Microsoft Redefines "Open Standards" 325
Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft is at it again: trying to redefine what 'open' means. This time it wants open standards to be 'balanced' — for them to include patent-encumbered technologies under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Which just happens to be incompatible with free software licensed under the GNU GPL."
GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
Hate to break it to you, but the GPL is not the be-all end-all of openness, and the benchmark of "open" is not necessarily "compatible with the GPL".
GPL is not the *only* open license (Score:3, Insightful)
And being incompatible with the GPL doesn't mean something isn't open.
Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:2, Insightful)
The GPL promotes one type of "open" source model.
Open source only means that the source is available to the users of the product.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but Patent-encumbered definitely means NOT open.
Can't evolve? Change your environment. (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this surprising? TFA explains it best:
The idea behind truly open standards is to create a level playing field so that everyone can compete on an equal and fair basis. The benefits are obvious: it ensures a true Darwinian selection process is possible
Microsoft, just like tha *AAs, find themselves in the same position as the dinosaurs after the comet strike winter: their surroundings (markets) are changing and they are unable to adapt. So they try to adapt their environment to themselves. In the case of companies, this is done by "educating" (think "don't copy that floppy"), threatening and cajoling their customers. But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.
Sounds familiar (Score:4, Insightful)
Microsoft reminds me of the RIAA here, whining about the need to prop up their business model. Their license to print money is in danger, as the online world is moving on.
balanced in favour of microsoft (Score:3, Insightful)
Open is the wrong word (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL isn't "open" and never claimed to be.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
That's absolutely true.
I'd say an "open" standard would mean that anyone could implement the standard without need to buy a license to implement all or part of it.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:4, Insightful)
OSI's definition isn't necessarily the gold standard either. The GPL, BSD, and other licenses, as well as the whole concept of "open source" was around long before OSI existed.
I have always felt, and continue to do so, that "open source" merely indicates that the source code for a product is available. There are a ton of times where that's all that I wanted. I'd kill to have the source to some of my vendor purchased apps so I could fix some long standing bugs and send the patches back to them. Creating/distributing a derived work, or redistributing the code is not a priority in that case. Access to the code is.
Is anyone suprised? (Score:4, Insightful)
Almost like the MCP in Tron - may Ram R.I.P. (Rest in Pixels)
GPL is great, but not for everyone. (Score:3, Insightful)
The GPL promotes one type of "open" source model.
Exactly. I love the idea of GPL and am glad it exists. I use GPL software whenever possible. This post however, is not about the merits of GPL, but to drive home this point: it's difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to make a living by relying on GPL software. Finding a "balance" between the GPL model and complete closure is something worth pursuing. It's not like GPL couldn't still be used by those who wanted to use it.
The GPL is simply not for every developer. It does not allow for trade sectrets, and trade secrets are legally protected for a legitimate reason: the opportunity to be rewarded for innovation. Without it, there would be *less* incentive to invent and innovate.
Clearly, some are willing to invent and develop technology without this protection, but many such as Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, the average person with a Computer Science degree, will demand some of this protection when they really want to earn a living from their software.
As someone who's worked for software companies, it's hard to imagine those companies GPLing their products, and easy to imagine the company losing half its profits or going under altogether if any company with an IT department could legally recompile the source code and use the software without payment.
After all, companies do have the right to act in their own self-interest, even if you feel they are misguided.
"Standard" incompatible with "software patent" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's true that "GPL" is not the same as "open". But a good test for openness of a standard is "can you implement it using the GPL?". In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license [dwheeler.com]; nothing else even comes close. And increasingly, major market niches have an open source software implementation as the #1 or #2 implementation. A standard that locks out major implementations cannot possibly be an open standard. The whole point of a software patent is the power to exclude implementation (without paying royalties, etc.), while the whole point of a standard is to allow arbitrary use - they are fundamentally incompatible. Digistan has a more reasonable definition of open standard - and why you would want one [digistan.org].
Re:Now who's redefining "open"? (Score:4, Insightful)
Fixing a bug by changing the source code and then recompiling it is creating a derivative work. When you have access to the source code, it doesn't always mean you are allowed to make a 'better' version of it. A few years ago, we had access to the Windows (NT/2000) source code but it's still not legal for me to fix their bugs and then install it on my computer.
Re:balanced in favour of microsoft (Score:5, Insightful)
This seems to be the Exterminate phase of standard microsoft policy of 'Embrace extend exterminate'.
No, this is the "Extend" phase. If they can get people to accept patent encumbered software as "open", then they can move into the Exterminate phase.
