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"? ;-)
Timo Juhani Lindfors timo.lindfors@iki.fi wrote:
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:
I think the "What Open Standards mean to you" section is questionable, too.
| Visible effects of Open Standards are that you can: | | * Choose any operating system or application and still be able to | read and edit all your old documents.
Any?
| * Collaborate with others regardless of which software they are using.
Really?
| * Use any software of your choice to interact with your government.
Even if my government would be using Open Standards in measurable quantities, I'd still be limited to software that actually supports those standards.
| The less visible effects of Open Standards are that they lead to: | | * more competition in software, resulting in better pricing | and service
I think that's true in some cases, but I doubt that it's true in all cases. I agree that using Open Standards shouldn't hurt, though.
| * increased competition in hardware, meaning more innovative | and cost-effective solutions
Same here.
| * lower taxes as a result of more effective governmental | IT solutions that avoid the cost of lock-in
DFD is 2010-03-31, not 2010-04-01, right?
I don't doubt that governments could save a lot of money on IT solutions if they could get there act together in regard to Open Standards, but I find it hard to believe that this would lead to reduced taxes.
Fabian
* Fabian Keil freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de [2010-03-30 20:48:42 +0200]:
| Visible effects of Open Standards are that you can: | | * Choose any operating system or application and still be able to | read and edit all your old documents.
Any?
For a letter to different ministries we changed that to: "Choose between different operating systems..." I think this solves the problem.
| * Collaborate with others regardless of which software they are using.
Really?
Why not?
| * Use any software of your choice to interact with your government.
Even if my government would be using Open Standards in measurable quantities, I'd still be limited to software that actually supports those standards.
Yes. I agree. What's your point?
| * lower taxes as a result of more effective governmental | IT solutions that avoid the cost of lock-in
DFD is 2010-03-31, not 2010-04-01, right?
I don't doubt that governments could save a lot of money on IT solutions if they could get there act together in regard to Open Standards, but I find it hard to believe that this would lead to reduced taxes.
You're right, we should probably remove that "lower taxes" part.
Best wishes, Matthias
Matthias Kirschner mk@fsfe.org wrote:
- Fabian Keil freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de [2010-03-30 20:48:42 +0200]:
| Visible effects of Open Standards are that you can: | | * Choose any operating system or application and still be able to | read and edit all your old documents.
Any?
For a letter to different ministries we changed that to: "Choose between different operating systems..." I think this solves the problem.
I agree.
| * Collaborate with others regardless of which software they are using.
Really?
Why not?
To collaborate with others, we have to agree on using software that supports the same file format and any choice of the format limits the number of applications we can use. That's true for Open Standards, too.
| * Use any software of your choice to interact with your government.
Even if my government would be using Open Standards in measurable quantities, I'd still be limited to software that actually supports those standards.
Yes. I agree. What's your point?
That I can't really chose "any" software.
Fabian
hi Fabian,
* Fabian Keil freebsd-listen@fabiankeil.de [2010-04-08 16:52:32 +0200]:
| * Collaborate with others regardless of which software they are using.
Really?
Why not?
To collaborate with others, we have to agree on using software that supports the same file format and any choice of the format limits the number of applications we can use. That's true for Open Standards, too.
Ok, now I understand. Something like:
* Collaborate with others, although they are using a different software than you.
better? Or do you have another suggestion?
| * Use any software of your choice to interact with your government.
Even if my government would be using Open Standards in measurable quantities, I'd still be limited to software that actually supports those standards.
Yes. I agree. What's your point?
That I can't really chose "any" software.
Have you thought about something like:
* Choose between different software from different vendors to interact with your government.
Best wishes, Matthias
That tabel of standards would be nice, but it may be more difficult to produce than it seems.
I'm running out of time, I hope it's ok to send my observations here...
Open Standards are essential for interoperability and freedom of choice based on the merits of different software applications. They provide freedom from data lock-in and the subsequent vendor lock-in. This makes Open Standards essential for governments, companies, organisations and individual users of information technology. While Open Standards are generally agreed upon as a very important issue and goal, the definition of "Open Standard" is still somewhat controversial.
Is not that controversial, it's more like abused. I think open standards are to software as democracy is to society. We achieve it in varying degrees, we sacrify it too often in pursuit of misperceived comfort and we suffer the consequences, we all know what it is about but we could argue very long to define it very precisely, but we all agree you shouldn't believe it's there in a particular case merely because someone says so.
- without any components or extensions that have dependencies on
formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
It's not very very clear whether this means any such extension you add to the standard does not constitute part of the standard and such extension should be avoided or once somebody adds such an extension to an standard the standard cease to be open and the standard should be avoided.
- free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation
by any party or in any business model;
Legally encumbered standards are often not encumbered by clauses in the standard itself. And of course in places with software patents legal encumbrances might even be submarine. This makes it difficult to phrase this condition. On the other hands there might be fair limits to use (GPL ? trademarks not allowing to call an implementation compliant if it isn't ?).
- available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.
weak? "equally available" is enough ?
Visible effects of Open Standards are that you can:
* Choose any operating system or application and still be able to read and edit all your old documents. * Collaborate with others regardless of which software they are using. * Use any software of your choice to interact with your government.
I agree this is hyperbolic, I'd write it more like
* Greater choice in operating system, hardware or application while still being able to read and edit your old documents.
* Greater possibilities to collaborate with others using different software (which becomes a right when collaboration is required, like with governments)
* Greater reach by removing requirements to access your message
(interacting with governmetn isn't merely a case of interacting with others? )
* lower taxes as a result of more effective governmental IT solutions that avoid the cost of lock-in
Already said. At least we shoudl allow democratic governments to chose whether any saving go to increased coverages,services or quality or they go to lower taxes.
More information on Open Standards
There used to be a definition of Open Standards by IDABC that I liked. I'm not sure it's still current, unfortunately... I don't know where to find it right now.