Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Software

EU Wants To Redefine "Closed" As "Nearly Open" 239

Posted by kdawson
from the double-plus-ungood dept.
Glyn Moody writes "A leaked copy (PDF) of Version 2 of the European Interoperability Framework replaces a requirement in Version 1 for carefully-defined open standards by one for a more general 'openness': 'the willingness of persons, organizations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of interest.' It also defines an 'openness continuum' that includes 'non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome.' Looks like 'closed' is the new 'open' in the EU."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

EU Wants To Redefine "Closed" As "Nearly Open"

Comments Filter:
  • Well, actually ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Monday November 02, 2009 @09:45PM (#29958398)

    Looks like 'closed' is the new 'open' in the EU.

    Actually, it looks like "corrupt" is the same old corrupt that it's always been. Gotta wonder just what changed hands to make that happen.

    • by mabhatter654 (561290) on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:15PM (#29959296)

      nothing has to change hands... this is how the lobbyist sycophants work. "Open Sources" was the new buzzword the pleb bureaucrats want.... so lobbyists continually re-spin words until something sticks... like little kids begging daddy for candy it goes from "no candy" to "how many pieces to get you to shut up so I can work". Unfortunately lobbyists aren't treated like begging children.

      • by Hucko (998827)

        In my family, for non essentials (lollies) the more you begged the less you got. We start with none.

    • by Gerzel (240421) *

      Money, wealth, power, flattery and the occasional sexual favour. The usual.

    • by Carewolf (581105) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @05:34AM (#29961374) Homepage

      No, the article looks like a troll.

      An openness scala needs to have two extremes to be useful, which is why it also needs to included the worst of the worst in closedness, which reflects the minimum of openness.

  • How hard is it? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Monday November 02, 2009 @09:49PM (#29958438)
    How hard is it to define open as

    A) Open specs
    B) An open implementation of those specs both on
    C) Not patent encumbered


    For just about everything there is a suitable open format. Lets see here:

    Images? There are many
    Audio? Ogg Vorbis
    Video? Ogg Theora
    Document? ODF or PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)

    There isn't a single thing that governments really need that isn't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      C) Not patent encumbered Proving this is often extremely difficult and costs millions of dollars in IP research. For example, one should note that such research has never been done for Ogg Vorbis or Theora, which is why some paranoid companies are still unwilling to adopt them.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        which is why if your the eu you adopt an open format and declare that it doesn't infringe on any patents.

        • Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by SuperAlgae (953330) on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:56PM (#29959556)

          Agreed. Governments are the one entity that can actually defend an open standard by simply saying that no patents apply to it. If someone thinks they have a claim, then they can raise the issue before it gets that far. But even then, if given the choice between denying someone a sanctioned monopoly (patent) or denying the entire world a viable standard, it's hard to justify the monopoly. Even reasonable patents are generally more an inevitable result of the state of technology than of some unique, singular leap. People are denied patents all the time. For every granted patent, there are any number of people doing equivalent work that are not only denied the patent but may be denied even the right to use their own work since it then violates the patent. Limiting patents as they apply to open standards hardly seems like a high price to pay.

          It is pretty clear that the real impediments to open standards are a matter of "follow the money".

    • Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by danlip (737336) on Monday November 02, 2009 @10:18PM (#29958760)

      not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal

      Wikipedia says "Formerly a proprietary format, PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008". It also says Adobe has patents on it "but licenses them for royalty-free use in developing software complying with its PDF specification".

      even if that wasn't the case there has long been a lot of fully compatible implementations of it (unlike Word).

      • Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Informative)

        by digitalunity (19107) <digitalunity.yahoo@com> on Monday November 02, 2009 @10:26PM (#29958852) Homepage

        There has been a lot of compatible PDF viewers, but the pool of PDF creation software is limited. Most OSS solutions implement a subset of the features. Even now, there really is nothing to complete with the feature level in Adobe Acrobat.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by syousef (465911)

          There has been a lot of compatible PDF viewers, but the pool of PDF creation software is limited. Most OSS solutions implement a subset of the features. Even now, there really is nothing to complete with the feature level in Adobe Acrobat.

