Today in Washington DC from 9:00 – 11.30 am /EST the World Bank’s e-Development Thematic Group invites all interested dgCommunities members to participate by means of live webcast, via videoconference or in person to “Open Systems for e-Government in Developing and Transition Countries: Open Source, Open Standards and Open Format“.
MapGuide, a web-based platform aimed at deploying web mapping applications and geospatial web services, now is a fully endorsed project within the Open Source Geospatial Foundation, as reported by PRNewswire. MapGuide, originally developed by Autodesk, has been released to the open source community about one year ago, and is already considered a leading project within the GIS arena, as results from the “The State of the Open Source GIS” (PDF).
Save the forest by photokitten
As a more recent project, MapGuide has a more modern architecture than the original MapServer. It also includes some default web interface components as well, so it is possible to create an out-of-the-box web mapping site with MapGuide more easily than with Mapserver. Mapserver has its own advantages, in terms of simplicity and number of supported formats, so examining both carefully before making a decision is a good idea. Because the originating organization is Autodesk, some users might be concerned that MapGuide OS is not “real†open source. However, it certainly is “realâ€, judging from a number of facts.
First, the license used is not some customized corporate license, but the familiar LGPL, used by many other open source projects.
Second [..] the code base includes dependencies on other open source library projects, such as Proj4 and GEOS – enlightened re-use is a sign of a good open source methodology.
Finally, Autodesk has opened up the development process, using a public source code repository for active development, having a public mailing list for users and developers to directly interact, and transferring all intellectual property rights for the code to a neutral organization (the Open Source Geospatial Foundation)
About the MapGuide’s “open source nature” I noticed that the definition of the Project Steering Committee, the governing body of the project, has been derived from the guidelines of other committees with the Open Source GIS arena – like the MapServer Technical Steering Committee, the GeoServer PSC, and the MapBuilder PSC.
Participation to the MapGuide’s project is extraordinary, as reported by Ohloh that considers MapGuide one of the largest open-source teams in the world, reporting that over the last year 26 developers contributed new code.
The San Francisco Urban Forest Mapping System was developed using MapGuide Open Source as the central element, read the related press release.
MapGuide Open Source is a web-based platform that enables users to quickly develop and deploy web mapping applications and geospatial web services.
MapGuide features an interactive viewer that includes support for feature selection, property inspection, map tips, and operations such as buffer, select within, and measure.
MapGuide includes an XML database for managing content, and supports most popular geospatial file formats, databases, and standards.
MapGuide can be deployed on Linux or Windows, supports Apache and IIS web servers, and offers extensive PHP, .NET, Java, and JavaScript APIs for application development. MapGuide Open Source is licensed under the LGPL.
Despite sharing a name with the previous closed source MapGuide product from Autodesk, MapGuide Open Source (OS) is in fact a completely new product, with a new code base and a new licensing philosophy. Autodesk will sell the new MapGuide as commercial product, with some bonus features (extra format support, formal product support, better backward compatibility) but the main development of the MapGuide OS product is now done as open source.
Very cool – I haven’t used a GIS program since my thesis project in university and didn’t even know Autodesk was in the market (but it makes a lot of sense).
Interesting that Autodesk, with is huge revenue from AutoCAD is strategically endorsing OSS.
In Beijing has been held a conference called WTO and IPR’s: Issues in Standardization, convened by the Chinese Ministry of Commerce, China’s State Intellectual Property Office (SIPO) and Sun Microsystems.
Scott McNealy spent some words talking about three main document formats in existence today: Open Document Format, OpenXML and China’s Uniform Office Format (UOF) called for the last two to be merged
Chinese’s Wall by frenz_69
What is significant about his statement is not the sentiment, as a harmonization or merger of the two formats has been a topic of conversation and speculation for some time. OASIS, for example, chartered a working group some months ago to explore with the Chinese how the two formats might be brought closer. But until now, ODF proponents have been shy about placing any pressure on the Chinese to take any such action, not unlike someone who very much wants to be asked on a date, but is afraid to scare off the object of affection by being too forward.
The location of the photo has changed into: https://farm1.static.flickr.com/226/464113034_1df4c1791d.jpg
Very kind of you Frans! 🙂
(Note: this post is an excerpt and a follow-up of an article published in December 2006 in the monographic issue on the OpenDocument Format by Upgrade, the online version of the Spanish magazine Novatica. The whole monography can be read online)
It is almost sure that, eventually, all major producers of both proprietary and Free software in the office files space will support OpenDocument. In and by itself, however, that standard is open to several ways to keep monopolies possible, or to nullify its usefulness for long term archiving.
