs and locking users to a specific platform or
 269 application.</p>
 270
 271 <p>This approach make it possible to replace the client applications
 272 independently of the server applications.  One can even allow users to
 273 use several different applications as long as they handle the selected
 274 protocol and format.  In the normal case, only one client application
 275 is recommended and users only get help if they choose to use this
 276 application, but those that want to deviate from the easy path are not
 277 blocked from doing so.</p>
 278
 279 <p>It also allow us to replace the server side without forcing the
 280 users to replace their applications, and thus allow us to select the
 281 best server implementation at any moment, when scale and resouce
 282 requirements change.</p>
 283
 284 <p>I strongly recommend standardizing - on open network protocols and
 285 open formats, but I would never recommend standardizing on a single
 286 application that do not use open network protocol or open formats.</p>
 287
 288  </div>
 289  <div class="tags">
 290
 291
 292
 293   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian">debian</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 294
 295  </div>
 296 </div>
 297 <div class="padding"></div>
 298
 299 <div class="entry">
 300  <div class="title">
 301  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Hvorfor_jeg_ikke_bruker_eFaktura.html">Hvorfor jeg ikke bruker eFaktura</a>
 302  </div>
 303  <div class="date">
 304   2009-04-23 23:00
 305  </div>
 306
 307  <div class="body">
 308
 309 <p>Telenors annonsering om å kreve 35 kroner i gebyr fra alle som
 310 ønsker papirfaktura har satt sinnene i kok, og pressedekningen så
 311 langt snakker om at eldre og folk som ikke behersker data vil få en
 312 urimelig ekstrakostnad.  Jeg tror ikke jeg passer inn i noen av de
 313 kategoriene, men velger å holde meg unna eFaktura - som er det
 314 Telenor ønsker å få folk over på - pga. systemets egenskaper.</p>
 315
 316 <p>Slik jeg har sett eFaktura til forbrukere så langt, så sender
 317 selger en elektronisk beskjed til kundens bank, som legger ut
 318 informasjon om fakturaen i nettbanken for godkjenning.  Personlig
 319 ville jeg sett det som mer naturlig at det gikk en elektronisk beskjed
 320 fra selger til kunde, dvs meg, og at jeg så kunne bruke den videre
 321 mot banken eller andre hvis jeg ønsket dette.  Mine innkjøp og
 322 regninger er jo en sak mellom meg og mine leverandører, ikke en sak
 323 mellom min bank og mine leverandører.  Kun hvis jeg ønsker å betale
 324 fakturaen skal banken involveres.  En faktura bør jo inn i
 325 regnskapet, og jeg ønsker mulighet til å legge det inn der.  Når
 326 fakturaen sendes til banken i stedet for meg, blir det vanskeligere.
 327 Hele eFaktura-modellen virker på meg som en umyndiggjøring av meg
 328 som kunde.</p>
 329
 330 <p>I tillegg har jeg ikke vært i stand til å finne
 331 eFaktura-formatets spesifikasjon, og det ser ut til at utsending av
 332 slike krever dyre avtaler med bankene for å få lov til å sende ut
 333 eFaktura til kunder.  Jeg ser vel helst at fakturering på
 334 elektroniske formater kan gjøres f.eks. via epost eller HTTP uten å
 335 måtte betale mellommenn for retten til å lever ut en faktura, og
 336 liker rett og slett ikke dagens faktureringsmodeller.</p>
 337
 338  </div>
 339  <div class="tags">
 340
 341
 342
 343   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 344
 345  </div>
 346 </div>
 347 <div class="padding"></div>
 348
 349 <div class="entry">
 350  <div class="title">
 351  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standarder_fungerer_best_n__r_en_samler_seg_rundt_dem.html">Standarder fungerer best når en samler seg rundt dem</a>
 352  </div>
 353  <div class="date">
 354   2009-05-19 11:30
 355  </div>
 356
 357  <div class="body">
 358
 359 <p>En standard er noe man samler seg rundt, ut fra ideen om at en får
 360 fordeler når mange står sammen.  Jo flere som står sammen, jo
 361 bedre.  Når en vet dette, blir det litt merkelig å lese noen av
 362 uttalelsene som er kommet inn til
 363 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2/horingsuttalelser.html?id=549423">høringen
 364 om versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder</a>.  Blant
 365 annet Abelia, NHO og Microsoft tror det er lurt med flere standarder
 366 innenfor samme område.  Det blir som å si at det er fint om Norge
 367 standardiserte både på A4- og Letter-størrelser på arkene, ulik
 368 sporvidde på jernbaneskinnene, meter og fot som lengemål, eller
 369 høyre- og venstrekjøring - slik at en kan konkurrere på hvilken
 370 standard som er best.  De fleste forstår heldigvis at dette ikke
 371 bidrar positivt.</p>
 372
 373  </div>
 374  <div class="tags">
 375
 376
 377
 378   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 379
 380  </div>
 381 </div>
 382 <div class="padding"></div>
 383
 384 <div class="entry">
 385  <div class="title">
 386  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Microsofts_misvisende_argumentasjon_rundt_multimediaformater.html">Microsofts misvisende argumentasjon rundt multimediaformater</a>
 387  </div>
 388  <div class="date">
 389   2009-06-26-13:30
 390  </div>
 391
 392  <div class="body">
 393
 394 <p>I
 395 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/Hoeringer/Refkat_V2/MicrosoftNorge.pdf">Microsoft
 396 sin høringsuttalelse</a> til
 397 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html?id=549422">forslag
 398 til versjon 2 av statens referansekatalog over standarder</a>, lirer
 399 de av seg følgende FUD-perle:</p>
 400
 401 <p><blockquote>"Vorbis, OGG, Theora og FLAC er alle tekniske
 402   spesifikasjoner overordnet styrt av xiph.org, som er en
 403   ikke-kommersiell organisasjon.  Etablerte og anerkjente
 404   standardiseringsorganisasjoner, som Oasis, W3C og Ecma, har en godt
 405   innarbeidet vedlikeholds- og forvaltningsprosess av en standard.
 406   Det er derimot helt opp til hver enkelt organisasjon å bestemme
 407   hvordan tekniske spesifikasjoner videreutvikles og endres, og disse
 408   spesifikasjonene bør derfor ikke defineres som åpne
 409   standarder."</blockquote></p>
 410
 411 <p>De vokter seg vel for å nevne den anerkjente
 412 standardiseringsorganisasjonen IETF, som er organisasjonen bak HTTP,
 413 IP og det meste av protokoller på Internet, og RFC-standardene som
 414 IETF står bak.  Ogg er spesifisert i
 415 <a href="http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3533.txt">RFC 3533</a>, og er uten
 416 tvil å anse som en åpen standard.  Vorbis er
 417 <a href="http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc5215.txt">RFC 5215</a>.  Theora er
 418
 419 under standardisering via IETF, med
 420 <a href="http://svn.xiph.org/trunk/theora/doc/draft-ietf-avt-rtp-theora-00.txt">siste
 421 utkast publisert 2006-07-21</a> (riktignok er dermed teksten ikke
 422 skrevet i stein ennå, men det blir neppe endringer som ikke er
 423 bakoverkompatibel).  De kan være inne på noe når det gjelder FLAC da
 424 jeg ikke finner tegn til at <a
 425 href="http://flac.sourceforge.net/format.html">spesifikasjonen
 426 tilgjengelig på web</a> er på tur via noen
 427 standardiseringsorganisasjon, men i og med at folkene bak Ogg, Theora
 428 og Vorbis også har involvert seg i Flac siden 2003, så ser jeg ikke
 429 bort fra at også den organiseres via IETF.  Jeg kjenner personlig lite
 430 til FLAC.</p>
 431
 432 <p>Uredelig argumentasjon bør en holde seg for god til å komme med,
 433 spesielt når det er så enkelt i dagens Internet-hverdag å gå
 434 misvisende påstander etter i sømmene.</p>
 435
 436  </div>
 437  <div class="tags">
 438
 439
 440
 441   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
 442
 443  </div>
 444 </div>
 445 <div class="padding"></div>
 446
 447 <div class="entry">
 448  <div class="title">
 449  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningen_forlater_prinsippet_om_ingen_royalty_betaling_i_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html">Regjerningen forlater prinsippet om ingen royalty-betaling i standardkatalogen versjon 2</a>
 450  </div>
 451  <div class="date">
 452   2009-07-06 21:00
 453  </div>
 454
 455  <div class="body">
 456
 457 <p>Jeg ble glad da regjeringen
 458 <a href="http://www.digi.no/817635/her-er-statens-nye-it-standarder">annonserte</a>
 459 versjon 2 av
 460 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/FAD/Vedlegg/IKT-politikk/Referansekatalogen_versjon2.pdf">statens
 461 referansekatalog over standarder</a>, men trist da jeg leste hva som
 462 faktisk var vedtatt etter
 463 <a href="http://www.regjeringen.no/nb/dep/fad/dok/horinger/horingsdokumenter/2009/horing---referansekatalog-versjon-2.html">høringen</a>.
 464 De fleste av de valgte åpne standardene er gode og vil bidra til at
 465 alle kan delta på like vilkår i å lage løsninger for staten, men
 466 noen av dem blokkerer for de som ikke har anledning til å benytte
 467 spesifikasjoner som krever betaling for bruk (såkalt
 468 royalty-betaling).  Det gjelder spesifikt for H.264 for video og MP3
 469 for lyd.  Så lenge bruk av disse var valgfritt mens Ogg Theora og Ogg
 470 Vorbis var påkrevd, kunne alle som ønsket å spille av video og lyd
 471 fra statens websider gjøre dette uten å måtte bruke programmer der
 472 betaling for bruk var nødvendig.  Når det nå er gjort valgfritt for
 473 de statlige etatene å bruke enten H.264 eller Theora (og MP3 eler
 474 Vorbis), så vil en bli tvunget til å forholde seg til
 475 royalty-belastede standarder for å få tilgang til videoen og
 476 lyden.</p>
 477
 478 <p>Det gjør meg veldig trist at regjeringen har forlatt prinsippet om
 479 at alle standarder som ble valgt til å være påkrevd i katalogen skulle
 480 være uten royalty-betaling.  Jeg håper det ikke betyr at en har mistet
 481 all forståelse for hvilke prinsipper som må følges for å oppnå
 482 likeverdig konkurranse mellom aktørene i IT-bransjen.  NUUG advarte
 483 mot dette i
 484 <a href="http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2">sin
 485 høringsuttalelse</a>, men ser ut til å ha blitt ignorert.</p>
 486
 487  </div>
 488  <div class="tags">
 489
 490
 491
 492   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
 493
 494  </div>
 495 </div>
 496 <div class="padding"></div>
 497
 498 <div class="entry">
 499  <div class="title">
 500  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Regjerningens_oppsummering_av_h__ringen_om_standardkatalogen_versjon_2.html">Regjerningens oppsummering av høringen om standardkatalogen versjon 2</a>
 501  </div>
 502  <div class="date">
 503   2009-07-09 14:40
 504  </div>
 505
 506  <div class="body">
 507
 508 <p>For å forstå mer om hvorfor standardkatalogens versjon 2 ble som
 509 den ble, har jeg bedt om kopi fra FAD av dokumentene som ble lagt frem
 510 for regjeringen da de tok sin avgjørelse.  De er nå lagt ut på NUUGs
 511 wiki, direkte tilgjengelig via "<a
 512 href="http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=kongelig-resolusjon.pdf">Referansekatalogen
 513 v2.0 - Oppsummering av høring</a>" og "<a
 514 href="http://wiki.nuug.no/uttalelser/200901-standardkatalog-v2?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=kongelig-resolusjon-katalogutkast.pdf">Referansekatalog
 515 for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor Versjon 2.0, dd.mm.åååå -
 516 UTKAST</a>".</p>
 517
 518 <p>Det er tre ting jeg merker meg i oppsummeringen fra
 519 høringsuttalelsen da jeg skummet igjennom den.  Det første er at
 520 forståelsen av hvordan programvarepatenter påvirker fri
 521 programvareutvikling også i Norge når en argumenterer med at
 522 royalty-betaling ikke er et relevant problem i Norge.  Det andre er at
 523 FAD ikke har en prinsipiell forståelse av verdien av en enkelt
 524 standard innenfor hvert område.  Det siste er at påstander i
 525 høringsuttalelsene ikke blir etterprøvd (f.eks. påstanden fra
 526 Microsoft om hvordan Ogg blir standardisert og påstanden fra
 527 politidirektoratet om patentproblemer i Theora).</p>
 528
 529  </div>
 530  <div class="tags">
 531
 532
 533
 534   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
 535
 536  </div>
 537 </div>
 538 <div class="padding"></div>
 539
 540 <div class="entry">
 541  <div class="title">
 542  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/ISO_still_hope_to_fix_OOXML.html">ISO still hope to fix OOXML</a>
 543  </div>
 544  <div class="date">
 545   2009-08-08 14:00
 546  </div>
 547
 548  <div class="body">
 549
 550 <p>According to <a
 551 href="http://twerner.blogspot.com/2009/08/defects-of-office-open-xml.html">a
 552 blog post from Torsten Werner</a>, the current defect report for ISO
 553 29500 (ISO OOXML) is 809 pages.  His interesting point is that the
 554 defect report is 71 pages more than the full ODF 1.1 specification.
 555 Personally I find it more interesting that ISO still believe ISO OOXML
 556 can be fixed in ISO.  Personally, I believe it is broken beyon repair,
 557 and I completely lack any trust in ISO for being able to get anywhere
 558 close to solving the problems.  I was part of the Norwegian committee
 559 involved in the OOXML fast track process, and was not impressed with
 560 Standard Norway and ISO in how they handled it.</p>
 561
 562 <p>These days I focus on ODF instead, which seem like a specification
 563 with the future ahead of it.  We are working in NUUG to organise a ODF
 564 seminar this autumn.</p>
 565
 566  </div>
 567  <div class="tags">
 568
 569
 570
 571   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 572
 573  </div>
 574 </div>
 575 <div class="padding"></div>
 576
 577 <div class="entry">
 578  <div class="title">
 579  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Relative_popularity_of_document_formats__MS_Office_vs__ODF_.html">Relative popularity of document formats (MS Office vs. ODF)</a>
 580  </div>
 581  <div class="date">
 582   2009-08-12 15:50
 583  </div>
 584
 585  <div class="body">
 586
 587 <p>Just for fun, I did a search right now on Google for a few file ODF
 588 and MS Office based formats (not to be mistaken for ISO or ECMA
 589 OOXML), to get an idea of their relative usage.  I searched using
 590 'filetype:odt' and equvalent terms, and got these results:</P>
 591
 592 <table>
 593 <tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
 594 <tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:282000</td> <td>docx:308000</td></tr>
 595 <tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:75600</td> <td>pptx:183000</td></tr>
 596 <tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:26500     </td> <td>xlsx:145000</td></tr>
 597 </table>
 598
 599 <p>Next, I added a 'site:no' limit to get the numbers for Norway, and
 600 got these numbers:</p>
 601
 602 <table>
 603 <tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
 604 <tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:2480 </td> <td>docx:4460</td></tr>
 605 <tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:299   </td> <td>pptx:741</td></tr>
 606 <tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:187       </td> <td>xlsx:372</td></tr>
 607 </table>
 608
 609 <p>I wonder how these numbers change over time.</p>
 610
 611 <p>I am aware of Google returning different results and numbers based
 612 on where the search is done, so I guess these numbers will differ if
 613 they are conduced in another country.  Because of this, I did the same
 614 search from a machine in California, USA, a few minutes after the
 615 search done from a machine here in Norway.</p>
 616
 617
 618 <table>
 619 <tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
 620 <tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:129000</td> <td>docx:308000</td></tr>
 621 <tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:44200</td> <td>pptx:93900</td></tr>
 622 <tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:26500     </td> <td>xlsx:82400</td></tr>
 623 </table>
 624
 625 <p>And with 'site:no':
 626
 627 <table>
 628 <tr><th>Type</th><th>ODF</th><th>MS Office</th></tr>
 629 <tr><td>Tekst</td> <td>odt:2480</td> <td>docx:3410</td></tr>
 630 <tr><td>Presentasjon</td> <td>odp:175</td> <td>pptx:604</td></tr>
 631 <tr><td>Regneark</td> <td>ods:186       </td> <td>xlsx:296</td></tr>
 632 </table>
 633
 634 <p>Interesting difference, not sure what to conclude from these
 635 numbers.</p>
 636
 637  </div>
 638  <div class="tags">
 639
 640
 641
 642   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web</a>.
