Explaining Open Standards email attachements

[Hugo Roy]

Le lundi 05 avril 2010 à 17:55 +0100, Sam Liddicott a écrit :
> It has nothing to do with "proprietary".

A format or protocol that is patented and licensed with fees is
proprietary to me (mp3). 

> > I'd like to say that your statement here is wrong, because it applies
> > for proprietary formats, not to Open Standards, where people have the
> > choice.
> 
> It's inconvenient to most people because suddenly they don't just have
> a choice, they have to make a choice.

But this is even more inconvenient with proprietary standards, because
in most of the cases you have to upgrade to a specific software. People
are obliged to make that choice every 5 years because of a new .doc
format.

> I don't think so, you said:
> >Yes, if they use software that don't handle Open Standards, which is in
> >most of the cases Proprietary Software we want to fight against.

I meant: there are no collateral problems in avoiding proprietary
software that don't use open standards.

> The purpose of the document is to take advantage of the inconveniences
> of proprietary formats in email to fight against proprietary software.

No. Proprietary software can use ODT (even the next version of Office
will if I'm not wrong). This is not a diversion to fight proprietary
software.

> I don't have any complaint with this; I just think care should be
> taken to choose scenarios that can be won. docx can be won because
> many office users can't read docx. Ogg cannot be won because for most
> users open format ogg is more awkward then proprietary mp3. 

And so is WMA, AAC… Do you want to make a list of alternatives to MP3
that despite inconvenience have been able to make a market share?

> > I strongly disagree here. Widespread standards (that's a pleonasm) aid
> > the one in control of the standards. Open Standards aid interoperability
> > because control of the standards is shared.
> 
> I think sometimes you let idealism stand in the way of truth,

No, I can assure you that's not the case. I'm talking here with
practical arguments and situations.

>  Widespread standards IS interoperability.

Ok, first. Widespread standards is a pleonasm, it doesn't mean anything.
Standards can be important because: they are used by only one software
which has an incredible market share OR because they are used by several
software which together makes a good market share.

In the first case, you have no interoperability because everyone is
using the same solution. In the second case, you have interoperability
because otherwise it would not be working.

Where is proprietary standards, where is Open standards? I let you
guess…

>  Open standards merely potentially supports interoperability - as the
> standard becomes widespread.

Open Standards include interoperability by design! The specification is
completely public, it doesn't rely on any closed/proprietary technology,
it was designed in an open and democratic process and it has multiple
implementations.


I hope this discussion is worth making things clear about Open
Standards.

Thanks,

-- 
  Hugo Roy                           im: hugo at 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 http://www.fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 316 bytes
Desc: Ceci est une partie de message numériquement signée
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20100406/bf212c83/attachment.sig>