Technically speaking, OpenDocument is very powerful and useful because it can be extended. The standard doesn’t mandate, however, nor it should, that all extensions are licensed in the same way as the standard itself. Even ignoring future extensions, the standard as it is today has plenty of backdoors for proprietary traps. Some examples are (see the full Novatica article for details):
Objects of this kind can be placed inside an OpenDocument file even if their format is accessible only through patent-covered or otherwise proprietary software. Nothing in the OpenDocument specification prevents this (and, again, it shouldn’t!).
The practical consequence is that it is possible to have a perfectly Free as in Freedom XML container which is full of patent-ridden components. A container, in other words, which is culturally, economically and politically useless to guarantee long term preservation of information, public ownership of public documents or a really free market in the software industry.
If anything, the fact that an office file standard is not owned and controlled by one vendor may make it even easier, not harder, than proprietary extensions appear to keep end users locked in, at least in some scenarios.
Does this mean that OpenDocument is useless?
Not at all. Personally, I am still convinced that OpenDocument is by far the best possible solution for a very serious problem. To the best of my knowledge, OpenXML is still much worse than OpenDocument both in terms of feasible support in third party applications and in terms of space left to reinventing the wheel and unnecessary proprietary extensions . For these reasons, I remain convinced that it is necessary, at least for creation of new public documents, to just say no to OpenXml (available to unregistered users by the end of April).
At the same time, I am convinced that it is necessary to stop, at least in the public sector, to just “switch to OpenDocument” and feel happy about it without looking behind the corner. I believe that further steps need to be taken, steps which, by the way, are not specific to OpenDocument.
What is the right solution?
OK, so “100% OpenDocument (or OpenXML) Compliance” isn’t enough to guarantee that an OpenDocument report or law proposal stored today will be completely readable and usable 20 or more years from now. The real solution, however, is not a technical one. Technical ways to apply it once it exists are available, and they are mentioned in my Novatica article.
This said, this is not a format specification issue. When present, technical extensibility of a standard is (and must remain) neutral with respect to intentions. It would be very inefficient, if not plain wrong, to place specifications of a legal nature inside what must remain purely technical documents.
What I believe to be necessary is to establish and enforce:
What do you think? Are these conditions enough? Who should define the “label”? Governments or standard bodies? Who should enforce its usage? Which exceptions could or should be tolerated? Please let me know: I am very interested to hear your opinion and to participate in any future discussions on these issues!
(Thanks to Roberto for suggesting that I write this post and for hosting it!)
I think that your arguments are very interesting and the dilemma you are posing very challenging.
I have translated your message into Spanish and posted it onto the ATI debate forum devoted to Open Document Standards
I am planning to summarize and post that summary here, if exist, the most interesting opinions we collect on the ATI forum.
Thank you very much Marco for giving me permission to make that translation.
Llorenç Pagés
Chief Editor of Novatica and Upgrade
Well, the features you listed are needed, and some of them can’t be open.
Digital Certificate code can be open, I believe its hash data can also be, does ODF formats support it? But, AFAIK, there’s no open software to handle DC, and editor must access its proprietary DLL to sign the document. In the same way, to validate the sining we must access its AC. Would we wanna give up on signed documents and DC?
Macro is editor-related in the way that it automates editor features, it can’t be standardized because it’d limit how editors work. Well, we need macros to automate our work, and when we decide to use it we know it will be bound to current editor and we’ll have trouble porting it to other editor, even the same model in different version. The solution would be ODF formats support multiple macros in them, related to specific editors, in a way that one editor can’t change or delete other editor’s macros. OR, macros be completely banned and each editor create external files to store its macros.
Embedded multimedia data is also trouble. HTML 5 supporters are having hard time for years to define which formats will be standardized. Of course, any user worried with long time storage will use properly formats for their multimedia data as they do with their text, be we also can’t stop users from storing proprietary formats, because they’d get angry and go to Micro$oft ones.
In general, I think ODF formats don’t need to force “openess”, they just need to support and allow it, and each user uses it in the way it’s better for them. Let’s not forget GIF, whose support is gone for years but is still largely used and supported by readers and editors.
What we can’t allow, at any cost, is that editors add proprietary data inside ODF files without user explicit knowledge and acceptance, because if that’s done the user will only find out years later when it’s too late.
Reading the Standards blog – a blog about standards and their impact on business and society, hosted by a technology law firm based in Boston – I learn about open standards legislative action in Denmark.
John Gøtze, an independent Danish consultant, wrote an interesting post about Denmark’sinitiatives to mandate the use of open standards.
Last Friday Helge Sander, the Danish Minister of Science, Technology and Innovation, made a press announcement about his plan for following up on the Parliament Resolution.