          Hey, that means it's "nearly open"!

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by h4rr4r (612664)

          You may well want to check out scribus.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by danlip (737336)

          There has been a lot of compatible PDF viewers, but the pool of PDF creation software is limited. Most OSS solutions implement a subset of the features. Even now, there really is nothing to complete with the feature level in Adobe Acrobat.

          I'm not sure what all the features are, what I need (and probably what 99% of the population needs) is "convert some non-PDF document to PDF". Mac OS X does this natively, and I have used several free/cheap PC utilities to do the same. I've never had a document they couldn't do. They generally plug in through the print utility, so if you can print it you can convert it to PDF.

          • You're right, if all anyone wants to do is use an editor program to store a static content document in a portable format that will have the same layout everywhere, the existing PDF generators work great.

            If you want to take advantage of the advanced PDF features like embedded javascript or forms that submit to the web, you're basically SOL without Acrobat and even if you could create them, most of the OSS readers don't support the advanced features.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by the_womble (580291)

              The non-Adobe PDF creators do not implement feature that no-one uses.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by geminidomino (614729) *

              If you want to take advantage of the advanced PDF features like embedded javascript or forms that submit to the web, you're basically SOL without Acrobat and even if you could create them, most of the OSS readers don't support the advanced features.

              How are those "features", advanced or otherwise, in a format that was supposed to be about making sure the document looks like it's supposed to anywhere it's viewed?

              Just because adobe wants to hang a bag on the side of it doesn't mean that if they're trying to use that crap, they're using the wrong tools.

            • by lahvak (69490)

              If you want to take advantage of the advanced PDF features like embedded javascript or forms that submit to the web, you're basically SOL without Acrobat

              Actually, pdfTeX lets you do both of these quite easily, and I believe Scribus does, too. There are features of pdf that you do need Acrobat for, but the two you mentioned are not among them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          Is there a reason "print to PDF" isn't sufficient, for anything you'd use a Word document for?

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by Bert64 (520050)

            Yes...
            When you do that, you lose any metadata... The PDF output i've seen from "print to pdf" options in programs like word is usually pretty nasty, there are no hyperlinks or clickable indexes, it's just a series of pages...
            If you're going to have an electronic file, you want to take advantage of features inherent to it being electronic, since a printed document won't have such features the print option doesn't export any such information.

            Try using openoffice to save a pdf file with hyperlinks and a table

        • Anything you can print you can just write to a PDF.
        • by Yaa 101 (664725)

          That is because proprietary vendors don't stick to the protocol in a lot of cases, so any other group that does stick to the protocol has an incomplete spec.

      • Re:How hard is it? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by registrar (1220876) on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:58PM (#29959572)

        PDF is pretty open, but that's not open enough for my liking. The standard mandates that any implementation honour the dopier "protections" in PDF documents ("Conforming readers shall respect the intent of the document creator by restricting user access to an encrypted PDF file according to the permissions contained in the file.") Honour them means you're bound to write a stupid implementation of DRM; fail to honour them and you get sued.

        For example, I have a PDF file on my computer for which I do not have permission to save a copy (or print, etc.). That's right, I don't have permission to save the file. Fortunately I have a ready work-around for "saving" the file (i.e. copy it within the Finder), but seeing the Finder itself is (or, embeds) a capable PDF reader, I wonder if Apple isn't in violation of the standard by allowing their OS (which can interpret PDFs) to copy such files.

        A file format is a structure for exchanging information between programs; a standard should be limited to describing that structure. The problem is that Adobe &c have extended the notion of "file format" to cover their intentions for behaviour of programs making use of that format.

