Petter Reinholdtsen

Entries tagged "digistan".

Regjeringen, FAD og DIFI går inn for å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk standard i det offentlige
18th March 2013

I siste høring om referansekatalogen for IT-standarder i offentlig sektor, med høringsfrist 2012-09-30 (DIFI-sak 2012/498), ble det foreslått å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk standard når en publiserte dokumenter som skulle kunne redigeres videre av mottaker. NUUG og andre protesterte på forslaget, som er et langt steg tilbake når det gjelder å sikre like rettigheter for alle når en kommuniserer med det offentlige. For noen dager siden ble jeg oppmerksom på at Direktoratet for forvaltning og IKT (DIFI) og Fornyings-,administrasjons- og kirkedepartementet (FAD) har konkludert, og oversendt forslag til regjeringen i saken. FADs dokument 2012/2168-8, «Utkast til endring av standardiseringsforskriften» datert 2013-02-06 har følgende triste oppsummering fra høringen i saken:

Det kom noen innvendinger på forslaget om å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk standard for redigerbare dokumenter. Innvendingene har ikke blitt ilagt avgjørende vekt.

Ved å fjerne ODF som obligatorisk format ved publisering av redigerbare dokumenter setter en Norge tiår tilbake. Det som vil skje er at offentlige etater går tilbake til kun å publisere dokumenter på et av de mange formatene til Microsoft Office, og alle som ikke aksepterer bruksvilkårene til Microsoft eller ikke har råd til å bruke penger på å få tilgang til Microsoft Office må igjen basere seg på verktøy fra utviklerne som er avhengig av å reversutvikle disse formatene. I og med at ISO-spesifikasjonen for OOXML ikke komplett og korrekt spesifiserer formatene til MS Office (men er nyttige å titte i når en reversutvikler), er en tilbake til en situasjon der en ikke har en fri og åpen standard å forholde seg til, men i stedet må springe etter Microsoft. Alle andre leverandører enn Microsoft vil dermed ha en seriøs ulempe. Det er som å fjerne krav om bruk av meter som måleenhet, og heretter aksepterer alle måleenheter som like gyldige, når en vet at den mest brukte enheten vil være armlengden til Steve Ballmer slik Microsoft måler den.

Jeg er ikke sikker på om forslaget er vedtatt av regjeringen ennå. Kristian Bergem hos DIFI nevnte på et møte forrige tirsdag at han trodde det var vedtatt i statsråd 8. mars, men jeg har ikke klart å finne en skriftlig kilde på regjeringen.no som bekrefter dette. Kanskje det ennå ikke er for sent...

Jeg ba i forrige uke om innsyn i dokument 6, 7 og 8 i FAD-saken, og har i dag fått innsyn i dokument 7 og 8. Ble nektet innsyn i dokumentet med tittelen «Oppsummering av høring om endringer i forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig forvaltning» med hjemmel i off. lovens §15.1, så det er vanskelig å vite hvordan argumentene fra høringen ble mottatt og forstått av saksbehandleren hos DIFI. Lurer på hvordan jeg kan klage på at jeg ikke fikk se oppsummeringen. Fikk tre PDFer tilsendt fra FAD, Endring av underversjon i EHF, Bakgrunnsnotat knyttet til versjon av EHF standarden i Forskrift om IT-standarder i offentlig sektor og Utkast til endring av standardiseringsforskriften, hvis du vil ta en titt.

Tags: digistan, norsk, standard.
Trenger en avtale med MPEG-LA for å publisere og kringkaste H.264-video?
21st June 2012

Trengs det avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lovlig rett til å distribuere og kringkaste video i MPEG4 eller med videokodingen H.264? H.264 og MPEG4 er jo ikke en fri og åpen standard i henhold til definisjonen til Digistan, så i enkelte land er det ingen tvil om at du må ha en slik avtale, men jeg må innrømme at jeg ikke vet om det også gjelder Norge. Det ser uansett ut til å være en juridisk interessant problemstilling. Men jeg tenkte her om dagen som så, at hvis det er nødvendig, så har store aktører som NRK og regjeringen skaffet seg en slik avtale. Jeg har derfor sendt forespørsel til begge (for regjeringen sin del er det Departementenes Servicesenter som gjør jobben), og bedt om kopi av eventuelle avtaler de har om bruk av MPEG og/eller H.264 med MPEG-LA eller andre aktører som opererer på vegne av MPEG-LA. Her er kopi av eposten jeg har sendt til Departementenes Servicesenter. Forespørselen til NRK er veldig lik.

Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 15:18:33 +0200
From: Petter Reinholdtsen
To: postmottak@dss.dep.no
Subject: Innsynsbegjæring om MPEG/H.264-relaterte avtaler

Hei. Jeg ber herved om innsyn og kopi av dokumenter i DSS relatert til avtaler rundt bruk av videoformatene MPEG og H.264. Jeg er spesielt interessert i å vite om DSS har lisensavtale med MPEG-LA eller noen som representerer MPEG-LA i Norge.

MPEG og H.264 er videoformater som brukes både til kringkasting (f.eks. i bakkenett og kabel-TV) og videopublisering på web, deriblant via Adobe Flash. MPEG-LA, <URL: http://www.mpeg-la.com/ >, er en organisasjon som har fått oppgaven, av de kjente rettighetshavere av immaterielle rettigheter knyttet til MPEG og H.264, å selge bruksrett for MPEG og H.264.

Via regjeringen.no kringkastes med MPEG og H.264-baserte videoformater, og dette ser ut til å være organisert av DSS. Jeg antar dermed at DSS har avtale med en eller annen aktør om dette.

F.eks. har Adobe Premiere Pro har følgende klausul i følge <URL: http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20000101-264.html >:

6.17. AVC DISTRIBUTION. The following notice applies to software containing AVC import and export functionality: THIS PRODUCT IS LICENSED UNDER THE AVC PATENT PORTFOLIO LICENSE FOR THE PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL USE OF A CONSUMER TO (a) ENCODE VIDEO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AVC STANDARD ("AVC VIDEO") AND/OR (b) DECODE AVC VIDEO THAT WAS ENCODED BY A CONSUMER ENGAGED IN A PERSONAL AND NON-COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY AND/OR AVC VIDEO THAT WAS OBTAINED FROM A VIDEO PROVIDER LICENSED TO PROVIDE AVC VIDEO. NO LICENSE IS GRANTED OR SHALL BE IMPLIED FOR ANY OTHER USE. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION MAY BE OBTAINED FROM MPEG LA L.L.C. SEE http://www.mpegla.com.

Her er det kun "non-commercial" og "personal and non-commercial" aktivitet som er tillatt uten ekstra avtale med MPEG-LA.