Helge Sander was already known for his announce about Ministry for Science, Technology and Innovation’s decision to use OpenDocument format by September 1st 2006, later followed by the Ministry of Finance (Danish).
The implementation plan suggests that:
open standards should be implemented gradually by making it mandatory for the public sector to use a number of open standards when this becomes technically feasible.
The report (abstract in English) identifies an initial sets of open standards as candidates, including ODF and OpenXML, for mandatory use from 1 January 2008 if:
[if] an economic impact assessment shows that this will not involve additional costs to the public sector.
The implementation plan’s elements are, as John reported, the following:
- From 1 January 2008, all new public IT solutions should make use of the mandatory open standards relevant to the IT solution in question unless there are significant reasons for not complying with these standards.
.- If there are significant reasons for not complying with the relevant mandatory open standards, this must be reported on signing the contract, stating the reasons for applying the exceptional provisions.
.- In case of IT solutions where the technical procurement is above the EU tendering limit, the reasons must be reported to the National IT and Telecom Agency for the purpose of publication.
.- All ministers must ensure that mandatory standards are drawn up within their respective areas of responsibility where this is relevant. This must be made in cooperation with local/regional administrations in line with the existing common public projects in the area of digitalization.
Today reading Robin Good I happened to know that Richard Stallman asked him to remove from YouTube his video clips showing Richard’s interview, because
[..] it doesn’t work with free software!
Robin Good is an independent reporter trying to spread Stallman’s ideas:
While I am fundamentally a supporter of Richard Stallman’s views on free software and democracy, I am also an indipendent reporter trying to spread and divulge his ideas, concepts, plans which nonetheless his huge popularity are still completely unknown to the greater part of my readers.
But who knows Stallman knows how important is popularity to him:
The goal of GNU was to give users freedom, not just to be popular.
Despite Richard often forgets that GNU popularity wasn’t supposed to be a goal, he always made clear that the ultimate goal is users’ freedom.
Preventing people from knowing about him and FSF, is a means toward that goal?
The Ogg Theora “standard”. Ogg Theora is an open format supported by an application released under a BSD-style license, but so far there is no format’s specification other than the source code of the program.
No wonder the format has not been approved by any standardization body yet.
Open standards may impose “reasonable and non-discriminatory†royalty fees and/or other licensing terms on implementers of the standard and are harmful for OSS implementations.
Besides licensing issues there are other important issues within standardization bodies policies, like the ten rights reported in Krechmer’s paper “The meaning of Open Standardâ€.
Standardization bodies should be able to decline to certify subset implementations, or to place requirements upon extensions, as suggested by Perens in his Open Standards and practice, in order to avoid predatory practices.
Richard, Freedom is about knowledge, and file format specifications matters!
Stefano, President of the Italian Chapter of Free Software Foundation Europe, wrote a post (Italian) talking about the issue. While he understands the reasons behind Richard’s decision, he looks concerned about it. Others are quiet critical about it.
Richard didn’t ask him to actually _remove_ the videos.
Robin took a general statment which can be summarized in: “please don’t publish videos that can’t be viewed with free software”, and made it into a scandalistic article.
If you read the article to the end, you’ll find out that Robin was at least deceiving, as he admits that Stallman, after direct request, didn’t deny him permission to post the video on YouTube, he just stated a preference not to.
So what is it this all about? Just bashing RMS as usual … it seem a national sport nowadays.
Hello Simo,
I am not into bashing Stallman at all.
That’s not my goal.
As I have clearly stated in the beginning and end of my article I am actually in full support of the ideas and principles he is defending.
Re making a scandalistic article from a supposedly gentle and open-minded offer, let me just cite again for you what Stallman titled and wrote in his first email:
“Please remove the clips from YouTube!
…please remove those video clips from YouTube. Please post them in a way that works with free software, or NOT AT ALL.”
My point is that I should not be restricted to post these video clips in a largely unknown and unsupported format, which does not allow for direct streaming from within a browser. I do not write for an audience of geeks and many of my readers don’t even know who Richard Stallman is. If I make it too difficult for them to even find out what free software is really all about I don’t really see what’s the benefit I am bringing to them.
What perplexes me the most is that if these very video clips were allowed free existence and distribution across all formats and video sharing services, just like it has been happening right now, Richard’s and the FSF message would reach the eyes and ears of thousands more people.
If we expect individuals to use their head, to reason and make sense of Stallman’s logic and principles and then to take action with it, how can we pretend that these same individuals learn and discover these messages if we make it so hard for them to get at them?
So, if pretending to have the freedom to post my video interviews on the media I prefer and without restrictions of sort is considered “bashing Richard Stallman and writing scandalistic articles” I am definitely gulty of these horrible sins.