        Now I really wouldn't care if there was simply some kind of branding/trademark that allowed Adobe and mates to honour DRM within PDF readers and writers. If I want to make my own PDF reader/writer that doesn't fully honour the standard, then I have the option and can't use the trademark... but the fact that patents could be used to enforce the intent of the standard author means that the standard is not open enough. The GP's requirement needs to be that the standard not be patent encumbered in any way whatsoever.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      "PDF (not sure how "open" PDF really is but its pretty universal)"

      PDF is very open -- although there are still extensions that are difficult to work with without proprietary software. As an electronic document medium, PDF is pretty much what I demand from people who send me formatted documents; it is, in my opinion, something of a lingua franca for formatted documents. There is also DVI, though it is not as popular, and if all else fails, Postscript (which can, in the worst case, simple be sent to a pr
    • by Tacvek (948259)

      The problem is that many companies see no problem with paying RAND patent fees, and fail to see why that would make it not open. The is especially true in areas where patents are pooled, so if you have even one patent that might apply you add that to the pool, and either get a partial refund on the fees by being part of the pool, or having the fees waived entirely. (Depends on the specific patent pool).

      Also what is an Open Specification? Is it one that is publicly available without fee? In that case the C p

    • by Kynde (324134)

      How hard is it to define open as

      A) Open specs
      B) An open implementation of those specs both on
      C) Not patent encumbered

      Apparently not trivial, since two thirds of your requirements adopt recursion.

    • You seem to be under the false assumption that they had any interest in defining "open" that way. Ask yourself: Who would befit from something?
      And then ask: What control over the government do those ones have?
      Then you will know what will happen.

      But don't make the beginner's error of thinking that the "general public" had any control! Because they can only choose which of the groups of straw-men that are offered to them they will take.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cgenman (325138)

      here isn't a single thing that governments really need that isn't open or can be created for less cost than contracting it to proprietary vendors

      How about project management software, 3d rendering tools, Production Ready video editing tools, and automated translation middlewear?

      There are definitely needs out there which are non-trivial and which Open Source software hasn't fulfilled. There are a lot that are, and many times better than paid options. But you can't just broadly blanket mandate OSS on princip

  • Continuum (Score:2, Insightful)

    by lennier (44736)

    " also defines an 'openness continuum' "

    So - just like Creative Commons, then?

    (IHNRTFA)

  • by innerweb (721995) on Monday November 02, 2009 @10:08PM (#29958654)

    The older I get the more I realize how powerful those in power are. Not a conspiracy, just a bunch of greedy SOBs who will do whatever they can get away with to control and own more. From marketing being used to dilute meanings to out and out bribery of committee members to swing votes or bypass procedures. The worst part is that they get their power readily from another group, far more numerous than they, of individuals too lazy or too overwhelmed to pay attention to what is being done to them.

    Our history is full of cycles. Are we approaching another age of the Robber Baron in another form? Did the age ever truly leave? Nah. The rich and powerful and greedy have always been and always will be the rich and powerful and greedy. Only now, they are immortal corporations. They can die, but not in ways we can, nor are they truly limited in years. The funny part, like a good tragic comedy, is that the greed that makes them so powerful and dangerous is often the very thing that kills them in the end.

    But the carnage they leave behind.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sharkbiter (266775)

      It sucks to have to face the reality that in an almost infinite universe, a spiral galaxy's arm (one of many) of which an insignificant blue planet, (third from the sun), spins that there are such small minded individuals that are incapable of seeing future generations and simply not caring for the inhabitants that they're borrowing resources from. All to get a few material possessions or to feel that they have importance. Yes, they even think that digital watches are still pretty neat.

      To the future generat

    • Please define one moment in human history when the example you cite was not the case. The study of history is a powerful anecdote to those who think their lives are novel and unique, and who heavily criticize our own society for not living up to some sort of Kantian ideal.
      • by innerweb (721995)

        To answer your request, I quote myself, "The rich and powerful and greedy have always been and always will be the rich and powerful and greedy".

  • by Dachannien (617929) on Monday November 02, 2009 @10:36PM (#29958990)

    Butt-head: Uhhh, well, if nothing sucked, and everything was cool all the time, then, like, how would you know it was cool?

    Essentially, that's what they're saying here. They include closed software on the "openness" spectrum because it's necessary as a basis for comparison. Zero openness is still a value of openness.

    Maybe there's an attempt to redefine open source software to the benefit of companies who sell proprietary software, but this particular bit isn't the proper evidence for it.

  • by Statecraftsman (718862) * on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:00PM (#29959194) Homepage
    Richard Stallman and the Free Software Foundation have championed the use of the word free to make sure user freedom stays in sight as the primary goal. Free is ambiguous as it can mean free of cost or free as in freedom and there are lesser known meanings(sugar-free) but those two are the main ones. RMS, the FSF and others have chosen the word free to rally around for a reason. Its the best choice in having a debate about user freedom. Open on the other hand means many things to many people. It might mean that your backside is open to corporate exploration. It might mean that a store is open for business. It might mean that something exists somewhere on the spectrum from opaque to transparent. If you're going to care about something, care about freedom, not openness. Don't support legislation that attempts to define open, ouvert, etc. Support legislation that upholds free, freedom, libre, etc.
  • Stop being cynical (Score:3, Interesting)

    by i_ate_god (899684) on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:08PM (#29959246) Homepage

    I see it more as an anti DMCA.

    AKA: "We won't force you to be open, but if someone figures out your proprietary protocol, or someone writes a program that supports your proprietary file format, well... c'est la vie!"

  • by dirkdodgers (1642627) on Monday November 02, 2009 @11:14PM (#29959286)

    The previous version required that interoperability standards be owned by non-profit committees. Having worked with a number of such organizations I can tell you that as a customer, being locked into a committee-owned standard is as great an obstacle to innovation and efficiency as is a closed de facto standard, especially when the government is involved.

    It will continue to be far better for the customer over time when the customer can pick and choose which standards and vendors they will use. This allows customers to choose the balance they want to strike between compatibility and richness of functionality.

    I do agree that a reasonable criteria for use by government agencies is that a standard specification be free and unencumbered, but no thank you to design by committee.

  • is right on time?
  • by maxfresh (1435479) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @12:07AM (#29959614)
    With your selective quoting, and careful omissions, you have distorted and misrepresented what they have actually said. They never defined, nor attempted to redefine closed as open. In fact, they fully recognize and accurately define what constitutes "Open" and carefully noted that closed, propietary software and standards lie on the opposite end of the spectrum, or continuum. Here is the full, fair, non-distorted quote:

    Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, reused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end.

    By placing open on one and of the spectrum, and closed on the other, they very clearly are stating that the two are opposites. And to me, that seems like a perfectly fair and accurate description of the range of openness that exists in information systems and standards. Moreover, they conclude the section on openness with this recommendation:

    Recommendation 5. Public administrations should favour openness when working together to establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints.

    Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda, and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact, you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion? Is that what you want to do? Do you really want to undermine the credibility of those who advocate for free and open standards, especially in the public sector?

    Here is the full text of the section on oppenness, so that everyone can see it in its entirety, and draw their own conclusions.

    2.10 Underlying Principle 9: Openness

    Within the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of interest, having as ultimate goal the advancement of knowledge and the use thereof to solve relevant problems. In that sense, openness leads to considerable gains in efficiency.

    Interoperability involves the sharing of information and knowledge between organisations, hence implies a certain degree of openness. There are varying degrees of openness.

    The spectrum of approaches that lies between these two extremes can be called the openness continuum.

    European public administrations need to decide where they wish to position themselves on this continuum with respect to the issues discussed in the EIF. The exact position may vary, on a case-by-case basis, depending on their needs, priorities, legacy, budget, market situation and a number of other factors. While there is a correlation between openness and interoperability, it is also true that interoperability can be obtained without openness, for example via homogeneity of the ICT systems, which implies that all partners use, or agree to use, the same solution to implement a European Public Service.

    Recommendation 5. Public administrations should favour openness when working together to establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by maxfresh (1435479)
      Apologies to all for replying to myself, but the most important paragraph was dropped when I copied the section from the original pdf text. Here is the corrected full text:

      2.10 Underlying Principle 9: Openness

      Within the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of interest, having as ultimate goal the advancement of knowledge and the use thereof

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kikito (971480)

        Ok, my conclusions:

        1. You should put the previous version's text too, if you want people to "draw their own conclusions"

        2. The definition of "openness as a feeling of persons" still makes waters. It uses deliberatively weak wording - "willingness to share knowledge" doesn't actually mean that they are legally obligated to do it, for example.

        3. They have invented one new euphemism ("on the other end of the openness continuum") to replace a very valid existing word: "closed" - which is not used a single time

        • by petrus4 (213815)

          In specific terms, my own definition of openness, is whatever allows the work in question to replicate/propogate itself.

          So for a computer program, that primarily means source code. However, it can often mean specific elements of documentation as well. If you've got a program which uses conf files, generally speaking, downstream uses are going to need documentation of the conf file format before they can use it.

          In the case of protocols, it means available, readable, implementable specifications.

          When I made

    • by Wannabe Code Monkey (638617) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:15AM (#29960818)

      Do you not see that by distorting their words to advance your own agenda, and attributing to them malicious intent without any basis in fact, you undermine the very cause which you pretend to champion? Is that what you want to do? Do you really want to undermine the credibility of those who advocate for free and open standards, especially in the public sector?

      Thank you. I would have modded you as Informative, but you're already at 5, and I wanted to respond anyway. I'm getting really sick at how often not just the headline is inflammatory and just plain wrong, but even the summary. I can't believe how far some people will go to twist the true nature of a thing until they can claim it stands for its exact opposite. What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website. If this is the answer to print journalism dying, then maybe I should start up a subscription to my local newspaper, because the alternative is apparently much worse.

      Also, I turned off the classic index just so that I could vote this story down as 'stupid' and tag it as both 'badheadline' and 'badsummary'. I suggest others do the same. Next to just not reading slashdot anymore, it appears it's the only feedback we can supply.

      • Also, I turned off the classic index just so that I could vote this story down as 'stupid' and tag it...

        *facepalm* Thanks. I was wondering why I could no longer tag stuff!

        It's this kind of thing that's keeping me trying to be more humble as I age. :-)

      • I can't believe how far some people will go to twist the true nature of a thing until they can claim it stands for its exact opposite. What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.

        Take a look at which "editor" posted this story. I'd be surprised if this even ends up being the worst article posted by kdawson today.

      • by Tim C (15259)

        What's even worse is that it gets by people whose only job is to check this stuff out before posting it to the front page of a widely read website.

        That is not and never has been their job:

        How do you verify the accuracy of Slashdot stories?

        We don't. You do. :) If something seems outrageous, we might look for some corroboration, but as a rule, we regard this as the responsibility of the submitter and the audience.

        That's taken from the FAQ [slashdot.org].

        Now I'm not saying that that's how it *should* be, but that's how it *i

    • With your selective quoting, and careful omissions, you have distorted and misrepresented what they have actually said.

      Hell yeah! The man deserves a job with the New York Times or other mainstream media. Come on, don't even pretend that the pros don't use this tactic when they have an agenda to push.

    • Let me add that the reason the whole thing sounds so vague is that they're defining the terms for the debate about interoperability of different public services. It's not about specific implementations or whatever. It is necessarily vague because its point is that when EC, EP and council try to enact a new directive on interoperability in a specific field they need common terms and recommendations as a baseline for said directive that will be less vague.

      And even then it's not true that the draft doesn't t

  • by bipbop (1144919) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @12:29AM (#29959772)

    Goddamn! Who are the idiots who keep tagging everything idiocracy? It's pretty annoying. Is it supposed to be clever?

    I'm checking "No Karma Bonus" since I'm posting off-topic on purpose. Sorry, but after the last few articles randomly tagged "idiocracy", I couldn't hold it in anymore. Mod me how you will.

    • by selven (1556643)

      It's definitely overused. Back when the tag only applied to the dumbing down of our children's education, it made some sense. but now, it's completely irrelevant.

  • Nearly Smart, Nearly Sexy, Nearly Sauve, Nearly Adequate, Nearly Famous, Nearly Infallible, Nearly Safe, Nearly There....

  • Bush: It's a different kind of war! They, 're a different kind of people!
    Jon (Bush impression): They... they wear shoes on their hands! They eat with their butts! They call their Jesus Mohammad. Makes no sense...

    I don't know how to turn that into a comment that is critical of this newspeak redefinition though...

    How about you? A nice +5, Funny waits for you... coomee... catch it... ;)

  • Guess where the EU is now.
    They went after the p2p format, now its on to "open source" Linux.
    Amazing what can be pushed after a stay at a Rothschild family villa in Greece.
    Did an American record executive put in a good word for US computing interests?
  • This is disingenious. The document actually says the OPPOSITE of what one might think if reading only the slashdot-introduction. It says that open-ness is not a binary proposition, but a continuum where (and I quote)

    Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, resused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctanc

  • by fredrikv (521394) on Tuesday November 03, 2009 @03:50AM (#29960968)

    This post is simply wrong. The poster has completely distorted the message in the original text by using unfair citing methods.
    If you actually read the article, it defines the openness continuum as the range *between* "freely [---] accessed, reused and shared" and "non-documented, proprietary software". Not very groundbreaking or controversial.
    Boring.

    On the other hand, it is obvious that nearly all responders with strong opinions on the matter also have not bothered to read the article.
    Interesting?

    • "This post is simply wrong. The poster has completely distorted the message in the original text by using unfair citing methods. If you actually read the article .."

      I read both the article and the original and my reading is that the EIF went from supporting an open standard maintained by a not-for-profit organisation to a redefinition of 'openness' as meaning organizations willing to debate. And the only 'OPen Source Software' allowed is under a new EUPL license. Which I presume specifically excludes all
  • (Before modding this post as Offtopic, please read it to the end. It is relevant; you just need to read the whole thing in order to see how it is)

    Just in the last 24 hours, on another forum site that I read regularly, I know a guy who has private messaged me about migrating to FreeBSD.

    He has done that because, in the past, he was using either Windows, or certain Linux distributions which were heavily GUI oriented and which, for various reasons, had a much less transparent and orthogonal design. He was hav

  • A fairly minor TV station did a (funny) disquieting gig a while back, about France's P2P 3-strikes law: they roamed the hallways of our national assembly, and asked congressmen what "peer-to-peer" was... that was right when the p2p law was being discussed and making daily headlines, mind you:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXHuxNeasvw&feature=related [youtube.com] , very approximative translations, for fun

    - "peer to peer is being able to talk directly to people in the same situation as you, so it's very good"
    - "I don'

  • Analogous to the EIF's definition of Open Source Software (OSS), paying taxes is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a mixed source community obtaining salaries to share information about their financial status and to stimulate a debate with the revenue authorities, having as ultimate goal a mutual understanding of the situation and a strong basis for a healthy debate. In that sense, paying taxes leads to a quick turnaround of our fiscal status and strengthens the economy.

  • Just who exactly was involved in drafting the 'European Interoperability Framework' ?
  • The document defines openness as companies/organizations collaborating, sharing and debating. No mention of who owns the knowledge. The simple fact is - that if the source ain't open then the 'standards' can't be open.

    'Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria [opensource.org]: Free Redistribution, Source Code, Derived Works, Integrity of The Author's Source Code, No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups, No Discrimin
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by argent (18001)

      The simple fact is - that if the source ain't open then the 'standards' can't be open.

      Yes, you can have open standards implemented with closed source. TCP/IP, for example, was a closed source open standard before KA9Q and others implemented their own versions.

      An open standard, however, can't be defined by a closed source implementation (eg, OOXML), and an open standard can't require licenses for documentation or distribution. And it's the latter that this particular change is aimed at... letting European st

  • The biggest issue for the European Interoperability framework is that its first version pissed nearly everyone off by failing at every definition.
    The biggest hurdle was to support "open standards" with an objective definition that didn't cut the European Standards Organisations (ESOs) out of the institutional picture. Of the three ESOs, two of their business models are based on selling copies of their standards to make money - which flies in the face of the part of the "open standard" definition that requi

Some people carve careers, others chisel them.

Working...