Discussion March 2010

discussion@lists.fsfe.org

15 participants
14 discussions

improving http://documentfreedom.org/Open_Standards
by Timo Juhani Lindfors 08 Apr '10

08 Apr '10

Hi, the definition given at http://documentfreedom.org/Open_Standards is somewhat abstract. I know that the definition is still controversial but I think the following would benefit an average user browsing the site: 1) add a list of common standards that people use (zip, HTML, Microsoft Word, tar, RTF, MP3, Ogg Theora). 2) for each item on the list: go through points 1-5 and discuss why they might apply or not might not apply. 3) for each item on the list: give an overall conclusion and potential list of alternative standards. I do not think this list needs to be long. It just has to name something concrete for the average to have something to think about. I added some entries at http://documentfreedom.org/Talk:Open_Standards but I was unable to complete the table since I was not quite sure about points 4 and 5. Particularly point 4 was hard since I do not undesrstand the organizational structure of xiph.org that manages ogg vorbis. Point 5 was hard since I do not understand what "a complete implementation equally available to all parties" exactly means. Doesn't a non-free implementation fulfil point 5? Is that intended? Finally, the text of the Open_Standards page seems to be copied from http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html which is under "Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved.". Is copyright assignment to FSFE required to get changes accepted "upstream"? ;-)

4 5

RE: Explaining Open Standards email attachements
by Sam Liddicott 06 Apr '10

06 Apr '10

I think the message is a great summary of the problem; but from experience I say that users who don't already have a political understanding of the issues or a thorough technical background will: 1. Not be able to understand what to do in order to comply with the message 2. Not be capable of carrying out the steps if they do understand. The document also mixes ideas of convenience with politics, but comes across as being about convenience and interoperability. For example: most users cannot handle ogg for flac files. Most users who can't accept mp3 but can accept ogg do so out of conscious rejection of mp3. And so the argument for ogg is political and not about interoperability and therfore will seem dishonest to non-technical readers who will then doubt the entire argument. Imagine when nearly everyone they send an ogg to (after the initial difficulty of producing the ogg - from an mp3) needs to ask what an ogg is and how to play it. It will soon be apparent that mp3 should have been used. On the other hand I often say that I don't want to have to buy five hundred pounds of office suite and operating system in order to read their docx (or worse: ms publisher) properly; I ask for a PDF (which they are familiar with) and there is a free printer driver pdf writer for windows which I can point then to. Thus I reduce my problem and their future problems. Asking for ogg would make problems. So I think the stance of the document needs clarifying, is it a political document or a guide to convenient communication - it can't serve both aims well. Sam -----Original Message----- From: Hugo Roy <hugo(a)fsfe.org> Sent: 31 March 2010 18:18 To: discussion(a)fsfeurope.org Subject: Re: Explaining Open Standards email attachements Hello, A new version is available at: http://hugoroy.eu/open-standards-att.php Send me attachments I can read, use open standards! There are many ways to share documents, files and data over the Internet. Among them, emails are often used because people can communicate from one mail server1 to another without any difficulty. Why does it work so simply? Because emails are designed to use a set of open standards2, based on the Internet protocols. However, sometimes people send attachments along with their emails, and it happens frequently that the attachments cannot be read by the recipients. For example, many attached files are documents produced by word processors and it can be impossible to read them correctly if you do not have the same word processor. Many proprietary word processors use proprietary file formats3. In 2002, a campaign was started to put an end to Word attachments. But the same is true for all kinds of documents and files: texts, spreadsheets, slides, videos, etc. When you attach a file to an email, please make sure that your correspondent will be able to read your files correctly. It is a basic principle of courtesy. And there is an easy way to make sure it is possible: use open standards. If you do so, your correspondent will have the possibility to choose which program he or she wants. Open standards guarantee sustainability and interoperability for your data, making sure you will be able to access them in the future, even with another software, on another platform or operating system. Moreover, by promoting open standards you will help everyone: sharing documents can be as easy as sending and receiving emails! If you receive an email using proprietary file formats, don't hesitate to share this page and explain why it is important to use Open Standards. Campaigns for Open Standards * Document Freedom Day * Play Ogg and rOgg On! On Document Freedom Day, the FSF started a campaign to call on computer users to start politely rejecting proprietary attachments. Organisations and Software supporting Open Standards * OpenOffice.org * VideoLan, the project making VLC * Free Software Foundation Europe support Open Standards 1. ^ Mail servers transfer emails from one computer to another. For more information, you can check Wikipedia 2. ^ Open Standards are protocols and file formats that can be freely used and implemented, and are designed in an open process. For more information, see the Open Standards definition. 3. ^ Microsoft Office by default save your files in the ".doc" format or the ".docx" format. If you share these documents with people using different word processors, it will not work properly. Good alternatives for Microsoft Word are documents in .RTF or in .ODT (use the "Save As" feature) -- Hugo Roy im: hugo(a)jabber.fsfe.org French Coordinator http://www.fsfe.org/about/roy Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law and society-at-large. For more information, see www.fsfe.org