Et annet tilsvarende eksempel er Apple Final Cut Pro, som har følgende klausul i følge <URL: http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/finalcutstudio2.pdf >:

15. Merknad om H.264/AVC. Hvis Apple-programvaren inneholder funksjonalitet for AVC-koding og/eller AVC-dekoding, krever kommersiell bruk ekstra lisensiering og følgende gjelder: AVC-FUNKSJONALITETEN I DETTE PRODUKTET KAN KUN ANVENDES AV FORBRUKERE OG KUN FOR PERSONLIG OG IKKE- KOMMERSIELL BRUK TIL (i) KODING AV VIDEO I OVERENSSTEMMELSE MED AVC-STANDARDEN ("AVC-VIDEO") OG/ELLER (ii) DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO SOM ER KODET AV EN FORBRUKER TIL PERSONLIG OG IKKE-KOMMERSIELL BRUK OG/ELLER DEKODING AV AVC-VIDEO FRA EN VIDEOLEVERANDØR SOM HAR LISENS TIL Å TILBY AVC-VIDEO. INFORMASJON OM ANNEN BRUK OG LISENSIERING KAN INNHENTES FRA MPEG LA L.L.C. SE HTTP://WWW.MPEGLA.COM.

Tilsvarende gjelder for andre programvarepakker, kamera, etc som bruker MPEG og H.264, at en må ha en avtale med MPEG-LA for å ha lov til å bruke programmet/utstyret hvis en skal lage noe annet enn private filmer og i ikke-kommersiell virksomhet.

Jeg er altså interessert i kopi av avtaler DSS har som gjør at en ikke er begrenset av de generelle bruksvilkårene som gjelder for utstyr som bruker MPEG og/eller H.264.

Nå venter jeg spent på svaret. Jeg planlegger å blogge om svaret her.

Tags: digistan, h264, multimedia, norsk, opphavsrett, standard, video, web.
HTC One X - Your video? What do you mean?
26th April 2012

In an article today published by Computerworld Norway, the photographer Eirik Helland Urke reports that the video editor application included with HTC One X have some quite surprising terms of use. The article is mostly based on the twitter message from mister Urke, stating:

"Drøy brukeravtale: HTC kan bruke MINE redigerte videoer kommersielt. Selv kan jeg KUN bruke dem privat."

I quickly translated it to this English message:

"Arrogant user agreement: HTC can use MY edited videos commercially. Although I can ONLY use them privately."

I've been unable to find the text of the license term myself, but suspect it is a variation of the MPEG-LA terms I discovered with my Canon IXUS 130. The HTC One X specification specifies that the recording format of the phone is .amr for audio and .mp3 for video. AMR is Adaptive Multi-Rate audio codec with patents which according to the Wikipedia article require an license agreement with VoiceAge. MP4 is MPEG4 with H.264, which according to Wikipedia require a licence agreement with MPEG-LA.

I know why I prefer free and open standards also for video.

Tags: digistan, english, h264, multimedia, personvern, standard, video, web.
What standards are Free and Open as defined by Digistan?
30th December 2010

After trying to compare Ogg Theora to the Digistan definition of a free and open standard, I concluded that this need to be done for more standards and started on a framework for doing this. As a start, I want to get the status for all the standards in the Norwegian reference directory, which include UTF-8, HTML, PDF, ODF, JPEG, PNG, SVG and others. But to be able to complete this in a reasonable time frame, I will need help.

If you want to help out with this work, please visit the wiki pages I have set up for this, and let me know that you want to help out. The IRC channel #nuug on irc.freenode.net is a good place to coordinate this for now, as it is the IRC channel for the NUUG association where I have created the framework (I am the leader of the Norwegian Unix User Group).

The framework is still forming, and a lot is left to do. Do not be scared by the sketchy form of the current pages. :)

Tags: digistan, english, standard.
The many definitions of a open standard
27th December 2010

One of the reasons I like the Digistan definition of "Free and Open Standard" is that this is a new term, and thus the meaning of the term has been decided by Digistan. The term "Open Standard" has become so misunderstood that it is no longer very useful when talking about standards. One end up discussing which definition is the best one and with such frame the only one gaining are the proponents of de-facto standards and proprietary solutions.

But to give us an idea about the diversity of definitions of open standards, here are a few that I know about. This list is not complete, but can be a starting point for those that want to do a complete survey. More definitions are available on the wikipedia page.

First off is my favourite, the definition from the European Interoperability Framework version 1.0. Really sad to notice that BSA and others has succeeded in getting it removed from version 2.0 of the framework by stacking the committee drafting the new version with their own people. Anyway, the definition is still available and it include the key properties needed to make sure everyone can use a specification on equal terms.

The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:

  • The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
  • The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
  • The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty- free basis.
  • There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

Another one originates from my friends over at DKUUG, who coined and gathered support for this definition in 2004. It even made it into the Danish parlament as their definition of a open standard. Another from a different part of the Danish government is available from the wikipedia page.

En åben standard opfylder følgende krav:

  1. Veldokumenteret med den fuldstændige specifikation offentligt tilgængelig.
  2. Frit implementerbar uden økonomiske, politiske eller juridiske begrænsninger på implementation og anvendelse.
  3. Standardiseret og vedligeholdt i et åbent forum (en såkaldt "standardiseringsorganisation") via en åben proces.

Then there is the definition from Free Software Foundation Europe.

An Open Standard refers to a format or protocol that is

  1. subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties;
  2. without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves;
  3. free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model;
  4. managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;
  5. available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties.

A long time ago, SUN Microsystems, now bought by Oracle, created its Open Standards Checklist with a fairly detailed description.

Creation and Management of an Open Standard

  • Its development and management process must be collaborative and democratic:
    • Participation must be accessible to all those who wish to participate and can meet fair and reasonable criteria imposed by the organization under which it is developed and managed.
    • The processes must be documented and, through a known method, can be changed through input from all participants.
    • The process must be based on formal and binding commitments for the disclosure and licensing of intellectual property rights.
    • Development and management should strive for consensus, and an appeals process must be clearly outlined.
    • The standard specification must be open to extensive public review at least once in its life-cycle, with comments duly discussed and acted upon, if required.

Use and Licensing of an Open Standard

  • The standard must describe an interface, not an implementation, and the industry must be capable of creating multiple, competing implementations to the interface described in the standard without undue or restrictive constraints. Interfaces include APIs, protocols, schemas, data formats and their encoding.
  • The standard must not contain any proprietary "hooks" that create a technical or economic barriers
  • Faithful implementations of the standard must interoperate. Interoperability means the ability of a computer program to communicate and exchange information with other computer programs and mutually to use the information which has been exchanged. This includes the ability to use, convert, or exchange file formats, protocols, schemas, interface information or conventions, so as to permit the computer program to work with other computer programs and users in all the ways in which they are intended to function.
  • It must be permissible for anyone to copy, distribute and read the standard for a nominal fee, or even no fee. If there is a fee, it must be low enough to not preclude widespread use.
  • It must be possible for anyone to obtain free (no royalties or fees; also known as "royalty free"), worldwide, non-exclusive and perpetual licenses to all essential patent claims to make, use and sell products based on the standard. The only exceptions are terminations per the reciprocity and defensive suspension terms outlined below. Essential patent claims include pending, unpublished patents, published patents, and patent applications. The license is only for the exact scope of the standard in question.
    • May be conditioned only on reciprocal licenses to any of licensees' patent claims essential to practice that standard (also known as a reciprocity clause)
    • May be terminated as to any licensee who sues the licensor or any other licensee for infringement of patent claims essential to practice that standard (also known as a "defensive suspension" clause)
    • The same licensing terms are available to every potential licensor
  • The licensing terms of an open standards must not preclude implementations of that standard under open source licensing terms or restricted licensing terms

It is said that one of the nice things about standards is that there are so many of them. As you can see, the same holds true for open standard definitions. Most of the definitions have a lot in common, and it is not really controversial what properties a open standard should have, but the diversity of definitions have made it possible for those that want to avoid a level marked field and real competition to downplay the significance of open standards. I hope we can turn this tide by focusing on the advantages of Free and Open Standards.

Tags: digistan, english, standard.
Is Ogg Theora a free and open standard?
25th December 2010

The Digistan definition of a free and open standard reads like this:

The Digital Standards Organization defines free and open standard as follows:

  1. A free and open standard is immune to vendor capture at all stages in its life-cycle. Immunity from vendor capture makes it possible to freely use, improve upon, trust, and extend a standard over time.
  2. The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties.
  3. The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available freely. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute, and use it freely.
  4. The patents possibly present on (parts of) the standard are made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
  5. There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.

The economic outcome of a free and open standard, which can be measured, is that it enables perfect competition between suppliers of products based on the standard.

For a while now I have tried to figure out of Ogg Theora is a free and open standard according to this definition. Here is a short writeup of what I have been able to gather so far. I brought up the topic on the Xiph advocacy mailing list in July 2009, for those that want to see some background information. According to Ivo Emanuel Gonçalves and Monty Montgomery on that list the Ogg Theora specification fulfils the Digistan definition.

Free from vendor capture?

As far as I can see, there is no single vendor that can control the Ogg Theora specification. It can be argued that the Xiph foundation is such vendor, but given that it is a non-profit foundation with the expressed goal making free and open protocols and standards available, it is not obvious that this is a real risk. One issue with the Xiph foundation is that its inner working (as in board member list, or who control the foundation) are not easily available on the web. I've been unable to find out who is in the foundation board, and have not seen any accounting information documenting how money is handled nor where is is spent in the foundation. It is thus not obvious for an external observer who control The Xiph foundation, and for all I know it is possible for a single vendor to take control over the specification. But it seem unlikely.

Maintained by open not-for-profit organisation?

Assuming that the Xiph foundation is the organisation its web pages claim it to be, this point is fulfilled. If Xiph foundation is controlled by a single vendor, it isn't, but I have not found any documentation indicating this.

According to a report prepared by Audun Vaaler og Børre Ludvigsen for the Norwegian government, the Xiph foundation is a non-commercial organisation and the development process is open, transparent and non-Discrimatory. Until proven otherwise, I believe it make most sense to believe the report is correct.

Specification freely available?

The specification for the Ogg container format and both the Vorbis and Theora codeces are available on the web. This are the terms in the Vorbis and Theora specification:

Anyone may freely use and distribute the Ogg and [Vorbis/Theora] specifications, whether in private, public, or corporate capacity. However, the Xiph.Org Foundation and the Ogg project reserve the right to set the Ogg [Vorbis/Theora] specification and certify specification compliance.

The Ogg container format is specified in IETF RFC 3533, and this is the term:

This document and translations of it may be copied and furnished to others, and derivative works that comment on or otherwise explain it or assist in its implementation may be prepared, copied, published and distributed, in whole or in part, without restriction of any kind, provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are included on all such copies and derivative works. However, this document itself may not be modified in any way, such as by removing the copyright notice or references to the Internet Society or other Internet organizations, except as needed for the purpose of developing Internet standards in which case the procedures for copyrights defined in the Internet Standards process must be followed, or as required to translate it into languages other than English.

The limited permissions granted above are perpetual and will not be revoked by the Internet Society or its successors or assigns.

All these terms seem to allow unlimited distribution and use, an this term seem to be fulfilled. There might be a problem with the missing permission to distribute modified versions of the text, and thus reuse it in other specifications. Not quite sure if that is a requirement for the Digistan definition.

Royalty-free?

There are no known patent claims requiring royalties for the Ogg Theora format. MPEG-LA and Steve Jobs in Apple claim to know about some patent claims (submarine patents) against the Theora format, but no-one else seem to believe them. Both Opera Software and the Mozilla Foundation have looked into this and decided to implement Ogg Theora support in their browsers without paying any royalties. For now the claims from MPEG-LA and Steve Jobs seem more like FUD to scare people to use the H.264 codec than any real problem with Ogg Theora.

No constraints on re-use?

I am not aware of any constraints on re-use.

Conclusion

3 of 5 requirements seem obviously fulfilled, and the remaining 2 depend on the governing structure of the Xiph foundation. Given the background report used by the Norwegian government, I believe it is safe to assume the last two requirements are fulfilled too, but it would be nice if the Xiph foundation web site made it easier to verify this.

It would be nice to see other analysis of other specifications to see if they are free and open standards.

Tags: digistan, english, h264, standard, video.
The reply from Edgar Villanueva to Microsoft in Peru
25th December 2010

A few days ago an article in the Norwegian Computerworld magazine about how version 2.0 of European Interoperability Framework has been successfully lobbied by the proprietary software industry to remove the focus on free software. Nothing very surprising there, given earlier reports on how Microsoft and others have stacked the committees in this work. But I find this very sad. The definition of an open standard from version 1 was very good, and something I believe should be used also in the future, alongside the definition from Digistan. Version 2 have removed the open standard definition from its content.

Anyway, the news reminded me of the great reply sent by Dr. Edgar Villanueva, congressman in Peru at the time, to Microsoft as a reply to Microsofts attack on his proposal regarding the use of free software in the public sector in Peru. As the text was not available from a few of the URLs where it used to be available, I copy it here from my source to ensure it is available also in the future. Some background information about that story is available in an article from Linux Journal in 2002.

Lima, 8th of April, 2002
To: Señor JUAN ALBERTO GONZÁLEZ
General Manager of Microsoft Perú

Dear Sir:

First of all, I thank you for your letter of March 25, 2002 in which you state the official position of Microsoft relative to Bill Number 1609, Free Software in Public Administration, which is indubitably inspired by the desire for Peru to find a suitable place in the global technological context. In the same spirit, and convinced that we will find the best solutions through an exchange of clear and open ideas, I will take this opportunity to reply to the commentaries included in your letter.

While acknowledging that opinions such as yours constitute a significant contribution, it would have been even more worthwhile for me if, rather than formulating objections of a general nature (which we will analyze in detail later) you had gathered solid arguments for the advantages that proprietary software could bring to the Peruvian State, and to its citizens in general, since this would have allowed a more enlightening exchange in respect of each of our positions.

With the aim of creating an orderly debate, we will assume that what you call "open source software" is what the Bill defines as "free software", since there exists software for which the source code is distributed together with the program, but which does not fall within the definition established by the Bill; and that what you call "commercial software" is what the Bill defines as "proprietary" or "unfree", given that there exists free software which is sold in the market for a price like any other good or service.

It is also necessary to make it clear that the aim of the Bill we are discussing is not directly related to the amount of direct savings that can by made by using free software in state institutions. That is in any case a marginal aggregate value, but in no way is it the chief focus of the Bill. The basic principles which inspire the Bill are linked to the basic guarantees of a state of law, such as:

  • Free access to public information by the citizen.
  • Permanence of public data.
  • Security of the State and citizens.

To guarantee the free access of citizens to public information, it is indispensable that the encoding of data is not tied to a single provider. The use of standard and open formats gives a guarantee of this free access, if necessary through the creation of compatible free software.

To guarantee the permanence of public data, it is necessary that the usability and maintenance of the software does not depend on the goodwill of the suppliers, or on the monopoly conditions imposed by them. For this reason the State needs systems the development of which can be guaranteed due to the availability of the source code.

To guarantee national security or the security of the State, it is indispensable to be able to rely on systems without elements which allow control from a distance or the undesired transmission of information to third parties. Systems with source code freely accessible to the public are required to allow their inspection by the State itself, by the citizens, and by a large number of independent experts throughout the world. Our proposal brings further security, since the knowledge of the source code will eliminate the growing number of programs with *spy code*.

In the same way, our proposal strengthens the security of the citizens, both in their role as legitimate owners of information managed by the state, and in their role as consumers. In this second case, by allowing the growth of a widespread availability of free software not containing *spy code* able to put at risk privacy and individual freedoms.

In this sense, the Bill is limited to establishing the conditions under which the state bodies will obtain software in the future, that is, in a way compatible with these basic principles.

From reading the Bill it will be clear that once passed:

  • the law does not forbid the production of proprietary software
  • the law does not forbid the sale of proprietary software
  • the law does not specify which concrete software to use
  • the law does not dictate the supplier from whom software will be bought
  • the law does not limit the terms under which a software product can be licensed.
  • What the Bill does express clearly, is that, for software to be acceptable for the state it is not enough that it is technically capable of fulfilling a task, but that further the contractual conditions must satisfy a series of requirements regarding the license, without which the State cannot guarantee the citizen adequate processing of his data, watching over its integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility throughout time, as these are very critical aspects for its normal functioning.

    We agree, Mr. Gonzalez, that information and communication technology have a significant impact on the quality of life of the citizens (whether it be positive or negative). We surely also agree that the basic values I have pointed out above are fundamental in a democratic state like Peru. So we are very interested to know of any other way of guaranteeing these principles, other than through the use of free software in the terms defined by the Bill.

    As for the observations you have made, we will now go on to analyze them in detail:

    Firstly, you point out that: "1. The bill makes it compulsory for all public bodies to use only free software, that is to say open source software, which breaches the principles of equality before the law, that of non-discrimination and the right of free private enterprise, freedom of industry and of contract, protected by the constitution."

    This understanding is in error. The Bill in no way affects the rights you list; it limits itself entirely to establishing conditions for the use of software on the part of state institutions, without in any way meddling in private sector transactions. It is a well established principle that the State does not enjoy the wide spectrum of contractual freedom of the private sector, as it is limited in its actions precisely by the requirement for transparency of public acts; and in this sense, the preservation of the greater common interest must prevail when legislating on the matter.

    The Bill protects equality under the law, since no natural or legal person is excluded from the right of offering these goods to the State under the conditions defined in the Bill and without more limitations than those established by the Law of State Contracts and Purchasing (T.U.O. by Supreme Decree No. 012-2001-PCM).

    The Bill does not introduce any discrimination whatever, since it only establishes *how* the goods have to be provided (which is a state power) and not *who* has to provide them (which would effectively be discriminatory, if restrictions based on national origin, race religion, ideology, sexual preference etc. were imposed). On the contrary, the Bill is decidedly antidiscriminatory. This is so because by defining with no room for doubt the conditions for the provision of software, it prevents state bodies from using software which has a license including discriminatory conditions.

    It should be obvious from the preceding two paragraphs that the Bill does not harm free private enterprise, since the latter can always choose under what conditions it will produce software; some of these will be acceptable to the State, and others will not be since they contradict the guarantee of the basic principles listed above. This free initiative is of course compatible with the freedom of industry and freedom of contract (in the limited form in which the State can exercise the latter). Any private subject can produce software under the conditions which the State requires, or can refrain from doing so. Nobody is forced to adopt a model of production, but if they wish to provide software to the State, they must provide the mechanisms which guarantee the basic principles, and which are those described in the Bill.

    By way of an example: nothing in the text of the Bill would prevent your company offering the State bodies an office "suite", under the conditions defined in the Bill and setting the price that you consider satisfactory. If you did not, it would not be due to restrictions imposed by the law, but to business decisions relative to the method of commercializing your products, decisions with which the State is not involved.

    To continue; you note that:" 2. The bill, by making the use of open source software compulsory, would establish discriminatory and non competitive practices in the contracting and purchasing by public bodies..."

    This statement is just a reiteration of the previous one, and so the response can be found above. However, let us concern ourselves for a moment with your comment regarding "non-competitive ... practices."

    Of course, in defining any kind of purchase, the buyer sets conditions which relate to the proposed use of the good or service. From the start, this excludes certain manufacturers from the possibility of competing, but does not exclude them "a priori", but rather based on a series of principles determined by the autonomous will of the purchaser, and so the process takes place in conformance with the law. And in the Bill it is established that *no one* is excluded from competing as far as he guarantees the fulfillment of the basic principles.

    Furthermore, the Bill *stimulates* competition, since it tends to generate a supply of software with better conditions of usability, and to better existing work, in a model of continuous improvement.

    On the other hand, the central aspect of competivity is the chance to provide better choices to the consumer. Now, it is impossible to ignore the fact that marketing does not play a neutral role when the product is offered on the market (since accepting the opposite would lead one to suppose that firms' expenses in marketing lack any sense), and that therefore a significant expense under this heading can influence the decisions of the purchaser. This influence of marketing is in large measure reduced by the bill that we are backing, since the choice within the framework proposed is based on the *technical merits* of the product and not on the effort put into commercialization by the producer; in this sense, competitiveness is increased, since the smallest software producer can compete on equal terms with the most powerful corporations.

    It is necessary to stress that there is no position more anti-competitive than that of the big software producers, which frequently abuse their dominant position, since in innumerable cases they propose as a solution to problems raised by users: "update your software to the new version" (at the user's expense, naturally); furthermore, it is common to find arbitrary cessation of technical help for products, which, in the provider's judgment alone, are "old"; and so, to receive any kind of technical assistance, the user finds himself forced to migrate to new versions (with non-trivial costs, especially as changes in hardware platform are often involved). And as the whole infrastructure is based on proprietary data formats, the user stays "trapped" in the need to continue using products from the same supplier, or to make the huge effort to change to another environment (probably also proprietary).

    You add: "3. So, by compelling the State to favor a business model based entirely on open source, the bill would only discourage the local and international manufacturing companies, which are the ones which really undertake important expenditures, create a significant number of direct and indirect jobs, as well as contributing to the GNP, as opposed to a model of open source software which tends to have an ever weaker economic impact, since it mainly creates jobs in the service sector."

    I do not agree with your statement. Partly because of what you yourself point out in paragraph 6 of your letter, regarding the relative weight of services in the context of software use. This contradiction alone would invalidate your position. The service model, adopted by a large number of companies in the software industry, is much larger in economic terms, and with a tendency to increase, than the licensing of programs.

    On the other hand, the private sector of the economy has the widest possible freedom to choose the economic model which best suits its interests, even if this freedom of choice is often obscured subliminally by the disproportionate expenditure on marketing by the producers of proprietary software.

    In addition, a reading of your opinion would lead to the conclusion that the State market is crucial and essential for the proprietary software industry, to such a point that the choice made by the State in this bill would completely eliminate the market for these firms. If that is true, we can deduce that the State must be subsidizing the proprietary software industry. In the unlikely event that this were true, the State would have the right to apply the subsidies in the area it considered of greatest social value; it is undeniable, in this improbable hypothesis, that if the State decided to subsidize software, it would have to do so choosing the free over the proprietary, considering its social effect and the rational use of taxpayers money.

    In respect of the jobs generated by proprietary software in countries like ours, these mainly concern technical tasks of little aggregate value; at the local level, the technicians who provide support for proprietary software produced by transnational companies do not have the possibility of fixing bugs, not necessarily for lack of technical capability or of talent, but because they do not have access to the source code to fix it. With free software one creates more technically qualified employment and a framework of free competence where success is only tied to the ability to offer good technical support and quality of service, one stimulates the market, and one increases the shared fund of knowledge, opening up alternatives to generate services of greater total value and a higher quality level, to the benefit of all involved: producers, service organizations, and consumers.

    It is a common phenomenon in developing countries that local software industries obtain the majority of their takings in the service sector, or in the creation of "ad hoc" software. Therefore, any negative impact that the application of the Bill might have in this sector will be more than compensated by a growth in demand for services (as long as these are carried out to high quality standards). If the transnational software companies decide not to compete under these new rules of the game, it is likely that they will undergo some decrease in takings in terms of payment for licenses; however, considering that these firms continue to allege that much of the software used by the State has been illegally copied, one can see that the impact will not be very serious. Certainly, in any case their fortune will be determined by market laws, changes in which cannot be avoided; many firms traditionally associated with proprietary software have already set out on the road (supported by copious expense) of providing services associated with free software, which shows that the models are not mutually exclusive.

    With this bill the State is deciding that it needs to preserve certain fundamental values. And it is deciding this based on its sovereign power, without affecting any of the constitutional guarantees. If these values could be guaranteed without having to choose a particular economic model, the effects of the law would be even more beneficial. In any case, it should be clear that the State does not choose an economic model; if it happens that there only exists one economic model capable of providing software which provides the basic guarantee of these principles, this is because of historical circumstances, not because of an arbitrary choice of a given model.

    Your letter continues: "4. The bill imposes the use of open source software without considering the dangers that this can bring from the point of view of security, guarantee, and possible violation of the intellectual property rights of third parties."

    Alluding in an abstract way to "the dangers this can bring", without specifically mentioning a single one of these supposed dangers, shows at the least some lack of knowledge of the topic. So, allow me to enlighten you on these points.

    On security:

    National security has already been mentioned in general terms in the initial discussion of the basic principles of the bill. In more specific terms, relative to the security of the software itself, it is well known that all software (whether proprietary or free) contains errors or "bugs" (in programmers' slang). But it is also well known that the bugs in free software are fewer, and are fixed much more quickly, than in proprietary software. It is not in vain that numerous public bodies responsible for the IT security of state systems in developed countries require the use of free software for the same conditions of security and efficiency.

    What is impossible to prove is that proprietary software is more secure than free, without the public and open inspection of the scientific community and users in general. This demonstration is impossible because the model of proprietary software itself prevents this analysis, so that any guarantee of security is based only on promises of good intentions (biased, by any reckoning) made by the producer itself, or its contractors.

    It should be remembered that in many cases, the licensing conditions include Non-Disclosure clauses which prevent the user from publicly revealing security flaws found in the licensed proprietary product.

    In respect of the guarantee:

    As you know perfectly well, or could find out by reading the "End User License Agreement" of the products you license, in the great majority of cases the guarantees are limited to replacement of the storage medium in case of defects, but in no case is compensation given for direct or indirect damages, loss of profits, etc... If as a result of a security bug in one of your products, not fixed in time by yourselves, an attacker managed to compromise crucial State systems, what guarantees, reparations and compensation would your company make in accordance with your licensing conditions? The guarantees of proprietary software, inasmuch as programs are delivered ``AS IS'', that is, in the state in which they are, with no additional responsibility of the provider in respect of function, in no way differ from those normal with free software.

    On Intellectual Property:

    Questions of intellectual property fall outside the scope of this bill, since they are covered by specific other laws. The model of free software in no way implies ignorance of these laws, and in fact the great majority of free software is covered by copyright. In reality, the inclusion of this question in your observations shows your confusion in respect of the legal framework in which free software is developed. The inclusion of the intellectual property of others in works claimed as one's own is not a practice that has been noted in the free software community; whereas, unfortunately, it has been in the area of proprietary software. As an example, the condemnation by the Commercial Court of Nanterre, France, on 27th September 2001 of Microsoft Corp. to a penalty of 3 million francs in damages and interest, for violation of intellectual property (piracy, to use the unfortunate term that your firm commonly uses in its publicity).

    You go on to say that: "The bill uses the concept of open source software incorrectly, since it does not necessarily imply that the software is free or of zero cost, and so arrives at mistaken conclusions regarding State savings, with no cost-benefit analysis to validate its position."

    This observation is wrong; in principle, freedom and lack of cost are orthogonal concepts: there is software which is proprietary and charged for (for example, MS Office), software which is proprietary and free of charge (MS Internet Explorer), software which is free and charged for (Red Hat, SuSE etc GNU/Linux distributions), software which is free and not charged for (Apache, Open Office, Mozilla), and even software which can be licensed in a range of combinations (MySQL).

    Certainly free software is not necessarily free of charge. And the text of the bill does not state that it has to be so, as you will have noted after reading it. The definitions included in the Bill state clearly *what* should be considered free software, at no point referring to freedom from charges. Although the possibility of savings in payments for proprietary software licenses are mentioned, the foundations of the bill clearly refer to the fundamental guarantees to be preserved and to the stimulus to local technological development. Given that a democratic State must support these principles, it has no other choice than to use software with publicly available source code, and to exchange information only in standard formats.

    If the State does not use software with these characteristics, it will be weakening basic republican principles. Luckily, free software also implies lower total costs; however, even given the hypothesis (easily disproved) that it was more expensive than proprietary software, the simple existence of an effective free software tool for a particular IT function would oblige the State to use it; not by command of this Bill, but because of the basic principles we enumerated at the start, and which arise from the very essence of the lawful democratic State.

    You continue: "6. It is wrong to think that Open Source Software is free of charge. Research by the Gartner Group (an important investigator of the technological market recognized at world level) has shown that the cost of purchase of software (operating system and applications) is only 8% of the total cost which firms and institutions take on for a rational and truly beneficial use of the technology. The other 92% consists of: installation costs, enabling, support, maintenance, administration, and down-time."

    This argument repeats that already given in paragraph 5 and partly contradicts paragraph 3. For the sake of brevity we refer to the comments on those paragraphs. However, allow me to point out that your conclusion is logically false: even if according to Gartner Group the cost of software is on average only 8% of the total cost of use, this does not in any way deny the existence of software which is free of charge, that is, with a licensing cost of zero.

    In addition, in this paragraph you correctly point out that the service components and losses due to down-time make up the largest part of the total cost of software use, which, as you will note, contradicts your statement regarding the small value of services suggested in paragraph 3. Now the use of free software contributes significantly to reduce the remaining life-cycle costs. This reduction in the costs of installation, support etc. can be noted in several areas: in the first place, the competitive service model of free software, support and maintenance for which can be freely contracted out to a range of suppliers competing on the grounds of quality and low cost. This is true for installation, enabling, and support, and in large part for maintenance. In the second place, due to the reproductive characteristics of the model, maintenance carried out for an application is easily replicable, without incurring large costs (that is, without paying more than once for the same thing) since modifications, if one wishes, can be incorporated in the common fund of knowledge. Thirdly, the huge costs caused by non-functioning software ("blue screens of death", malicious code such as virus, worms, and trojans, exceptions, general protection faults and other well-known problems) are reduced considerably by using more stable software; and it is well known that one of the most notable virtues of free software is its stability.

    You further state that: "7. One of the arguments behind the bill is the supposed freedom from costs of open-source software, compared with the costs of commercial software, without taking into account the fact that there exist types of volume licensing which can be highly advantageous for the State, as has happened in other countries."

    I have already pointed out that what is in question is not the cost of the software but the principles of freedom of information, accessibility, and security. These arguments have been covered extensively in the preceding paragraphs to which I would refer you.

    On the other hand, there certainly exist types of volume licensing (although unfortunately proprietary software does not satisfy the basic principles). But as you correctly pointed out in the immediately preceding paragraph of your letter, they only manage to reduce the impact of a component which makes up no more than 8% of the total.

    You continue: "8. In addition, the alternative adopted by the bill (I) is clearly more expensive, due to the high costs of software migration, and (II) puts at risk compatibility and interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector, given the hundreds of versions of open source software on the market."

    Let us analyze your statement in two parts. Your first argument, that migration implies high costs, is in reality an argument in favor of the Bill. Because the more time goes by, the more difficult migration to another technology will become; and at the same time, the security risks associated with proprietary software will continue to increase. In this way, the use of proprietary systems and formats will make the State ever more dependent on specific suppliers. Once a policy of using free software has been established (which certainly, does imply some cost) then on the contrary migration from one system to another becomes very simple, since all data is stored in open formats. On the other hand, migration to an open software context implies no more costs than migration between two different proprietary software contexts, which invalidates your argument completely.

    The second argument refers to "problems in interoperability of the IT platforms within the State, and between the State and the private sector" This statement implies a certain lack of knowledge of the way in which free software is built, which does not maximize the dependence of the user on a particular platform, as normally happens in the realm of proprietary software. Even when there are multiple free software distributions, and numerous programs which can be used for the same function, interoperability is guaranteed as much by the use of standard formats, as required by the bill, as by the possibility of creating interoperable software given the availability of the source code.

    You then say that: "9. The majority of open source code does not offer adequate levels of service nor the guarantee from recognized manufacturers of high productivity on the part of the users, which has led various public organizations to retract their decision to go with an open source software solution and to use commercial software in its place."

    This observation is without foundation. In respect of the guarantee, your argument was rebutted in the response to paragraph 4. In respect of support services, it is possible to use free software without them (just as also happens with proprietary software), but anyone who does need them can obtain support separately, whether from local firms or from international corporations, again just as in the case of proprietary software.

    On the other hand, it would contribute greatly to our analysis if you could inform us about free software projects *established* in public bodies which have already been abandoned in favor of proprietary software. We know of a good number of cases where the opposite has taken place, but not know of any where what you describe has taken place.

    You continue by observing that: "10. The bill discourages the creativity of the Peruvian software industry, which invoices 40 million US$/year, exports 4 million US$ (10th in ranking among non-traditional exports, more than handicrafts) and is a source of highly qualified employment. With a law that encourages the use of open source, software programmers lose their intellectual property rights and their main source of payment."

    It is clear enough that nobody is forced to commercialize their code as free software. The only thing to take into account is that if it is not free software, it cannot be sold to the public sector. This is not in any case the main market for the national software industry. We covered some questions referring to the influence of the Bill on the generation of employment which would be both highly technically qualified and in better conditions for competition above, so it seems unnecessary to insist on this point.

    What follows in your statement is incorrect. On the one hand, no author of free software loses his intellectual property rights, unless he expressly wishes to place his work in the public domain. The free software movement has always been very respectful of intellectual property, and has generated widespread public recognition of its authors. Names like those of Richard Stallman, Linus Torvalds, Guido van Rossum, Larry Wall, Miguel de Icaza, Andrew Tridgell, Theo de Raadt, Andrea Arcangeli, Bruce Perens, Darren Reed, Alan Cox, Eric Raymond, and many others, are recognized world-wide for their contributions to the development of software that is used today by millions of people throughout the world. On the other hand, to say that the rewards for authors rights make up the main source of payment of Peruvian programmers is in any case a guess, in particular since there is no proof to this effect, nor a demonstration of how the use of free software by the State would influence these payments.

    You go on to say that: "11. Open source software, since it can be distributed without charge, does not allow the generation of income for its developers through exports. In this way, the multiplier effect of the sale of software to other countries is weakened, and so in turn is the growth of the industry, while Government rules ought on the contrary to stimulate local industry."

    This statement shows once again complete ignorance of the mechanisms of and market for free software. It tries to claim that the market of sale of non- exclusive rights for use (sale of licenses) is the only possible one for the software industry, when you yourself pointed out several paragraphs above that it is not even the most important one. The incentives that the bill offers for the growth of a supply of better qualified professionals, together with the increase in experience that working on a large scale with free software within the State will bring for Peruvian technicians, will place them in a highly competitive position to offer their services abroad.

    You then state that: "12. In the Forum, the use of open source software in education was discussed, without mentioning the complete collapse of this initiative in a country like Mexico, where precisely the State employees who founded the project now state that open source software did not make it possible to offer a learning experience to pupils in the schools, did not take into account the capability at a national level to give adequate support to the platform, and that the software did not and does not allow for the levels of platform integration that now exist in schools."

    In fact Mexico has gone into reverse with the Red Escolar (Schools Network) project. This is due precisely to the fact that the driving forces behind the Mexican project used license costs as their main argument, instead of the other reasons specified in our project, which are far more essential. Because of this conceptual mistake, and as a result of the lack of effective support from the SEP (Secretary of State for Public Education), the assumption was made that to implant free software in schools it would be enough to drop their software budget and send them a CD ROM with Gnu/Linux instead. Of course this failed, and it couldn't have been otherwise, just as school laboratories fail when they use proprietary software and have no budget for implementation and maintenance. That's exactly why our bill is not limited to making the use of free software mandatory, but recognizes the need to create a viable migration plan, in which the State undertakes the technical transition in an orderly way in order to then enjoy the advantages of free software.

    You end with a rhetorical question: "13. If open source software satisfies all the requirements of State bodies, why do you need a law to adopt it? Shouldn't it be the market which decides freely which products give most benefits or value?"

    We agree that in the private sector of the economy, it must be the market that decides which products to use, and no state interference is permissible there. However, in the case of the public sector, the reasoning is not the same: as we have already established, the state archives, handles, and transmits information which does not belong to it, but which is entrusted to it by citizens, who have no alternative under the rule of law. As a counterpart to this legal requirement, the State must take extreme measures to safeguard the integrity, confidentiality, and accessibility of this information. The use of proprietary software raises serious doubts as to whether these requirements can be fulfilled, lacks conclusive evidence in this respect, and so is not suitable for use in the public sector.

    The need for a law is based, firstly, on the realization of the fundamental principles listed above in the specific area of software; secondly, on the fact that the State is not an ideal homogeneous entity, but made up of multiple bodies with varying degrees of autonomy in decision making. Given that it is inappropriate to use proprietary software, the fact of establishing these rules in law will prevent the personal discretion of any state employee from putting at risk the information which belongs to citizens. And above all, because it constitutes an up-to-date reaffirmation in relation to the means of management and communication of information used today, it is based on the republican principle of openness to the public.

    In conformance with this universally accepted principle, the citizen has the right to know all information held by the State and not covered by well- founded declarations of secrecy based on law. Now, software deals with information and is itself information. Information in a special form, capable of being interpreted by a machine in order to execute actions, but crucial information all the same because the citizen has a legitimate right to know, for example, how his vote is computed or his taxes calculated. And for that he must have free access to the source code and be able to prove to his satisfaction the programs used for electoral computations or calculation of his taxes.

    I wish you the greatest respect, and would like to repeat that my office will always be open for you to expound your point of view to whatever level of detail you consider suitable.

    Cordially,
    DR. EDGAR DAVID VILLANUEVA NUÑEZ
    Congressman of the Republic of Perú.

    Tags: digistan, english, standard.
    Best å ikke fortelle noen at streaming er nedlasting...
    30th October 2010

    I dag la jeg inn en kommentar på en sak hos NRKBeta om hvordan TV-serien Blindpassasjer ble laget i forbindelse med at filmene NRK la ut ikke var tilgjengelig i et fritt og åpent format. Dette var det jeg skrev publiserte der 07:39.

    "Vi fikk en kommentar rundt måten streamet innhold er beskyttet fra nedlasting. Mange av oss som kan mer enn gjennomsnittet om systemer som dette, vet at det stort sett er mulig å lure ut ting med den nødvendige forkunnskapen."

    Haha. Å streame innhold er det samme som å laste ned innhold, så å beskytte en stream mot nedlasting er ikke mulig. Å skrive noe slikt er å forlede leseren.

    Med den bakgrunn blir forklaringen om at noen rettighetshavere kun vil tillate streaming men ikke nedlasting meningsløs.

    Anbefaler forresten å lese http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2010/10/drm-is-toxic-to-culture/index.htm om hva som ville være konsekvensen hvis digitale avspillingssperrer (DRM) fungerte. Det gjør de naturligvis ikke teknisk - det er jo derfor de må ha totalitære juridiske beskyttelsesmekanismer på plass, men det er skremmende hva samfunnet tillater og NRK er med på å bygge opp under.

    Ca. 20 minutter senere får jeg følgende epost fra Anders Hofseth i NRKBeta:

    From: Anders Hofseth <XXX@gmail.com>
    To: "pere@hungry.com" <pere@hungry.com>
    Cc: Eirik Solheim <XXX@gmail.com>, Jon Ståle Carlsen <XXX@gmail.com>, Henrik Lied <XXX@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: "Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1"
    Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 07:58:44 +0200

    Hei Petter.
    Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.

    Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...

    Med hilsen,
    -anders

    Ring meg om noe er uklart: 95XXXXXXX

    Ble så fascinert over denne holdningen, at jeg forfattet og sendte over følgende svar. I og med at debatten er fjernet fra NRK Betas kommentarfelt, så velger jeg å publisere her på bloggen min i stedet. Har fjernet epostadresser og telefonnummer til de involverte, for å unngå at de tiltrekker seg uønskede direkte kontaktforsøk.

    From: Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com>
    To: Anders Hofseth <XXX@gmail.com>
    Cc: Eirik Solheim <XXX@gmail.com>,
    Jon Ståle Carlsen <XXX@gmail.com>,
    Henrik Lied <XXX@gmail.com>
    Subject: Re: [NRKbeta] Kommentar: "Bakom Blindpassasjer: del 1"
    Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:24:34 +0200

    [Anders Hofseth]
    > Hei Petter.

    Hei.

    > Det du forsøker dra igang er egentlig en interessant diskusjon, men
    > om vi skal kjøre den i kommentarfeltet her, vil vi kunne bli bedt om
    > å fjerne blindpassasjer fra nett- tv og det vil heller ikke bli
    > særlig lett å klarere ut noe annet arkivmateriale på lang tid.

    Godt å se at du er enig i at dette er en interessant diskusjon. Den vil nok fortsette en stund til. :)

    Må innrømme at jeg synes det er merkelig å lese at dere i NRK med vitende og vilje ønsker å forlede rettighetshaverne for å kunne fortsette å legge ut arkivmateriale.

    Kommentarer og diskusjoner i bloggene til NRK Beta påvirker jo ikke faktum, som er at streaming er det samme som nedlasting, og at innhold som er lagt ut på nett kan lagres lokalt for avspilling når en ønsker det.

    Det du sier er jo at klarering av arkivmateriale for publisering på web krever at en holder faktum skjult fra debattfeltet på NRKBeta. Det er ikke et argument som holder vann. :)

    > Dette er en situasjon NRKbeta ikke ønsker, så kommentaren er fjernet
    > og den delen av diskusjonen er avsluttet på nrkbeta, vi antar
    > konsekvensene vi beskriver ikke er noe du ønsker heller...

    Personlig ønsker jeg at NRK skal slutte å stikke hodet i sanden og heller være åpne på hvordan virkeligheten fungerer, samt ta opp kampen mot de som vil låse kulturen inne. Jeg synes det er en skam at NRK godtar å forlede publikum. Ville heller at NRK krever at innhold som skal sendes skal være uten bruksbegresninger og kan publiseres i formater som heller ikke har bruksbegresninger (bruksbegresningene til H.264 burde få varselbjellene i NRK til å ringe).

    At NRK er med på DRM-tåkeleggingen og at det kommer feilaktive påstander om at "streaming beskytter mot nedlasting" som bare er egnet til å bygge opp om en myte som er skadelig for samfunnet som helhet.

    Anbefaler <URL:http://webmink.com/2010/09/03/h-264-and-foss/> og en titt på <URL: http://people.skolelinux.org/pere/blog/Terms_of_use_for_video_produced_by_a_Canon_IXUS_130_digital_camera.html >. for å se hva slags bruksbegresninger H.264 innebærer.

    Hvis dette innebærer at NRK må være åpne med at arkivmaterialet ikke kan brukes før rettighetshaverene også innser at de er med på å skade samfunnets kultur og kollektive hukommelse, så får en i hvert fall synliggjort konsekvensene og antagelig mer flammer på en debatt som er langt på overtid.

    > Ring meg om noe er uklart: XXX

    Intet uklart, men ikke imponert over måten dere håndterer debatten på. Hadde du i stedet kommet med et tilsvar i kommentarfeltet der en gjorde det klart at blindpassasjer-blogpostingen ikke var riktig sted for videre diskusjon hadde dere i mine øyne kommet fra det med ryggraden på plass.

    PS: Interessant å se at NRK-ansatte ikke bruker NRK-epostadresser.

    Som en liten avslutning, her er noen litt morsomme innslag om temaet. <URL: http://www.archive.org/details/CopyingIsNotTheft > og <URL: http://patentabsurdity.com/ > hadde vært noe å kringkaste på NRK1. :)

    Vennlig hilsen,
    --
    Petter Reinholdtsen

    Tags: digistan, h264, multimedia, norsk, opphavsrett, standard, video, web.
    Terms of use for video produced by a Canon IXUS 130 digital camera
    9th September 2010

    A few days ago I had the mixed pleasure of bying a new digital camera, a Canon IXUS 130. It was instructive and very disturbing to be able to verify that also this camera producer have the nerve to specify how I can or can not use the videos produced with the camera. Even thought I was aware of the issue, the options with new cameras are limited and I ended up bying the camera anyway. What is the problem, you might ask? It is software patents, MPEG-4, H.264 and the MPEG-LA that is the problem, and our right to record our experiences without asking for permissions that is at risk.

    On page 27 of the Danish instruction manual, this section is written:

    This product is licensed under AT&T patents for the MPEG-4 standard and may be used for encoding MPEG-4 compliant video and/or decoding MPEG-4 compliant video that was encoded only (1) for a personal and non-commercial purpose or (2) by a video provider licensed under the AT&T patents to provide MPEG-4 compliant video.

    No license is granted or implied for any other use for MPEG-4 standard.

    In short, the camera producer have chosen to use technology (MPEG-4/H.264) that is only provided if I used it for personal and non-commercial purposes, or ask for permission from the organisations holding the knowledge monopoly (patent) for technology used.

    This issue has been brewing for a while, and I recommend you to read "Why Our Civilization's Video Art and Culture is Threatened by the MPEG-LA" by Eugenia Loli-Queru and "H.264 Is Not The Sort Of Free That Matters" by Simon Phipps to learn more about the issue. The solution is to support the free and open standards for video, like Ogg Theora, and avoid MPEG-4 and H.264 if you can.

    Tags: digistan, english, fildeling, h264, multimedia, nuug, opphavsrett, personvern, standard, video, web.
    Fri og åpen standard, slik Digistan ser det
    31st January 2009

    Det er mange ulike definisjoner om hva en åpen standard er for noe, og NUUG hadde en pressemelding om dette sommeren 2005. Der ble definisjonen til DKUUG, EU-kommissionens European Interoperability Framework ( side 9) og teknologirådet omtalt.

    Siden den gang har regjeringens standardiseringsråd dukket opp, og de ser ut til å har tatt utgangspunkt i EU-kommisjonens definisjon i sin arbeidsmetodikk. Personlig synes jeg det er en god ide, da kravene som stilles der gjør at alle markedsaktører får like vilkår, noe som kommer kundene til gode ved hjelp av økt konkurranse.

    I sommer kom det en ny definisjon på banen. Digistan lanserte en definisjon på en fri og åpen standard. Jeg liker måten de bryter ut av diskusjonen om hva som kreves for å kalle noe en åpen standard ved å legge på et ord og poengtere at en standard som er både åpen og fri har noen spesielle krav. Her er den definisjonen etter rask oversettelse fra engelsk til norsk av meg:

    Definisjonen av en fri og åpen standard

    Den digitale standardorganisasjonen definierer fri og åpen standard som følger:

    • En fri og åpen standard er immun for leverandørinnlåsing i alle stadier av dens livssyklus. Immuniteten fra leverandørinnlåsing gjør det mulig å fritt bruke, forbedre, stole på og utvide en standard over tid.
    • Standarden er adoptert og vil bli vedlikeholdt av en ikke-kommersiell organisasjon, og dens pågående utvikling gjøres med en åpen beslutningsprosedyre som er tilgjengelig for alle som er interessert i å delta.
    • Standarden er publisert og spesifikasjonsdokumentet er fritt tilgjengelig. Det må være tillatt for alle å kopiere, distribuere og bruke den uten begresninger.
    • Patentene som muligens gjelder (deler av) standarden er gjort ugjenkallelig tilgjengelig uten krav om betaling.
    • Det er ingen begresninger i gjenbruk av standarden.

    Det økonomiske resultatet av en fri og åpen standard, som kan måles, er at det muliggjør perfekt konkurranse mellom leverandører av produkter basert på standarden.

    (Tar gjerne imot forbedringer av oversettelsen.)

    Tags: digistan, norsk, nuug, standard.

    RSS Feed

    Created by Chronicle v4.6