I was just criticizing the way you put it down.
While I agree myself that Free Software compatible formats should be used whenever possible, I also agree with you that spreading information, in some cases, is more important.
You, as media writer, know very well that the way you tell a story make a lot of a difference in the way the public perceives it. That’s the point, not your freedom to put a video on YouTube.
Simo I believe Robin told the story the way it is. I suggest you to read again the article, it has some interesting updates you might enjoy.
Robin’s article raised an important issue within FSF and it might eventually have helped a process: stay tuned!
More interesting updates from Robin, no doubt he helped the process eventually, finding tools and services to upload and to watch video using free software. I would call it a nice gift to Richard and Free Software’s friends from Master New Media.
The long awaited OpenXML Translator 1.0 is now available for download. The project, started last year, is now available in five languages (but not in Italian yet).
OpenXML Translator allow you to open open ODF documents in Microsoft Word. Microsoft says it has been tested on Office 2007, Office 2003, and Office XP.
Test cases included scenarios as the conversion of an EU law document into another EU language by an external translation provider using OpenOffice.org or an EU parliament’s member requesting the draft version of a national law document from a public body using OpenOffice.org. The translator was also tested against the University’s of Central Florida test suite for ODF.
Tom Robertson, general manager for interoperability and standards at Microsoft, said:
The translator project has been built to be independent of any one application, and has proved to be useful for both Microsoft and our competitors in solving an interoperability challenge for customers.
Novell has announced that the translator will be natively implemented in its next version of OpenOffice.org, if interested you need to sign up for the Novell beta program.
Support for Excel and PowerPoint documents are scheduled for November 2007.
Note the system resource consumption of the Microsoft-Clever Age-Novell Translator’s C# routines and the fidelity of your document conversions, then come to the OpenDocument Foundation for an honest conversion mechanism.
You’re all waiting for Microsoft to provide interoperability? Have you paused long enough to recognize the irony of this situation?
We’ll be talking soon.
Hi Sam, I would be happy to write about th OpenDocument Foundation plug-in, keep me updated please, I might eventually use it to upgrade the DocTransformer indeed.
Today Adobe announced its intent to release PDF specification to the International Authority on Enterprise Content Management (AIIM), for the purpose of publication by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO).
Kevin Lynch, chief software architect and senior vice president of the platform business unit at Adobe, said:
Today’s announcement is the next logical step in the evolution of PDF from de facto standard to a formal, de jure standard. By releasing the full PDF specification for ISO standardization, we are reinforcing our commitment to openness. As governments and organizations increasingly request open formats, maintenance of the PDF specification by an external and participatory organization will help continue to drive innovation and expand the rich PDF ecosystem that has evolved over the past 15 years.
I also read that Duan Nickull wanted to acknowledge Bob Sutor from IBM, James Governor (in my blogroll) and Gary Edwards to help Adobe embracing open standards.
Tonight Adobe is guesting chat live at 5 pm Pacific Time.
To know more read Leonard Rosenthol’s PDF history and the official Adobe FAQ.
Welcome Adobe!
On the 7th of December the industry association Ecma International has approved Microsoft’s Office Open XML format as a standard. Jan van den Beld, Secretary General of Ecma International, said:
The Open XML standard recognizes the benefit of backward compatibility preservation of the billions of documents that have already been created while enabling new future applications of document technology.
Bob Suthor from IBM put it on another line:
We voted “no†because we fundamentally believe that this is doing nothing more than “standardizing†Microsoft’s formats for its own products and that’s not how the industry should be behaving in 2006. In ECMA you do get to vote, and we exercised that right. It’s nice that the Microsoft spec is XML, but that alone will not guarantee widespread correct and complete implementation for the many reasons people have laid out.
Richard Carriere, Corel‘s general manager of office productivity, looks for interoperability at large, saying:
The debut of Microsoft Office 2007, Microsoft OOXML will immediately experience broad dissemination. [..] Far from clear which of these formats will be adopted by productivity customers, or indeed if we’ll simply need to continue working with multiple file formats.
On the same line Novell chief technology and strategy officer for Open Source Nat Friedman said:
Novell supports the OpenDocument format as the default file format in OpenOffice.org because it provides customer choice and flexibility, but interoperability with Microsoft Office has also been critical to the success of OpenOffice.org.
Finally ISO published the ISO/IEC 26300:2006 standard, now the Open Document Format can be bought. Even if I doubt is an “open source business model”, as observed by Simon Phipps, I would be happy to see ISO certifying ODF standard compliance (see my comments filed under “Freedom 2” paragraph).
Roberto Galoppini and 
Simo, 
Reply