7 6

Explaining Open Standards email attachements
by Hugo Roy 01 Apr '10

01 Apr '10

Hello, I would like to publish that for Document Freedom day and I would like your feedback before as well as your propositions to make it a better text. http://hugoroy.eu/open-standards-att.php = Send me attachments I can read, use open standards! = There are many ways to share documents, files and data over the Internet. Among them, emails are often used to do so, because whoever has an email address can send and receive emails freely. People from one mail server[1] to another can communicate without any difficulty. Why is it working so simply? Because emails are designed to use a set of open standards[2], based on the Internet protocols. However sometimes, people send attachments along with their emails, and it happens frequently that the attachments cannot be read by your correspondent. For example, many attached files are documents produced by word processors and they can be impossible to read correctly if you don't have the same word processor. This is often the case when using proprietary word processors. These programs don't use open standards, but they use proprietary file formats[3] instead. In 2002, a campaign was started to put an end to Word attachments. However, this is also true for all kinds of documents and files: texts, spreadsheets, slides, videos, etc. When you attach a file to an email, please make sure that your correspondent will be able to read your files correctly. It is a basic principle of courtesy. There is an easy way to make sure it is possible: use open standards. If you do so, your correspondent will have the possibility to choose which program he or she wants. Moreover, by promoting open standards you will help everyone: sharing documents can be as easy as sending and receiving emails! If you receive an email using proprietary file formats, don't hesitate to share this page. Campaigns for Open Standards * Document Freedom Day * Play Ogg and rOgg On! Organisations and Software supporting Open Standards * OpenOffice.org * VideoLan, the project making VLC * Free Software Foundation Europe support Open Standards Footnotes: 1. ^ Mail servers transfer emails from one computer to another. For more information, you can read the Wikipedia 2. ^ Open Standards are protocols and file formats that can be freely used and implemented, and are designed in an open process. For more information, see the Open Standards definition. 3. ^ Microsoft Office by default save your files in the ".doc" format or the ".docx" format. If you share these documents with people using different word processors, it will not be working properly. Good alternatives for Microsoft Word are documents in .RTF or in .ODT (use the "Save As" feature) -- Hugo Roy im: hugo(a)jabber.fsfe.org French Coordinator http://www.fsfe.org/about/roy Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law and society-at-large. For more information, see www.fsfe.org

6 10

Happy Document Freedom Day (and some pictures)
by Matthias Kirschner 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Hi all, I wish you all a happy Document Freedom Day! Here a short blog entry with pictures how my day looked like: http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=489. Fellows, you rOGGed!! Matthias PS: The tart was good ;) -- German Coordinator, Fellowship Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) [] (http://fsfe.org) Join the Fellowship of FSFE! [][][] (http://fsfe.org/join) Your donation powers our work! || (http://fsfe.org/donate)

1 0

Re: Explaining Open Standards email attachements
by Hugo Roy 31 Mar '10

31 Mar '10

Hi, The text is now on https://wiki.fsfe.org/ConvinceYourFriends/Attachments Feel free to edit it. Best, Hugo Sorry Michael! I forgot the footnotes, thanks! Le mercredi 31 mars 2010 19:44:11, Michael Kennedy a écrit : > > 3. ^ Microsoft Office by default save your files in the ".doc" > > format > > Office -> Word > > save -> saves > > > or the ".docx" format. If you share these documents with people > > using different word processors, it will not work properly. Good > > alternatives > > it will -> they may > > > for Microsoft Word are documents in .RTF or in .ODT (use the "Save > > As" feature) > > - Mike > -- Hugo Roy im: hugo(a)jabber.fsfe.org French Coordinator http://www.fsfe.org/about/roy Free Software Foundation Europe works to create general understanding and support for software freedom in politics, law and society-at-large. For more information, see www.fsfe.org

1 0

Explaining Open Standards email attachements
by Hugo Roy 30 Mar '10

30 Mar '10

1 0

CFP Fwd: Software Freedom Kosova 2010
by jamesmikedupont＠googlemail.com 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: bernard nikaj <bernard.nikaj(a)flossk.org> Date: Mon, Mar 29, 2010 at 3:32 PM Subject: Software Freedom Kosova 2010 Dear all, Following the success of the Software Freedom Kosova 2009 (SFK '09) Conference, FLOSSK and University of Prishtina are preparing to organize the next SFK '10 Conference. The conference will be held on 25th and 26th of September and we hope will attract speakers from around the world as it did in 2009. Considering that you have been among the speakers of SFK '09, I encourage you to submit papers/presentations for this years conference. At the same time, I would like to kindly ask you to pass the attached CfP and information about SFK '10 to any of your friends/colleagues that might be interested to participate/speak. It was a great honour having you in Prishtina last year. We hope to be able to welcome you again this year in any capacity you choose. Should you require any further information or assistance, feel free to contact us. Looking forward to hearing from you, with Best Regards, Bernard Nikaj Co-Chair, Papers/Programme Committee