Re:Open is the wrong word (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
the patent in and of itself proudly claims 100% ownership over the code in question, which is the antithesis of openness under any standard.
Copyright would be the claim of 100% ownership over the code. A patent is even less open, since you aren't even allowed to re-implement the software, even if you write it entirely yourself without ever seeing any of the source code of the original implementation.
Embrace, Extended, Extinguish (Score:5, Insightful)
Well yeah it's the same EEE philosophy they've followed over th last twenty years. Why abandon the philosophy when it works do brilliantly for them?
- EMBRACE the concept of open standards (previous phase).
- EXTEND these standards with Microsoft proprietary formats (the current ongoing phase).
- EXTINGUISH future competitors by claiming they violate these proprietary formats and may not use them, which means customers must buy Microsoft software to gain full functionality. Thus a once-open standards model becomes a closed MS-proprietary format. Again.
Re:Cue Microsoft bashing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes sigh. And the astroturf starts right on cue as well.
Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.
There is pattern of saturating discussions with the same marketing points. This demand that Microsoft be given "fair treatment", criticism of the GPL as being "unfair", claims that anyone who criticises Microsoft is a zealot who would complain no matter what they do, the harassment, ridicule and abuse of people they perceive as representing competitors viewpoints, constant reiteration that, as much as they love [competing product], Microsoft's implementation is undeniably superior. Anyone who's participated in Slashdot discussions for any length of time will recognise these and the rest of their marketing checklist of memes they wish to propagate.
In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot, and other tech discussion websites. We need at least a small element of trust that the people participating here really believe what they are posting, and are not simply reiterating from a script planned by some marketing team.
Open systems vs standards vs open source (Score:3, Insightful)
Open systems: systems based on unencumbered specifications for interfaces and protocols, usually with multiple interoperating implementations.
Closed systems: systems that are restricted in who can interoperate with and implement them, for example they may require commercial licensing.
Standards: Specifications for interfaces and protocols.
Open source systems: systems for which a freely redistributable implementation exists.
Not all systems fall clearly into the "open" or "closed" camp... these are really extremes along a continuum.
An open source system is usually not a closed system, but it may be if it is encumbered by patents or licensing that limits its use. An open source system may or may not be an open system... for example, a system with a single implementation where the specification for the interfaces and protocols is defined by that implementation should probably not be considered an open system, even if it's open source.
Open standards: I would assume this means standards that are unencumbered by licensing issues, anyone can implement them. Standards by definition are "open" to some degree simply by being standards, so qualifying the term with "open" means you're making a stronger statement than just "it's a standard".
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'. If a standard is open and royalty free then it can be implemented without problems by GPL'd software
Open and royalty-free are necessary but not sufficient conditions for use by GPL software.
There could be additional encumbrances on a patent other than royalties. A common one is that each user has to obtain permission from the patent holder. Even if this permission is easy to obtain and costs nothing, that would still be encumbered from the GPL's perspective because it would impose restrictions on those who receive the software.
Contrary to the GGP's opinion, while the GPL may not be the "be-all end-all" of openness it's a pretty damned good yardstick. If a license (copyright or patent) is compatible with the GPL, you know that it's open.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:2, Insightful)
You are confusing an normal standard with an open standard. An open standard can be implemented by anyone without any restrictions.
A standard imbuded with RAND is never open. It might be a industrial standard but it's not an open standard.
Re:Can't evolve? Change your environment. (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, NOW I get it... (Score:3, Insightful)
"The idea behind truly open standards"
They are talking about open standards. You all are talking about open source.
Different things.
Carry on.
Re:Cue Microsoft bashing... (Score:4, Insightful)
On the contrary, I think their attacks are going to be self-defeating. Posts such as yours point out the schtick being advertised (the schtick having same veracity as the Marketing Dept. of the Sirius Cybernetic Corp. from Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy). PHBs don't read these boards, tech-savvy people do (well, more so than PHBs).
Put in a boarder context, MS would like to define a collection of lies by which it would like to be judged. The terms of that judgement, however, are collectively settled upon. MS is in effect attempting to lie to itself, and therein lies the seeds of MS's failure, Their approach cannot work and will only further antagonize and engender opposition. Who among us wants to be dictated to by semi-evolved Business School Product (will the people from the marketing dept. at MS please put your hands down, its embarrassing)?
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:3, Insightful)
GPL: We don't allow the keeping of slaves around here.
BSD: I don't keep slaves. But I don't mind if you do.
If you actually think BSD is more open because it gives plantation owners more flexibility, you're insane. Please understand, I don't mean you to read that as "I don't like what you're saying." I mean you to read that as "You have a dangerous and fundamental disconnect with reality".