 643
 644  </div>
 645 </div>
 646 <div class="padding"></div>
 647
 648 <div class="entry">
 649  <div class="title">
 650  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Danmark_g__r_for_ODF_.html">Danmark går for ODF?</a>
 651  </div>
 652  <div class="date">
 653   2010-01-29 12:00
 654  </div>
 655
 656  <div class="body">
 657
 658 <p>Ble nettopp gjort oppmerksom på en
 659 <a href="http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13690-breaking-odf-vinder-dokumentformat-krigen ">nyhet fra Version2</a>
 660 fra Danmark, der det hevdes at Folketinget har vedtatt at ODF skal
 661 brukes som dokumentutvekslingsformat i Staten.</p>
 662
 663 <p>Hyggelig lesning, spesielt hvis det viser seg at de av vedtatt
 664 kravlisten for hva som skal aksepteres som referert i kommentarfeltet
 665 til artikkelen og
 666 <a href="http://www.version2.dk/artikel/13693-er-ooxml-doemt-ude-her-er-kravene-til-en-offentlig-dokumentstandard">en
 667 annen artikkel</a> i samme nett-avis.  Liker spesielt godt denne:</p>
 668
 669 <p><blockquote> Det skal demonstreres, at standarden i sin helhed kan
 670 implementeres af alle direkte i sin helhed på flere
 671 platforme.</blockquote></p>
 672
 673 <p>Noe slikt burde være et krav også i Norge.</p>
 674
 675  </div>
 676  <div class="tags">
 677
 678
 679
 680   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 681
 682  </div>
 683 </div>
 684 <div class="padding"></div>
 685
 686 <div class="entry">
 687  <div class="title">
 688  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/A_manual_for_standards_wars___.html">A manual for standards wars...</a>
 689  </div>
 690  <div class="date">
 691   2010-06-06 14:15
 692  </div>
 693
 694  <div class="body">
 695
 696 <p>Via the
 697 <a href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/robweir/antic-atom/~3/QzU4RgoAGMg/weekly-links-10.html">blog
 698 of Rob Weir</a> I came across the very interesting essay named
 699 <a href="http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/shapiro/wars.pdf">The Art of
 700 Standards Wars</a> (PDF 25 pages).  I recommend it for everyone
 701 following the standards wars of today.</p>
 702
 703  </div>
 704  <div class="tags">
 705
 706
 707
 708   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian">debian</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian edu">debian edu</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 709
 710  </div>
 711 </div>
 712 <div class="padding"></div>
 713
 714 <div class="entry">
 715  <div class="title">
 716  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html">Officeshots taking shape</a>
 717  </div>
 718  <div class="date">
 719   2010-06-13 11:40
 720  </div>
 721
 722  <div class="body">
 723
 724 <p>For those of us caring about document exchange and
 725 interoperability, <a href="http://www.officeshots.org/">OfficeShots</a>
 726 is a great service.  It is to ODF documents what
 727 <a href="http://browsershots.org/">BrowserShots</a> is for web
 728 pages.</p>
 729
 730 <p>A while back, I was contacted by Knut Yrvin at the part of Nokia
 731 that used to be Trolltech, who wanted to help the OfficeShots project
 732 and wondered if the University of Oslo where I work would be
 733 interested in supporting the project.  I helped him to navigate his
 734 request to the right people at work, and his request was answered with
 735 a spot in the machine room with power and network connected, and Knut
 736 arranged funding for a machine to fill the spot.  The machine is
 737 administrated by the OfficeShots people, so I do not have daily
 738 contact with its progress, and thus from time to time check back to
 739 see how the project is doing.</p>
 740
 741 <p>Today I had a look, and was happy to see that the Dell box in our
 742 machine room now is the host for several virtual machines running as
 743 OfficeShots factories, and the project is able to render ODF documents
 744 in 17 different document processing implementation on Linux and
 745 Windows.  This is great.</p>
 746
 747  </div>
 748  <div class="tags">
 749
 750
 751
 752   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
 753
 754  </div>
 755 </div>
 756 <div class="padding"></div>
 757
 758 <div class="entry">
 759  <div class="title">
 760  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html">Terms of use for video produced by a Canon IXUS 130 digital camera</a>
 761  </div>
 762  <div class="date">
 763   2010-09-09 23:55
 764  </div>
 765
 766  <div class="body">
 767
 768 <p>A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital
 769 camera, a Canon IXUS 130.  It was instructive and very disturbing to
 770 be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to
 771 specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera.
 772 Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras
 773 are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway.  What is the
 774 problem, you might ask?  It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the
 775 MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences
 776 without asking for permissions that is at risk.
 777
 778 <p>On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is
 779 written:</p>
 780
 781 <blockquote>
 782 <p>This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard
 783 and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding
 784 MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and
 785 non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the
 786 AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.</p>
 787
 788 <p>No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4
 789 standard.</p>
 790 </blockquote>
 791
 792 <p>In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology
 793 (MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and
 794 non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations
 795 holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.</p>
 796
 797 <p>This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to
 798 read
 799 "<a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/23236/Why_Our_Civilization_s_Video_Art_and_Culture_is_Threatened_by_the_MPEG-LA">Why
 800 Our Civilization's Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the
 801 MPEG-LA</a>" by Eugenia Loli-Queru and
 802 "<a href="http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/">H.264 Is Not
 803 The Sort Of Free That Matters</a>" by Simon Phipps to learn more about
 804 the issue.  The solution is to support the
 805 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">free and
 806 open standards</a> for video, like <a href="http://www.theora.org/">Ogg
 807 Theora</a>, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.</p>
 808
 809  </div>
 810  <div class="tags">
 811
 812
 813
 814   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/fildeling">fildeling</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/opphavsrett">opphavsrett</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/personvern">personvern</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web</a>.
 815
 816  </div>
 817 </div>
 818 <div class="padding"></div>
 819
 820 <div class="entry">
 821  <div class="title">
 822  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Standardkrav_inn_i_anbudstekster_.html">Standardkrav inn i anbudstekster?</a>
 823  </div>
 824  <div class="date">
 825   2010-10-17 19:30
 826  </div>
 827
 828  <div class="body">
 829
 830 <p>Hvis det å følge standarder skal ha noen effekt overfor
 831 leverandører, så må slike krav og ønsker komme inn i anbudstekster når
 832 systemer kjøpes inn.  Har ikke sett noen slike formuleringer i anbud
 833 så langt, men har tenkt litt på hva som bør inn.  Her er noen ideer og
 834 forslag.  Min drøm er at en kan sette krav til slik støtte i
 835 anbudstekster, men så langt er det nok mer sannsynlig at en må nøye
 836 seg med å skrive at det er en fordel om slik støtte er tilstede i
 837 leveranser.</p>
 838
 839 <p>Som systemadministrator på Universitetet er det typisk to områder
 840 som er problematiske for meg.  Det ene er admin-grensesnittene på
 841 tjenermaskiner, som vi ønsker å bruke via ssh.  Det andre er nettsider
 842 som vi ønsker å bruke via en nettleser.  For begge deler er det viktig
 843 at protokollene og formatene som brukes følger standarder våre verktøy
 844 støtter.</p>
 845
 846 <p>De fleste har nå støtte for SSH som overføringsprotkoll for
 847 admin-grensesnittet, men det er ikke tilstrekkelig for å kunne stille
 848 inn f.eks BIOS og RAID-kontroller via ssh-forbindelsen.  Det er flere
 849 aktuelle protokoller for fremvisning av BIOS-oppsett og
 850 oppstartmeldinger, og min anbefaling ville være å kreve
 851 VT100-kompatibel protokoll, for å sikre at flest mulig
 852 terminalemulatorer kan forstå hva som kommer fra admin-grensesnittet
 853 via ssh.  Andre aktuelle alternativer er ANSI-terminalemulering og
 854 VT220.  Kanskje en formulering ala dette i anbudsutlysninger vil
 855 fungere:</p>
 856
 857 <p><blockquote>
 858 BIOS og oppstartmeldinger i administrasjonsgrensesnittet til maskinen
 859 bør/skal være tilgjengelig via SSH-protokollen som definert av IETF
 860 (RFC 4251 mfl.) og følge terminalfremvisningprotokollen VT100 (ref?)
 861 når en kobler seg til oppstart via ssh.
 862 </blockquote></p>
 863
 864 <p>Har ikke lykkes med å finne en god referanse for
 865 VT100-spesifikasjonen.</p>
 866
 867 <p>Når det gjelder nettsider, så er det det HTML, CSS og
 868 JavaScript-spesifikasjonen til W3C som gjelder.</p>
 869
 870 <p><blockquote>
 871 Alle systemets nettider bør/skal være i henhold til statens
 872 standardkatalogs krav om nettsider og følge HTML-standarden som
 873 definert av W3C, og validere uten feil hos W3Cs HTML-validator
 874 (http://validator.w3.org).  Hvis det brukes CSS så bør/skal denne
 875 validere uten feil hos W3Cs CSS-validator
 876 (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/).  Eventuelle JavaScript skal
 877 være i henhold til EcmaScript-standarden.  I tillegg til å følge de
 878 overnevnte standardene skal websidene fungere i nettleserne (fyll inn
 879 relevant liste for organisasjonen) Firefox 3.5, Internet Explorer 8,
 880 Opera 9, etc.
 881 </blockquote></p>
 882
 883 <p>Vil et slikt avsnitt være konkret nok til å få leverandørene til å
 884 lage nettsider som følger standardene og fungerer i flere
 885 nettlesere?</p>
 886
 887 <p>Tar svært gjerne imot innspill på dette temaet til aktive (at)
 888 nuug.no, og er spesielt interessert i hva andre skriver i sine anbud
 889 for å oppmuntre leverandører til å følge standardene.  Kanskje NUUG
 890 burde lage et dokument med forslag til standardformuleringer å ta med
 891 i anbudsutlysninger?</p>
 892
 893 <p>Oppdatering 2010-12-03: I følge Wikipedias oppføring om
 894 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANSI_escape_code">ANSI escape
 895 code</a>, så bruker VT100-terminaler ECMA-48-spesifikasjonen som
 896 basis for sin oppførsel.  Det kan dermed være et alternativ når en
 897 skal spesifisere hvordan seriell-konsoll skal fungere.</p>
 898
 899  </div>
 900  <div class="tags">
 901
 902
 903
 904   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web</a>.
 905
 906  </div>
 907 </div>
 908 <div class="padding"></div>
 909
 910 <div class="entry">
 911  <div class="title">
 912  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Best____ikke_fortelle_noen_at_streaming_er_nedlasting___.html">Best å ikke fortelle noen at streaming er nedlasting...</a>
 913  </div>
 914  <div class="date">
 915   2010-10-30 11:20
 916  </div>
 917
 918  <div class="body">
 919
 920 <p>I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta
 921 <a href="http://nrkbeta.no/2010/10/27/bakom-blindpassasjer-del-1/">om
 922 hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget</a> i forbindelse med at
 923 filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et
 924 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">fritt og
 925 åpent format</a>.  Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der 07:39.</p>
 926
 927 <p><blockquote>
 928 <p>"Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra
 929 nedlasting.  Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer
 930 som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den
 931 nødvendige forkunnskapen."</p>
 932
 933 <p>Haha.  Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å
 934 beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig.  Å skrive noe slikt
 935 er å forlede leseren.</p>
 936
 937 <p>Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun
 938 vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.</p>
 939
 940 <p>Anbefaler forresten å lese
 941 <a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm">http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm</a>
 942 om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer
 943 (DRM) fungerte.  Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo
 944 derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass,
 945 men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge
 946 opp under.</p>
 947 </blockquote></p>
 948
 949 <p>Ca. 20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i
 950 NRKBeta:</p>
 951
 952 <p><blockquote>
 953 <p>From: Anders Hofseth &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 954 <br>To: "pere@hungry.com" &lt;pere@hungry.com>
 955 <br>Cc: Eirik Solheim &lt;XXX@gmail.com>, Jon Ståle Carlsen &lt;XXX@gmail.com>, Henrik Lied &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 956 <br>Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: "Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1"
 957 <br>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:58:44 +0200</p>
 958
 959 <p>Hei Petter.
 960 <br>Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon,
 961 men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt
 962 om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
 963 særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.</p>
 964
 965 <p>Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er
 966 fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
 967 konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...</p>
 968
 969 <p>Med hilsen,
 970 <br>-anders</p>
 971
 972 <p>Ring meg om noe er uklart: 95XXXXXXX</p>
 973 </blockquote></p>
 974
 975 <p>Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte
 976 over følgende svar.  I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas
 977 kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet.
 978 Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å
 979 unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.</p>
 980
 981 <p><blockquote>
 982 <p>From: Petter Reinholdtsen &lt;pere@hungry.com>
 983 <br>To: Anders Hofseth &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 984 <br>Cc: Eirik Solheim &lt;XXX@gmail.com>,
 985 <br>        Jon Ståle Carlsen &lt;XXX@gmail.com>,
 986 <br>        Henrik Lied &lt;XXX@gmail.com>
 987 <br>Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: "Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1"
 988 <br>Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:24:34 +0200</p>
 989
 990 <p>[Anders Hofseth]
 991 <br>> Hei Petter.</p>
 992
 993 <p>Hei.</p>
 994
 995 <p>> Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
 996 <br>> om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
 997 <br>> å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
 998 <br>> særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.</p>
 999
1000 <p>Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon.  Den
1001 vil nok fortsette en stund til.  :)</p>
1002
1003 <p>Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med
1004 vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne
1005 fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.</p>
1006
1007 <p>Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke
1008 faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold
1009 som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker
1010 det.</p>
1011
1012 <p>Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på
1013 web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta.
1014 Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)</p>
1015
1016 <p>> Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
1017 <br>> og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
1018 <br>> konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...</p>
1019
1020 <p>Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og
1021 heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen
1022 mot de som vil låse kulturen inne.  Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK
1023 godtar å forlede publikum.  Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som
1024 skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i
1025 formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til
1026 H.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).</p>
1027
1028 <p>At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive
1029 påstander om at "streaming beskytter mot nedlasting" som bare er egnet
1030 til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.</p>
1031
1032 <p>Anbefaler &lt;URL:<a href="http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/">http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/</a>> og en
1033 titt på
1034 &lt;URL: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html">http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html</a> >.
1035 for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H.264 innebærer.</p>
1036
1037 <p>Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke
1038 kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade
1039 samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall
1040 synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er
1041 langt på overtid.</p>
1042
1043 <p>> Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX</p>
1044
1045 <p>Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på.
1046 Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en
1047 gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted
1048 for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med
1049 ryggraden på plass.</p>
1050
1051 <p>PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.</p>
1052
1053 <p>Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet.
1054 &lt;URL: <a href="http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft">http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft</a> > og
1055 &lt;URL: <a href="http://patentabsurdity.com/">http://patentabsurdity.com/</a> > hadde vært noe å kringkaste på
1056 NRK1. :)</p>
1057
1058 <p>Vennlig hilsen,
1059 <br>--
1060 <br>Petter Reinholdtsen</p>
1061
1062  </div>
1063  <div class="tags">
1064
1065
1066
1067   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/opphavsrett">opphavsrett</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web</a>.
1068
1069  </div>
1070 </div>
1071 <div class="padding"></div>
1072
1073 <div class="entry">
1074  <div class="title">
1075  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_still_going_strong.html">Officeshots still going strong</a>
1076  </div>
1077  <div class="date">
1078   2010-12-25 09:40
1079  </div>
1080
1081  <div class="body">
1082
1083 <p>Half a year ago I
1084 <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Officeshots_taking_shape.html">wrote
1085 a bit</a> about <a href="http://www.officeshots.org/">OfficeShots</a>,
1086 a web service to allow anyone to test how ODF documents are handled by
1087 the different programs reading and writing the ODF format.</p>
1088
1089 <p>I just had a look at the service, and it seem to be going strong.
1090 Very interesting to see the results reported in the gallery, how
1091 different Office implementations handle different ODF features.  Sad
1092 to see that KOffice was not doing it very well, and happy to see that
1093 LibreOffice has been tested already (but sadly not listed as a option
1094 for OfficeShots users yet).  I am glad to see that the ODF community
1095 got such a great test tool available.</p>
1096
1097  </div>
1098  <div class="tags">
1099
1100
1101
1102   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
1103
1104  </div>
1105 </div>
1106 <div class="padding"></div>
1107
1108 <div class="entry">
1109  <div class="title">
1110  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_reply_from_Edgar_Villanueva_to_Microsoft_in_Peru.html">The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru</a>
1111  </div>
1112  <div class="date">
1113   2010-12-25 10:50
1114  </div>
1115
1116  <div class="body">
1117
1118 <p>A few days ago
1119 <a href="http://www.idg.no/computerworld/article189879.ece">an
1120 article</a> in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version
1121 2.0 of
1122 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Framework">European
1123 Interoperability Framework</a> has been successfully lobbied by the
1124 proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software.
1125 Nothing very surprising there, given
1126 <a href="http://news.slashdot.org/story/10/03/29/2115235/Open-Source-Open-Standards-Under-Attack-In-Europe">earlier
1127 reports</a> on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in
1128 this work.  But I find this very sad.   The definition of
1129 <a href="http://www.nuug.no/dokumenter/standard-presse-def-200506.txt">an
1130 open standard from version 1</a> was very good, and something I
1131 believe should be used also in the future, alongside
1132 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the
1133 definition from Digistan</A>.  Version 2 have removed the open
1134 standard definition from its content.</p>
1135
1136 <p>Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar
1137 Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply
1138 to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software
1139 in the public sector in Peru.  As the text was not available from a
1140 few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from
1141 <a href="http://gnuwin.epfl.ch/articles/en/reponseperou/villanueva_to_ms.html">my
1142 source</a> to ensure it is available also in the future.  Some
1143 background information about that story is available in
1144 <a href="http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6099">an article</a> from
1145 Linux Journal in 2002.</p>
1146
1147 <blockquote>
1148 <p>Lima, 8th of April, 2002<br>
1149 To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ<br>
1150 General Manager of Microsoft Perú</p>
1151
1152 <p>Dear Sir:</p>
1153
1154 <p>First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter.</p>
1155
1156 <p>While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.</p>
1157
1158 <p>With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.</p>
1159
1160 <p>It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:</p>
1161
1162 <p>
1163 <ul>
1164 <li>Free access to public information by the citizen. </li>
1165 <li>Permanence of public data. </li>
1166 <li>Security of the State and citizens.</li>
1167 </ul>
1168 </p>
1169
1170 <p>To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.</p>
1171
1172 <p>To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.</p>
1173
1174 <p>To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*. </p>
1175
1176 <p>In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.</p>
1177
1178 <p>In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles.</p>
1179
1180
1181 <p>From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:<br>
1182 <li>the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software</li>
1183 <li>the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software</li>
1184 <li>the law does not specify which concrete software to use</li>
1185 <li>the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought</li>
1186 <li>the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.</li>
1187
1188 </p>
1189
1190 <p>What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning.</p>
1191
1192 <p>We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.</p>
1193
1194 <p>As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:</p>
1195
1196 <p>Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution."</p>
1197
1198 <p>This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter.</p>
1199
1200 <p>The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No. 012-2001-PCM).</p>
1201
1202 <p>The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions.</p>
1203
1204 <p>It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill.</p>
1205
1206 <p>By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved.</p>
1207
1208 <p>To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies..."</p>
1209
1210 <p>This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive ... practices."</p>
1211
1212 <p>Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles.</p>
1213
1214 <p>Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement.</p>
1215
1216 <p>On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.</p>
1217
1218 <p>It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: "update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgment alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).</p>
1219
1220 <p>You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector."</p>
1221
1222 <p>I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs.</p>
1223
1224 <p>On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software.</p>
1225
1226 <p>In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.</p>
1227
1228 <p>In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.</p>
1229
1230 <p>It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive.</p>
1231
1232 <p>With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model.</p>
1233
1234 <p>Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties."</p>
1235
1236 <p>Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.</p>
1237
1238 <p>On security:</p>
1239
1240 <p>National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.</p>
1241
1242 <p>What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors.</p>
1243
1244 <p>It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product.</p>
1245
1246 <p>In respect of the guarantee:</p>
1247
1248 <p>As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.</p>
1249
1250 <p>On Intellectual Property:</p>
1251
1252 <p>Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).</p>
1253
1254 <p>You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position."</p>
1255
1256 <p>This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL).</p>
1257
1258 <p>Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats.</p>
1259
1260 <p>If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State.</p>
1261
1262 <p>You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time."</p>
1263
1264 <p>This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.</p>
1265
1266 <p>In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability.</p>
1267
1268 <p>You further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries."</p>
1269
1270 <p>I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you.</p>
1271
1272 <p>On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.</p>
1273
1274 <p>You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market."</p>
1275
1276 <p>Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely.</p>
1277
1278 <p>The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code.</p>
1279
1280 <p>You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place."</p>
1281
1282 <p>This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software.</p>
1283
1284 <p>On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.</p>
1285
1286 <p>You continue by observing that: "10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment."</p>
1287
1288 <p>It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.</p>
1289
1290 <p>What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments.</p>
1291
1292 <p>You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry."</p>
1293
1294 <p>This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad.</p>
1295
1296 <p>You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools."</p>
1297
1298 <p>In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software.</p>
1299
1300 <p>You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?"</p>
1301
1302 <p>We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.</p>
1303
1304 <p>The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public.</p>
1305
1306 <p>In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.</p>
1307
1308 <p>I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.</p>
1309
1310 <p>Cordially,<br>
1311 DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ<br>
1312 Congressman of the Republic of Perú.</p>
1313 </blockquote>
1314
1315  </div>
1316  <div class="tags">
1317
1318
1319
1320   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
1321
1322  </div>
1323 </div>
1324 <div class="padding"></div>
1325
1326 <div class="entry">
1327  <div class="title">
1328  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html">Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?</a>
1329  </div>
1330  <div class="date">
1331   2010-12-25 20:25
1332  </div>
1333
1334  <div class="body">
1335
1336 <p><a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">The
1337 Digistan definition</a> of a free and open standard reads like this:</p>
1338
1339 <blockquote>
1340
1341 <p>The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard
1342 as follows:</p>
1343
1344 <ol>
1345
1346 <li>A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages
1347 in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to
1348 freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.</li>
1349
1350 <li>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
1351 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
1352 open decision-making procedure available to all interested
1353 parties.</li>
1354
1355 <li>The standard has been published and the standard specification
1356 document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy,
1357 distribute, and use it freely.</li>
1358
1359 <li>The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made
1360 irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.</li>
1361
1362 <li>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.</li>
1363
1364 </ol>
1365
1366 <p>The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be
1367 measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of
1368 products based on the standard.</p>
1369 </blockquote>
1370
1371 <p>For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free
1372 and open standard according to this definition.  Here is a short
1373 writeup of what I have been able to gather so far.  I brought up the
1374 topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list
1375 <a href="http://lists.xiph.org/pipermail/advocacy/2009-July/001632.html">in
1376 July 2009</a>, for those that want to see some background information.
1377 According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list
1378 the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.</p>
1379
1380 <p><strong>Free from vendor capture?</strong></p>
1381
1382 <p>As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the
1383 Ogg Theora specification.  It can be argued that the
1384 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/">Xiph foundation</A> is such vendor, but
1385 given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal
1386 making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not
1387 obvious that this is a real risk.  One issue with the Xiph
1388 foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who
1389 control the foundation) are not easily available on the web.  I've
1390 been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not
1391 seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor
1392 where is is spent in the foundation.  It is thus not obvious for an
1393 external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know
1394 it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the
1395 specification.  But it seem unlikely.</p>
1396
1397 <p><strong>Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?</strong></p>
1398
1399 <p>Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages
1400 claim it to be, this point is fulfilled.  If Xiph foundation is
1401 controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any
1402 documentation indicating this.</p>
1403
1404 <p>According to
1405 <a href="http://media.hiof.no/diverse/fad/rapport_4.pdf">a report</a>
1406 prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian
1407 government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and
1408 the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory.
