Updates from December, 2006 Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 4:51 pm on December 5, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Format: Free Format Definition, a proposal 

    Almost a couple of years ago I wrote a proposal of definition for “free formats” in an Italian mailing-list about digital formats. The idea was quite simple: rewriting the free software definition substituting “program” with “format specification”.

    • The freedom to use the format specification, for any purpose (freedom 0).
      .
    • The freedom to study how the format specification, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1).
      .
    • The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
      .
    • The freedom to improve the format specification, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3)..

    .

    Freedom 0
    Allow you to write programs based upon such specifications, therefore to license such software with any kind of license, free software ones or open source ones included.Format specification based on patent or patent applications containing claims that would necessarily be infringed by an implementation of that standard are critical. Such patents or patent applications must be released under a scheme that is perpetual, irrevocable and royalty-free.
    As an example a format specification based on a patent released as Reasonable and Not Discriminatory (RAND) doesn’t comply with the freedom 0.
    On the other hand, the W3C Royalty-Free policy is compliant with such definition. As a matter of fact W3C Royalty-Free policy allow format implementation, even if the FSF considers it harmful because of restrictions that might be posed by the patent holder on the “field of use”.
    .

    Freedom 1
    Contained somehow in Freedom 0, and we might keep it for “historical” reasons.
    .

    Freedom 2
    It requires the format specifications to be freely distribuitable, that is necessary if we want to allow anyone receiving data in a free format able to interpret them. As an example if to obtain format specification you need to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement (NDA) freedom 2 is not respected. Still there is space for Standardization organizations to make money of the certification programs and selling official version of such standards.
    .

    Freedom 3
    It should require a copyleft policy, otherwise someone might embrace and extend the standard to create a proprietary version..

    Does it make any sense to you?

     

    • Simo 5:18 pm on December 5, 2006 Permalink

      It definitely make sense.
      I’d chop away Freedom n.1 as it is completely covered by 0/3.

      The only problem I see is: how do you enforce compliance with the definition?

      The specification itslef can be copyrighted, the trademark can be used to avoid abuse of the name and certification purposes.
      But the only way to have a sort of “copyleft” license on a specification I am afraid is through a patent covenant on an unavoidable patent that covers all the specification uses.

      Simo.

    • Roberto Galoppini 12:11 pm on December 6, 2006 Permalink

      I believe standardization organizations’ policies about Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) must ensure this.
      They might do it through patent covenant or releasing free software in order to create prior art and, if needed, be able to cope with patent litigations. Standardization organizations need resources, therefore certifications should be mandatory by law.

    • Stefano Maffulli 10:55 am on December 11, 2006 Permalink

      I think you should join the discussion list for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) Dynamic Coalition on Open Technical Standards. http://mailman.ctyme.com/listinfo/openstds See you there 🙂

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:16 am on December 12, 2006 Permalink

      Many thanks Stefano, I just subscribed to that mailing-list.

  • Roberto Galoppini 12:49 pm on December 2, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Format: what do you mean by that? 

    There are many proposal definitions of Open Format, reported by wikipedia (see previous post) to the IDA migration guidelines one, that says:

    Open Standard protocols are defined as those which are free from patents and with an OSS implementation

    Open Formats, a site managed by volunteers like Dario Taraborelli, has its own too.

    So, what about a “Free Format” definition?

     

  • Roberto Galoppini 5:00 pm on November 30, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Open Format: permanent interoperability matters! 

    Few weeks ago I got invited to a dinner by Rufo Guerreschi, along with Richard Stallman and Robin Good. Than Robin filmed an interview to Richard.
    Some days later we all started to discuss by email about the video format to be used to deliver such recordings. Richard asked Robin to publish those video clips using formats supported by free software applications, and Ogg Theora was the format of choice.

    But Ogg Theora is an open format and is supported by an application released under a BSD-style license. 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.

    As we know Open standards may impose “reasonable and non-discriminatory” royalty fees and/or other licensing terms on implementers of the standard and are potentially harmful for OSS implementations (see for example FSF position on W3C policies). 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 Standard”. And, last but not least, we might need standardization bodies 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.

    Freedom is about knowledge, and data format is much more important than tools’ licenses.

     

    • Roberto Galoppini 11:10 am on December 1, 2006 Permalink

      OGG/Theora might become a standard, I mean a published standard.
      Unfortunately Xiph.org has not even specified such format, but I believe it might get done. But defining new formats outside of standardization bodies is a risky bet, think about the patent issue.
      In my opinion Richard’s position it’s a pure tacticism, a mean toward a goal: promoting free software.
      My concerns are about data accessibility, and I think we need a strategy to guarantee access to our data, for ever.

  • Roberto Galoppini 8:34 pm on November 21, 2006 Permalink | Reply  

    Monopoly: Poste Italiane changes ZIP and sells them through a Windows application 

    The postcode database is not free, as in beer, in some countries, like in UK, but it has always been freely available in Italy. On the 20th of September 2006 many zip codes have been changed, and Poste Italiane Spa, the national Italian postal service, stopped to give them for free.

    Reading the Italian FAQ it’s clear that Poste Italiane is trying to create a monopoly through proprietary software. Such program, a stand alone application designed to be used only by a single user, runs only on Windows because of market share evaluations led by Poste Italiane.

    So if you need to access Italian ZIP codes, and not just to make single enquiries through the Web interface, you have to buy that software, and you must use a PC Windows based.

    I’m wondering if the Poste Italiane’s application runs on Wine..

     

    • Roberto Galoppini 8:01 pm on January 9, 2007 Permalink

      I found interesting an English study stating that Public sector information holders keeping hidden information (raw data) cost the economy half a billion.

Newer posts →

c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel