Greetings Stef,
Yes standards such as PDF and the MPEG standards are open, but encumbered - by stewardship by a single company in the case of PDF, or patent pool licensing issues in the case of MPEG. Which is not to say that open standards are not useful; the audiovisual industry relies almost exclusively on MPEG, the reasoning being that companies contribute their best patents in the common interest. Of course, that falls down when the patent pool licensing arrangement fails to satisfy a contributor; witness the Fraunhofer Institut's moves when MPEG-1 Layer 3 ("MP3") unexpectedly became wildly popular as a consumer audio format.
The OpenDocument (ODF) standard developed by OASIS was recently evaluated by Eben Moglen's group to confirm if it was Free; this was not clear at cursory glance.
I think it is indeed interesting to make the distinction between open, encumbered standards and open, Free standards. I think the industry, developers, users, consumers, businesses, and progress in general are better served by the minimizing of patent rewards.
I would suggest "open unencumbered standard" or "open free standard" as modifiers of "open standrd"; Free standards are open, but not all open standards are Free.
Sean
> Message du 19/07/06 10:22
> De : "Stefano Maffulli" <stef(a)zoomata.com>
> A : discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
> Copie à :
> Objet : Beyond 'open standard'
>
> Hello all,
>
> I am dealing with a paper about standards and Free Software and I've
> found out that the term 'open standard' is a very common term in
> literature (and commercial advertising). According to most of the
> definitions I found, an 'open standard' can be patented and, at best,
> subject to RAND licensing policies. This translate into 'open standard
> _can_ be impossible to implement in Free Software'.
>
> Now, since I am summarizing in this paper what defines a standard that
> is implementable in Free Software, it would be nice to propose also a
> term that is non controversial like 'open standard'.
>
> Free standard is not good: I don't think it's savvy to replicate the
> fight between 'open' and 'free'. A friend whispered 'non discriminatory
> standard' but he agrees that the negation at the beginning is less than
> optimal. I couldn't think of any more solutions, so I ask here two
> questions:
>
> 1) does it make sense to introduce in the Free Software community a new
> term that is non-controversial and more precise than the generic 'open
> standard'?
>
> 2) if yes, what would that term be?
>
> Any suggestion appreciated.
> bye
> stef
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discussion mailing list
> Discussion(a)fsfeurope.org
> https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>
>
---------- Wiadomość oryginalna ----------
From: Ciaran O'Riordan <ciaran(a)fsfe.org>
I've talked with Laurence. This is the consultation that was worked on on
this list back in April but which was not submitted because something else
had to be worked on as the April 14th deadline approached:
http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/discussion/2006-April/005770.html
I've sent Laurence what we produced, and we will meet her after Aug 28th
when the MEPs are back to work. Ciarán O'Riordan>>>>
Ciaran
Is it possible to get some MEPs interested in a Parliamentary Question
on the subject of consumer rights (ie. being forced to buy Windows
even if you are going to use Linux)?
It might support any 'investigation' the Commission is undertaking and
make them more susceptible to considering, as an illegal tied sale,
the fact that consumers, even if they use another OS, are forced to
buy Windows.
--
Dafydd ab Iago
00 32 484 924 013
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Christian translated the FAQ into German and David translated it into
Spanish. Now we need (a) people to double-check the existing
translations and (b) translate into more languages. French, Italian,
Czech and Polish would be nice :)
If you want to help with the translating please email me and I'll send
you the document in ODT.
Shane
- --
Shane Martin Coughlan
e: shane(a)opendawn.com
m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire)
w: www.opendawn.com
- ---
OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRLqmdtwG3M95JPpzAQhTaAP9H4fLvCw5Ps0tfbi2K4M8WQqCz/3KSnQh
hCmwe5D3TSF0cjBu5IJ5sE2SiT3YtzlFhyfKzWYu8NoFCDo31DSE8KEddGUN0NF6
cBramaSIgzyfiYYjKMgYhXx+7sPie/qPTtccCTdu1vkYErI6J+0AtUad/Wao1BJD
jIVp6LGDI4g=
=IWuj
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Ben Finney wrote:
> Copy editing:
[snip]
> Thanks for putting this together.
Thanks for the copy editing! :)
Revised version:
==
Advocacy is a critical part of supporting a movement like Free Software.
It is part education, part advertising. It is where we share our
enthusiasm for Free Software and in the process make other people
enthusiastic about it too. This is where every fellow can make a
significant contribution to the FSFE and share our ideals with computer
users, computer programmers and technology enthusiasts everywhere.
Advocacy is not just formal lectures. You can advocate Free Software
when you talk to your coworkers, when you attend a conference and when
you visit a user group. Advocacy is about engaging people with our
ideals in a positive and constructive manner.
There are no enforced rules to advocacy. However, there are some tips
to help ensure that audiences are engaged and and goals are
accomplished. This part of the fellowship site is intended to collect
our tips together so we can improve and coordinate our individual
advocacy. If you have presentation notes, tips or guides you would like
to see added please email <INSERTEMAIL>.
==
I added the text and FAQ to the advocacy section of the site:
http://www.fsfe.org/en/advocacy
However, I'm not sure how to edit things. I wanted to change the FAQ
title from "FAQ for advocating Free Software" to "FAQ for advocating
Free Software - English version"
Regards
Shane
- --
Shane Martin Coughlan
e: shane(a)opendawn.com
m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire)
w: www.opendawn.com
- ---
OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRLdvaNwG3M95JPpzAQg4dgQAhh62lwY6UzLRLTIBXkwXsFdFKITzR+fj
PyXbSxn0Ldyo8hqMy1oo1J/Xwd1l2NsAk83YMqib+fZqI2Y79c+YrfzokdFHN0H+
PXgKU7/Yyz4YSebWiTyqqZ+klBFbUVot9xPZCZZvdqmQNvADfwWzcyzRIKI4+QwX
ogzbSnKC8/U=
=DcrB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hello again
More news :)
I'm just after starting a new series of talks. This time the subject is
security, though there is a Free Software spin to what I do (obviously).
Last night we had a security round-table at the University of
Birmingham. On the 26th I'll be addressing Birmingham PERL Mongers, and
on the 12th of August I'll be making the Great London LUG members suffer
from my chatter.
For more information about the Birmingham PERL Mongers talk:
http://birmingham.pm.org/cgi-bin/brum.pl?act=tech-next
- From more information about the GLLUG talk:
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/pipermail/gllug-announce/2006/000107.html
Regards
Shane
PS: I'll be at LUG Radio Live causing trouble as well. While Gareth
Bowker is speaking I'll be at the FSFE stall explaining to everyone why
*I* would actually win the death match and what *he* was lying on LUG
Radio. For more information about Gareth's misinformation:
http://www.lugradio.org/episodes/53
- --
Shane Martin Coughlan
e: shane(a)opendawn.com
m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire)
w: www.opendawn.com
- ---
OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRLdxl9wG3M95JPpzAQhKxQP/XtC6Ca6QwLd0nFca4gdLVOVGILK9F7OI
qCAW3YJXTAX5u4KTuT9tDJ6qvKpOIptkrf0cNMe3D9Vq5nin7o1ZY+KpLbIWb+z1
Afczg1dHZ9hM64JmKncaRXiCmnfktpy2Jk6fOobU6y2vIf1LS9Nn9CdpAwz15p+3
Qj/MwrtW++0=
=wZZa
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi guys
I've agreed with the managing director of Dim Sum (www.dimsum.co.uk) to
produce a new series of articles about Europe, China and ICT. It'll be
an on-going thing with the relaunch of their revamped website
(http://joomla.dimsum.co.uk/).
This will provide another useful little outlet for the occasional Free
Software story.
Regards
Shane
- --
Shane Martin Coughlan
e: shane(a)opendawn.com
m: +447773180107 (UK) +353862262570 (Ire)
w: www.opendawn.com
- ---
OpenPGP: http://www.opendawn.com/shane/publickey.asc
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRLdwb9wG3M95JPpzAQhQJwP9HbbWWC8Q+CBAAApMWroziSpCHoSNMmVo
QzroECOfXeo2pORbTgNjIHmB0o/S1DkVpe0RdODYN2D72mY1GrcV+kUQq9CyVhhH
UozqYGud99oMFcMPDkGzrObgJ6n44RBJ2BTNz/yi0Cg77a6uNmwCAdfn9UnWTmxg
NHUqoE+lbsQ=
=Fmu0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256
Hi guys
I've incorporated the latest suggestions and squeezed everything down by
about 200 words.
==
Q: How can I give a speech about Free Software?
A: Know your audience! If you are talking about Free Software, talk
about it in a way that will genuinely engage the target audience. Taylor
your delivery to suit the people, and that way you will get a positive
result. If you are speaking to media students, don't go into details
regarding engineering methodology. If you are speaking to computer
science students, don't do a statistical analysis to show a good TCO
(Total Cost of Operation).
Make the presentation fun. Don't look like a teacher, but more like a
student: don't stay behind a desk, walk around and involve the audience
by asking questions.
Q: What important aspects of Free Software should I highlight?
A: There are many things you can talk about to show the benefits of Free
Software. The four freedoms (free use, free modification, free sharing,
free improving) are important, but are not the only things you can bring
into a speech. If you are talking to political students, you might want
to highlight the empowerment aspects of Free Software for developing
nations. If you are talking to computer science students, you might
want to highlight the advantages of Free Software licenses and the
flexibility they bring to both community-driven and in-house development
models.
It's important to emphasise that Free doesn't mean price, it means Freedom.
Q: What about questions regarding the legality of Free Software?
A: You can point out that Free Software has attracted virtually no
lawsuits. In the case of SCO the lawsuit is falling apart because SCO
actually have no evidence. Free Software is not illegal.
The GNU GPL went to court on three occasions, twice in Germany and once
in the USA. The license was considered valid in all cases. More
information about this is available on
http://www.fsf.org/news/wallace-vs-fsf,
http://www.netfilter.org/news/2004-04-15-sitecom-gpl.html and
http://www.ifross.de/ifross_html/home1_2006.html#ARTIKEL15.
Q: What about questions regarding quality control in Free Software?
A: The quality of software depends on many factors. If a project is
well managed it should have a very high standard of quality. This is
true for free and non-free software. The problem is that non-free
software precludes the possibility of peer-review. Proprietary software
is a black box. You have to trust the company that produced that box.
There is no way to verify your trust.
Free software is not always higher quality, but everyone has the right
to examine it and make improvements if desired.
Q: What about questions regarding sabotage of Free Software?
A: You can point out that Free Software fosters open development.
Someone may try to introduce something bad, but the open review process
means this damage will be spotted and removed. It is far more likely
that a hostile force could slip something into a closed system.
Examples of Free Software community audits include the backdoors
discovered in Firebird when the sources where released the first time;
or the tentative move to include backdoors in the Linux kernel that
didn't last more than a few hours.
Q: What about questions about the difference between Free Software and
Open Source?
A: The Open Source Initiative proposed the term 'Open Source' as a
marketing term for Free Software. Their choice of terminology weakened
Free Software's unique selling point (freedom), and introduced confusion
through ambiguous terminology.
This is about choosing the most effective terminology to accomplish a
purpose. It is important to select a terminology that does not easily
yield to misappropriation. The problem with the term Open Source is
that it refers to having access to source code, but access to the source
code is only a precondition for two of the four freedoms that define
Free Software. The term Free Software avoids catering to this
relatively common misunderstanding.
If someone is interested in clarity of language then it's important to
talk about Free Software. Remember, we're talking free as in freedom.
We want to ensure that people are free to use, modify, share and improve
software.
Q: How should I characterise software companies like Microsoft?
A: Always be aware that there may be Microsoft people in the audience
that can stand up any time to correct you if you don't stick to the
truth! You should try to talk about non-free software companies in
general (avoid names) as bad examples of how they treat their customers,
forcing upgrades or taking away their data in unknown formats.
Microsoft is a natural product of a wrong approach. They are the worst
curtailer of freedom, but that's only because they've been the most
successful. Others are trying very hard to restrict the freedom of
users in the same way as Microsoft.
We need to fix the general approach.
Q: What should I say if people suggest Free Software is for tree-hugging
hippies?
A: We use the four freedoms of software to ensure that software users
have a certain standard of rights. Software development and usage is
still a new activity, and it's history and philosophical thinking is
still relatively shallow. People using software don't have many rights
and they are being exploited. Free Software is about setting a measure
for how people should be treated.
If you're talking to a business audience, you can describe this as a
procurement policy. Procurement policies usually spell out minimum
requirements for purchasing and usage:
"Software providers must not prevent the company from seeing what the
software does"
"Software providers must not prevent the company from making
improvements, customising, fixing bugs - or commissioning others to do
these things for the company"
"Software providers will not prevent the publication of any improvements
which the collective users of the software make or commission."
Q: Where should I point people to find out more?
A: The Free Software Foundation Europe website (www.fsfeurope.org), the
Free Software Foundation website (www.fsf.org). Perhaps you could point
people to FSF Latin America, FSF India and Groklaw.
You can obtain some information on presentations given by Ciaran
O'Riordan of the FSFE at http://ciaran.compsoc.com/#roadshow
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iQCVAwUBRK6n6dwG3M95JPpzAQihzwP/SSrwZWxXgMdMbSVQhwD/yi7dh5RDkWD9
9cvApjQnAnSNJusD4co8Z+8k0uTz+29OtQ8pvEQu4G0TVIOmRPiRNAUPPZT9Uppc
ie4a6EcuwtkdERKBD7mbJYZk5cveT+8z3Hd64zYJ0DdgtmUfG6SVLjmZF05UPH/z
MarEfRlHAqE=
=0pgf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dear Sir,
I am a student at the Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and I am currently writting
my thesis under the suppervision of prof. van Vliet and it is related to how
knowledge is stored in the open source communities and how it is exchanged
between the members and passed to the newcomers.
For this purpose we have created a questionnaire which we kindly ask you to
fill in adn it is availiable at www.few.vu.nl/~psalti/questionnaire.htm
Your contribution is really important to our research and we really thank you!
We kindly ask you also to forward this questionnaire to any other list or
anybody suitable who could fill it in.
Yours sincerely
Alexandra Psalti