1409 Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the
1410 report is correct.</p>
1411
1412 <p><strong>Specification freely available?</strong></p>
1413
1414 <p>The specification for the <a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/">Ogg
1415 container format</a> and both the
1416 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/vorbis/doc/">Vorbis</a> and
1417 <a href="http://theora.org/doc/">Theora</a> codeces are available on
1418 the web.  This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:
1419
1420 <blockquote>
1421
1422 Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora]
1423 specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate
1424 capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve
1425 the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify
1426 specification compliance.
1427
1428 </blockquote>
1429
1430 <p>The Ogg container format is specified in IETF
1431 <a href="http://www.xiph.org/ogg/doc/rfc3533.txt">RFC 3533</a>, and
1432 this is the term:<p>
1433
1434 <blockquote>
1435
1436 <p>This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to
1437 others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it
1438 or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and
1439 distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind,
1440 provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are
1441 included on all such copies and derivative works.  However, this
1442 document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing
1443 the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other
1444 Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing
1445 Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined
1446 in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to
1447 translate it into languages other than English.</p>
1448
1449 <p>The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be
1450 revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.</p>
1451 </blockquote>
1452
1453 <p>All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an
1454 this term seem to be fulfilled.  There might be a problem with the
1455 missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and
1456 thus reuse it in other specifications.  Not quite sure if that is a
1457 requirement for the Digistan definition.</p>
1458
1459 <p><strong>Royalty-free?</strong></p>
1460
1461 <p>There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg
1462 Theora format.
1463 <a href="http://www.streamingmedia.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?ArticleID=65782">MPEG-LA</a>
1464 and
1465 <a href="http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/04/30/237238/Steve-Jobs-Hints-At-Theora-Lawsuit">Steve
1466 Jobs</a> in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine
1467 patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe
1468 them.  Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into
1469 this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers
1470 without paying any royalties.  For now the claims from MPEG-LA and
1471 Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec
1472 than any real problem with Ogg Theora.</p>
1473
1474 <p><strong>No constraints on re-use?</strong></p>
1475
1476 <p>I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.</p>
1477
1478 <p><strong>Conclusion</strong></p>
1479
1480 <p>3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2
1481 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation.  Given the
1482 background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is
1483 safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it
1484 would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify
1485 this.</p>
1486
1487 <p>It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to
1488 see if they are free and open standards.</p>
1489
1490  </div>
1491  <div class="tags">
1492
1493
1494
1495   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
1496
1497  </div>
1498 </div>
1499 <div class="padding"></div>
1500
1501 <div class="entry">
1502  <div class="title">
1503  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_many_definitions_of_a_open_standard.html">The many definitions of a open standard</a>
1504  </div>
1505  <div class="date">
1506   2010-12-27 14:45
1507  </div>
1508
1509  <div class="body">
1510
1511 <p>One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of
1512 "<a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">Free and
1513 Open Standard</a>" is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of
1514 the term has been decided by Digistan.  The term "Open Standard" has
1515 become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking
1516 about standards.  One end up discussing which definition is the best
1517 one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of
1518 de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.</p>
1519
1520 <p>But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open
1521 standards, here are a few that I know about.  This list is not
1522 complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a
1523 complete survey.  More definitions are available on the
1524 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard">wikipedia
1525 page</a>.</p>
1526
1527 <p>First off is my favourite, the definition from the European
1528 Interoperability Framework version 1.0.  Really sad to notice that BSA
1529 and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the
1530 framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with
1531 their own people.  Anyway, the definition is still available and it
1532 include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a
1533 specification on equal terms.</p>
1534
1535 <blockquote>
1536
1537 <p>The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification
1538 and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an
1539 open standard:</p>
1540
1541 <ul>
1542
1543 <li>The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit
1544 organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an
1545 open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties
1546 (consensus or majority decision etc.).</li>
1547
1548 <li>The standard has been published and the standard specification
1549 document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be
1550 permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a
1551 nominal fee.</li>
1552
1553 <li>The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of
1554 (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-
1555 free basis.</li>
1556
1557 <li>There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.</li>
1558
1559 </ul>
1560 </blockquote>
1561
1562 <p>Another one originates from my friends over at
1563 <a href="http://www.dkuug.dk/">DKUUG</a>, who coined and gathered
1564 support for <a href="http://www.aaben-standard.dk/">this
1565 definition</a> in 2004.  It even made it into the Danish parlament as
1566 <a href="http://www.ft.dk/dokumenter/tingdok.aspx?/samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/som_fremsat.htm">their
1567 definition of a open standard</a>.  Another from a different part of
1568 the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.</p>
1569
1570 <blockquote>
1571
1572 <p>En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:</p>
1573
1574 <ol>
1575
1576 <li>Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt
1577 tilgængelig.</li>
1578
1579 <li>Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske
1580 begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.</li>
1581
1582 <li>Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt
1583 "standardiseringsorganisation") via en åben proces.</li>
1584
1585 </ol>
1586
1587 </blockquote>
1588
1589 <p>Then there is <a href="http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.html">the
1590 definition</a> from Free Software Foundation Europe.</p>
1591
1592 <blockquote>
1593
1594 <p>An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is</p>
1595
1596 <ol>
1597
1598 <li>subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a
1599 manner equally available to all parties;</li>
1600
1601 <li>without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
1602 formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
1603 Standard themselves;</li>
1604
1605 <li>free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by
1606 any party or in any business model;</li>
1607
1608 <li>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor
1609 in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third
1610 parties;</li>
1611
1612 <li>available in multiple complete implementations by competing
1613 vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
1614 parties.</li>
1615
1616 </ol>
1617
1618 </blockquote>
1619
1620 <p>A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created
1621 its
1622 <a href="http://blogs.sun.com/dennisding/resource/Open%20Standard%20Definition.pdf">Open
1623 Standards Checklist</a> with a fairly detailed description.</p>
1624
1625 <blockquote>
1626 <p>Creation and Management of an Open Standard
1627
1628 <ul>
1629
1630 <li>Its development and management process must be collaborative and
1631   democratic:
1632
1633          <ul>
1634
1635          <li>Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to
1636             participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria
1637             imposed by the organization under which it is developed
1638             and managed.</li>