1 1

The European Interoperability Framework strikes back
by Hugo Roy 29 Mar '10

29 Mar '10

Hello, Things are updating at the European Commission, and maybe not for the best. Open Standards and the Digital Agenda are at stake and under attacks. Karsten has published a blog entry about the issue of the EIFv2 [1], you may also promote this post on FSDaily [2]. If you want more information about it, there is our detailed analysis [3]. [1] http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/?p=324 [2] http://www.fsdaily.com/Government/Back_on_the_block_and_worse_than_ever_EIF… [3] http://www.fsfe.org/projects/os/eifv2.html Best, -- Hugo Roy hugo(a)hugoroy.eu xmpp:hugo@jabber.fsfe.org Le fichier "signature.asc" est une signature numérique qui garantit l'authenticité de ce message. Plus d'informations sur http://hugoroy.eu/gnupg.php

1 0

Some ideas for promoting Ogg-Vorbis in April
by Matthias Kirschner 26 Mar '10

26 Mar '10

Hi all, I wrote a blog entry about what we are doing in Germany and Austria at the moment to promote Open Standards at Document Freedom Day, and also how you can promote Ogg-Vorbis in April. Document Freedom Day - rOgg on in April! http://blogs.fsfe.org/mk/?p=478 Best wishes, Matthias -- German Coordinator, Fellowship Coordinator Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) [] (http://fsfe.org) Join the Fellowship of FSFE! [][][] (http://fsfe.org/join) Your donation powers our work! || (http://fsfe.org/donate)

1 0

Open Wallet Business invented
by Kārlis Repsons 24 Mar '10

24 Mar '10

People, let me point your attention to a new kind of business, which has this far been impossible because of lack of adequate technological solutions and the related attitudes to it along with lacking knowledge. In fact, numerous big software projects, which do/should collect their money from many sources are operational already, just like there are many small developments like some dedicated blogs, which should receive support from many sources. As I see it, currently a great deal of failure is going on with both intelligently supporting others' developments and receiving support for own ones. And it doesn't surprise me at all -- how can things be different, when no trust is out there, just like predominantly there is so little knowledge about how much support a given project needs! Even it might all seem just logical to many, who see no failure, as such are the capabilities of the current economy. Quite inevitably, given an understanding about the capabilities of the latest information technologies, reasoning leads me to a conclusion, that a new kind of business is necessary. As various information projects develop and benefit everyone, who copies them in some way and finds them useful, the importance of competition lessens as opposed to importance of cooperation, simply because of more efficient way of making life better. But... Cooperation requires mutual support, which requires trust. How can so many people, who convene around a full spectrum of numerous information projects have a way to know how much support a given project needs, when question is about money? The full answer is too complex to say, effectively it is unique for each project and can differ greatly, however there is an important thing in common for all -- to receive support, open information projects have to provide knowledge of the support, which has been received already. That way there can be some reasonable trust. And it can happen through technological reliability. To understand what I mean by those two words, you have to read my presentation (link given below). In essence, I believe, that technological reliability can solve many problems and I also think, that I've made a bit of invention as for how to achieve it. If you feel interested this far, you should read this: http://11.lv/files/presentations/2010/OWB/OWB-eng.pdf or, if you would prefer slides, where contents appear incrementally, as if I was telling them piece by piece: http://11.lv/files/presentations/2010/OWB/OWB-eng-i.pdf To git people: (hopefully this can be accepted there) well, first, thanks for inspiring me with your VCS, also I think, your responses might be valuable, as you're many serious programmers there, you could inspect my idea from technical point of view and give a feedback of what flaws you can see! Thinking it over for multiple times, I think, those 5 principles are enough an idea to build the relevant software and use it with success... But Internet has a lot more eyes than I do, so, please be critical (but precise)! I'd like to have some confirmation, that my idea can be what I think it is, just like it should be useful to discuss the underlying problem (distributed support) in general. Development of those software components should be the further discussion, but I think, we are not there yet. Also, if you are interested in this and happen to use gpg, please do a favour to me: consider that presentation a piece of my content-based identity and, to be sure of the next contents you might read, where I'm supposedly an author and signature file is given (as I'll do for each +- serious work), check the respective signatures against the attached public key (I do my best not to loose the other component of it)! If some mailprogram removes those files, search for 0xDA7B716812463FDFAB8D7A2E9CA777980D745B45 Thanks...

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

Discussion March 2010