1639
1640          <li>The processes must be documented and, through a known
1641             method, can be changed through input from all
1642             participants.</li>
1643
1644          <li>The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for
1645             the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.</li>
1646
1647          <li>Development and management should strive for consensus,
1648             and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.</li>
1649
1650          <li>The standard specification must be open to extensive
1651             public review at least once in its life-cycle, with
1652             comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.</li>
1653
1654          </ul>
1655
1656 </li>
1657
1658 </ul>
1659
1660 <p>Use and Licensing of an Open Standard</p>
1661 <ul>
1662
1663 <li>The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation,
1664   and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing
1665   implementations to the interface described in the standard without
1666   undue or restrictive constraints.  Interfaces include APIs,
1667   protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.</li>
1668
1669 <li> The standard must not contain any proprietary "hooks" that create
1670   a technical or economic barriers</li>
1671
1672 <li>Faithful implementations of the standard must
1673   interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer
1674   program to communicate and exchange information with other computer
1675   programs and mutually to use the information which has been
1676   exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange
1677   file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or
1678   conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other
1679   computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are
1680   intended to function.</li>
1681
1682 <li>It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the
1683   standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it
1684   must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.</li>
1685
1686 <li>It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or
1687   fees; also known as "royalty free"), worldwide, non-exclusive and
1688   perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and
1689   sell products based on the standard.  The only exceptions are
1690   terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms
1691   outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished
1692   patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is
1693   only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
1694
1695       <ul>
1696
1697       <li> May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of
1698         licensees' patent claims essential to practice that standard
1699         (also known as a reciprocity clause)</li>
1700
1701       <li> May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor
1702         or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims
1703         essential to practice that standard (also known as a
1704         "defensive suspension" clause)</li>
1705
1706       <li> The same licensing terms are available to every potential
1707         licensor</li>
1708
1709       </ul>
1710 </li>
1711
1712 <li>The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude
1713   implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms
1714   or restricted licensing terms</li>
1715
1716 </ul>
1717
1718 </blockquote>
1719
1720 <p>It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that
1721 there are so many of them.  As you can see, the same holds true for
1722 open standard definitions.  Most of the definitions have a lot in
1723 common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open
1724 standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it
1725 possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real
1726 competition to downplay the significance of open standards.  I hope we
1727 can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open
1728 Standards.</p>
1729
1730  </div>
1731  <div class="tags">
1732
1733
1734
1735   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
1736
1737  </div>
1738 </div>
1739 <div class="padding"></div>
1740
1741 <div class="entry">
1742  <div class="title">
1743  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/What_standards_are_Free_and_Open_as_defined_by_Digistan_.html">What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?</a>
1744  </div>
1745  <div class="date">
1746   2010-12-30 23:15
1747  </div>
1748
1749  <div class="body">
1750
1751 <p>After trying to
1752 <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Is_Ogg_Theora_a_free_and_open_standard_.html">compare
1753 Ogg Theora</a> to
1754 <a href="http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition">the Digistan
1755 definition</a> of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need
1756 to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing
1757 this.  As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in
1758 the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-8, HTML, PDF, ODF,
1759 JPEG, PNG, SVG and others.  But to be able to complete this in a
1760 reasonable time frame, I will need help.</p>
1761
1762 <p>If you want to help out with this work, please visit
1763 <a href="http://wiki.nuug.no/grupper/standard/digistan-analyse">the
1764 wiki pages I have set up for this</a>, and let me know that you want
1765 to help out.  The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good
1766 place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the
1767 NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader
1768 of the Norwegian Unix User Group).</p>
1769
1770 <p>The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do.  Do not be
1771 scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)</p>
1772
1773  </div>
1774  <div class="tags">
1775
1776
1777
1778   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>.
1779
1780  </div>
1781 </div>
1782 <div class="padding"></div>
1783
1784 <div class="entry">
1785  <div class="title">
1786  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Chrome_plan_to_drop_H_264_support_for_HTML5__lt_video_gt_.html">Chrome plan to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &lt;video&gt;</a>
1787  </div>
1788  <div class="date">
1789   2011-01-12 22:10
1790  </div>
1791
1792  <div class="body">
1793
1794 <p>Today I discovered
1795 <a href="http://www.digi.no/860070/google-dropper-h264-stotten-i-chrome">via
1796 digi.no</a> that the Chrome developers, in a surprising announcement,
1797 <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/html-video-codec-support-in-chrome.html">yesterday
1798 announced</a> plans to drop H.264 support for HTML5 &lt;video&gt; in
1799 the browser.  The argument used is that H.264 is not a "completely
1800 open" codec technology.  If you believe H.264 was free for everyone
1801 to use, I recommend having a look at the essay
1802 "<a href="http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/">H.264 – Not The Kind Of
1803 Free That Matters</a>".  It is not free of cost for creators of video
1804 tools, nor those of us that want to publish on the Internet, and the
1805 terms provided by MPEG-LA excludes free software projects from
1806 licensing the patents needed for H.264.  Some background information
1807 on the Google announcement is available from
1808 <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/24243/Google_To_Drop_H264_Support_from_Chrome">OSnews</a>.
1809 A good read. :)</p>
1810
1811 <p>Personally, I believe it is great that Google is taking a stand to
1812 promote equal terms for everyone when it comes to video publishing on
1813 the Internet.  This can only be done by publishing using free and open
1814 standards, which is only possible if the web browsers provide support
1815 for these free and open standards.  At the moment there seem to be two
1816 camps in the web browser world when it come to video support.  Some
1817 browsers support H.264, and others support
1818 <a href="http://www.theora.org/">Ogg Theora</a> and
1819 <a href="http://www.webmproject.org/">WebM</a>
1820 (<a href="http://www.diracvideo.org/">Dirac</a> is not really an option
1821 yet), forcing those of us that want to publish video on the Internet
1822 and which can not accept the terms of use presented by MPEG-LA for
1823 H.264 to not reach all potential viewers.
1824 Wikipedia keep <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video">an
1825 updated summary</a> of the current browser support.</p>
1826
1827 <p>Not surprising, several people would prefer Google to keep
1828 promoting H.264, and John Gruber
1829 <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/simple_questions">presents
1830 the mind set</a> of these people quite well.  His rhetorical questions
1831 provoked a reply from Thom Holwerda with another set of questions
1832 <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/24245/10_Questions_for_John_Gruber_Regarding_H_264_WebM">presenting
1833 the issues with H.264</a>. Both are worth a read.</p>
1834
1835 <p>Some argue that if Google is dropping H.264 because it isn't free,
1836 they should also drop support for the Adobe Flash plugin.  This
1837 argument was covered by Simon Phipps in
1838 <a href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2011/01/google-and-h264---far-from-hypocritical/index.htm">todays
1839 blog post</a>, which I find to put the issue in context.  To me it
1840 make perfect sense to drop native H.264 support for HTML5 in the
1841 browser while still allowing plugins.</p>
1842
1843 <p>I suspect the reason this announcement make so many people protest,
1844 is that all the users and promoters of H.264 suddenly get an uneasy
1845 feeling that they might be backing the wrong horse.  A lot of TV
1846 broadcasters have been moving to H.264 the last few years, and a lot
1847 of money has been invested in hardware based on the belief that they
1848 could use the same video format for both broadcasting and web
1849 publishing.  Suddenly this belief is shaken.</p>
1850
1851 <p>An interesting question is why Google is doing this.  While the
1852 presented argument might be true enough, I believe Google would only
1853 present the argument if the change make sense from a business
1854 perspective.  One reason might be that they are currently negotiating
1855 with MPEG-LA over royalties or usage terms, and giving MPEG-LA the
1856 feeling that dropping H.264 completely from Chroome, Youtube and
1857 Google Video would improve the negotiation position of Google.
1858 Another reason might be that Google want to save money by not having
1859 to pay the video tax to MPEG-LA at all, and thus want to move to a
1860 video format not requiring royalties at all.  A third reason might be
1861 that the Chrome development team simply want to avoid the
1862 Chrome/Chromium split to get more help with the development of Chrome.
1863 I guess time will tell.</p>
1864
1865 <p>Update 2011-01-15: The Google Chrome team provided
1866 <a href="http://blog.chromium.org/2011/01/more-about-chrome-html-video-codec.html">more
1867 background and information on the move</a> it a blog post yesterday.</p>
1868
1869  </div>
1870  <div class="tags">
1871
1872
1873
1874   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
1875
1876  </div>
1877 </div>
1878 <div class="padding"></div>
1879
1880 <div class="entry">
1881  <div class="title">
1882  <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/The_video_format_most_supported_in_web_browsers_.html">The video format most supported in web browsers?</a>
1883  </div>
1884  <div class="date">
1885   2011-01-16 00:20
1886  </div>
1887
1888  <div class="body">
1889
1890 <p>The video format struggle on the web continues, and the three
1891 contenders seem to be Ogg Theora, H.264 and WebM.  Most video sites
1892 seem to use H.264, while others use Ogg Theora.  Interestingly enough,
1893 the comments I see give me the feeling that a lot of people believe
1894 H.264 is the most supported video format in browsers, but according to
1895 the Wikipedia article on
1896 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5_video">HTML5 video</a>,
1897 this is not true.  Check out the nice table of supprted formats in
1898 different browsers there.  The format supported by most browsers is
1899 Ogg Theora, supported by released versions of Mozilla Firefox, Google
1900 Chrome, Chromium, Opera, Konqueror, Epiphany, Origyn Web Browser and
1901 BOLT browser, while not supported by Internet Explorer nor Safari.
1902 The runner up is WebM supported by released versions of Google Chrome
1903 Chromium Opera and Origyn Web Browser, and test versions of Mozilla
1904 Firefox.  H.264 is supported by released versions of Safari, Origyn
1905 Web Browser and BOLT browser, and the test version of Internet
1906 Explorer.  Those wanting Ogg Theora support in Internet Explorer and
1907 Safari can install plugins to get it.</p>
1908
1909 <p>To me, the simple conclusion from this is that to reach most users
1910 without any extra software installed, one uses Ogg Theora with the
1911 HTML5 video tag.   Of course to reach all those without a browser
1912 handling HTML5, one need fallback mechanisms.  In
1913 <a href="http://www.nuug.no/">NUUG</a>, we provide first fallback to a
1914 plugin capable of playing MPEG1 video, and those without such support
1915 we have a second fallback to the Cortado java applet playing Ogg
1916 Theora.  This seem to work quite well, as can be seen in an <a
1917 href="http://www.nuug.no/aktiviteter/20110111-semantic-web/">example
1918 from last week</a>.</p>
1919
1920 <p>The reason Ogg Theora is the most supported format, and H.264 is
1921 the least supported is simple.  Implementing and using H.264
1922 require royalty payment to MPEG-LA, and the terms of use from MPEG-LA
1923 are incompatible with free software licensing.  If you believed H.264
1924 was without royalties and license terms, check out
1925 "<a href="http://webmink.com/essays/h-264/">H.264 – Not The Kind Of
1926 Free That Matters</a>" by Simon Phipps.</p>
1927
1928 <p>A incomplete list of sites providing video in Ogg Theora is
1929 available from
1930 <a href="http://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/List_of_Theora_videos">the
1931 Xiph.org wiki</a>, if you want to have a look.  I'm not aware of a
1932 similar list for WebM nor H.264.</p>
1933
1934 <p>Update 2011-01-16 09:40: A question from Tollef on IRC made me
1935 realise that I failed to make it clear enough this text is about the
1936 &lt;video&gt; tag support in browsers and not the video support
1937 provided by external plugins like the Flash plugins.</p>
1938
1939  </div>
1940  <div class="tags">
1941
1942
1943
1944   Tags: <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard</a>, <a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video</a>.
1945
1946  </div>
1947 </div>
1948 <div class="padding"></div>
1949
1950  <p style="text-align: right;"><a href="standard.rss"><img src="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/xml.gif" alt="RSS Feed" width="36" height="14"></a></p>
1951
1952
1953
1954
1955 <div id="sidebar">
1956
1957 <h2>Archive</h2>
1958 <ul>
1959
1960 <li>2011
1961 <ul>
1962
1963 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/01/">January (16)</a></li>
1964
1965 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/02/">February (6)</a></li>
1966
1967 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/03/">March (6)</a></li>
1968
1969 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/04/">April (7)</a></li>
1970
1971 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/05/">May (3)</a></li>
1972
1973 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/06/">June (2)</a></li>
1974
1975 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/07/">July (7)</a></li>
1976
1977 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2011/08/">August (4)</a></li>
1978
1979 </ul></li>
1980
1981 <li>2010
1982 <ul>
1983
1984 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/01/">January (2)</a></li>
1985
1986 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/02/">February (1)</a></li>
1987
1988 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/03/">March (3)</a></li>
1989
1990 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/04/">April (3)</a></li>
1991
1992 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/05/">May (9)</a></li>
1993
1994 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/06/">June (14)</a></li>
1995
1996 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/07/">July (12)</a></li>
1997
1998 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/08/">August (13)</a></li>
1999
2000 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/09/">September (7)</a></li>
2001
2002 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/10/">October (9)</a></li>
2003
2004 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/11/">November (13)</a></li>
2005
2006 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2010/12/">December (12)</a></li>
2007
2008 </ul></li>
2009
2010 <li>2009
2011 <ul>
2012
2013 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/01/">January (8)</a></li>
2014
2015 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/02/">February (8)</a></li>
2016
2017 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/03/">March (12)</a></li>
2018
2019 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/04/">April (10)</a></li>
2020
2021 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/05/">May (9)</a></li>
2022
2023 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/06/">June (3)</a></li>
2024
2025 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/07/">July (4)</a></li>
2026
2027 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/08/">August (3)</a></li>
2028
2029 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/09/">September (1)</a></li>
2030
2031 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/10/">October (2)</a></li>
2032
2033 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/11/">November (3)</a></li>
2034
2035 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2009/12/">December (3)</a></li>
2036
2037 </ul></li>
2038
2039 <li>2008
2040 <ul>
2041
2042 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2008/11/">November (5)</a></li>
2043
2044 <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/archive/2008/12/">December (7)</a></li>
2045
2046 </ul></li>
2047
2048 </ul>
2049
2050
2051
2052 <h2>Tags</h2>
2053 <ul>
2054
2055  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/3d-printer">3d-printer (13)</a></li>
2056
2057  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/amiga">amiga (1)</a></li>
2058
2059  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/aros">aros (1)</a></li>
2060
2061  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/bitcoin">bitcoin (2)</a></li>
2062
2063  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/bootsystem">bootsystem (12)</a></li>
2064
2065  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian">debian (53)</a></li>
2066
2067  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/debian edu">debian edu (64)</a></li>
2068
2069  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/digistan">digistan (7)</a></li>
2070
2071  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/english">english (95)</a></li>
2072
2073  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/fiksgatami">fiksgatami (12)</a></li>
2074
2075  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/fildeling">fildeling (11)</a></li>
2076
2077  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/intervju">intervju (10)</a></li>
2078
2079  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/kart">kart (15)</a></li>
2080
2081  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/ldap">ldap (8)</a></li>
2082
2083  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/lenker">lenker (4)</a></li>
2084
2085  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/ltsp">ltsp (1)</a></li>
2086
2087  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/multimedia">multimedia (13)</a></li>
2088
2089  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/norsk">norsk (132)</a></li>
2090
2091  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/nuug">nuug (119)</a></li>
2092
2093  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/open311">open311 (2)</a></li>
2094
2095  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/opphavsrett">opphavsrett (21)</a></li>
2096
2097  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/personvern">personvern (42)</a></li>
2098
2099  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/reprap">reprap (11)</a></li>
2100
2101  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/rfid">rfid (2)</a></li>
2102
2103  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/robot">robot (4)</a></li>
2104
2105  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/rss">rss (1)</a></li>
2106
2107  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/sikkerhet">sikkerhet (23)</a></li>
2108
2109  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/sitesummary">sitesummary (3)</a></li>
2110
2111  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/standard">standard (24)</a></li>
2112
2113  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/stavekontroll">stavekontroll (1)</a></li>
2114
2115  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/stortinget">stortinget (2)</a></li>
2116
2117  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/surveillance">surveillance (9)</a></li>
2118
2119  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/video">video (20)</a></li>
2120
2121  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/vitenskap">vitenskap (1)</a></li>
2122
2123  <li><a href="http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/tags/web">web (16)</a></li>
2124
2125 </ul>
2126
2127 </div>
2128 </body>
2129 </html>