Quit with the doublethink and just be honest enough to call a spade a spade, ok? Just say "I'm just a little guy and it's a harsh and fucked up world out there and I will do what I have to do to feed myself even if it takes away other peoples freedom" and stop twisting reality to make yourself feel better about yourself.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
In that case, you seem to be using a different definition of 'open standard' to the rest of the world.
I'm using the definition of the EU, half a dozen EU member states, by Bruce Perens, and even Vijay Kapoor of Microsoft:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard [wikipedia.org]
You can redefine terms to mean something different from how they have been used for decades and complain that everyone else is using the wrong definition, but you are unlikely to get much sympathy.
Yes, *you* can, *you* are obviously trying to, but *you* shouldn't.
Of the million or so search results for 'MPEG open standard' you will find very few claiming that MPEG is not an open standard
The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open", and they have the might and force of some of the biggest entertainment, marketing, and consumer electronics companies behind them. We should not let them.
If MPEG is "open", then the term "open" has lost any useful meaning.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:4, Insightful)
The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage
The definition I gave is the one that has been accepted by the computing industry since around 1970. The definition you quote:
The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand and the Venezuelan governments
This is a very new definition. Look at the citation at the end of the article; this definition was adopted by the EU in 2004, after several decades of use of the term with other meanings. The other citations for this definition also date from 2004. From the fourth paragraph of the Wikipedia entry:
Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T...
The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open. These organisations have been issuing open standards with this definition since 1947 and 1986, respectively.
The fact that, around 2004, a number of groups decided that they would only accept open standards that were also royalty free as being 'real' open standards does not alter the fact that the this has, historically, not been part of the definition. A large number of patented standards were published and described as open standards before 2004, and retroactively changing the definition means that these suddenly go from being open to non-open.
You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion. Why not call open, royalty-free, standards Free Standards or something which does not have historical meanings associated with it?
The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open"
You'll note that I didn't mention the MPEG-LA as people describing MPEG as an open standard. Do the IEEE (which is, among other things, a standards body) and BBC (which has produced a patent-free video CODEC that is due to become VC-2) have a vested interest in redefining 'open'? Or are they just using the definition in the same way that it's been used for decades. MPEG-1 was described as an open standard back in 1988, 16 years before the EU decided on a definition that excludes it, and it certainly wasn't the only standard with RAND-licensed terms, just one of the most well-known.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a very new definition.
Even if that were true (it is not), so what? It is the current definition, and it's the only meaningful and useful definition.
Just because we accepted slavery, lack of voting rights for women, throwing people in jail for their sexual orientation, or mixing church and state in the past doesn't mean we have to continue to do so. And it's the same with the misuse of the term "open".
The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open.
Yes: old bodies dominated by big corporate interests. In the past, they have been able to get away with it. Today, we don't let them anymore.
You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion
Nothing surprises me. I'm just saying that enough is enough. Don't use the term "open" to describe standards that are clearly proprietary. That kind of misuse and deliberate confusion may have been fine in the 1970's, but it is unacceptable today, period.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow. Take some of your own advise.
I stated the disadvantages and advantages without any hyperbola or rhetoric. You couldn't do the same and make your point.
Software doesn't think and isn't self aware, comparing to slavery is ridiculous. Please, as you said, call a spade a spade.
Re:GPL is not the definition of open (Score:2, Insightful)
Yours is a ridiculous and arrogant rebuttal. Equating changes in the definition of "open" to human rights? Were you hit in the head as a child or what? Raven's history of the definition is accurate.
You really have no clue about human history, do you. The ability to speak publicly, the ability to print, and to disseminate information has been at the heart of the development of human rights throughout history; you cannot separate one from the other.
I'm old enough to have lived though it as an IT professional.
So am I, which is why I can tell you that you're full of it. Go search the USENET archives, for example: you won't even find any significant mention of the term "open standard" prior to the introduction of "open source" in 1998. The term simply wasn't in common use. After that, many companies have been trying to misrepresent both their software and their standards as "open" in order to mislead customers into thinking that their products are something that they are not.
What finally gets me is your last paragraph. What an arrogant bastard! Who are you to tell the world what is or is not acceptable?
Let me translate this for you, since you're obviously too dense to understand simple English: "It is not acceptable" means "People like me will not shut up because of your bogus arguments or bogus claims of authority". Clear enough?
And what ultimately matters is the legal definitions; the EU has made a good first step towards that. You now go and try specifying MPEG as an "open standard" on an EU contract and see where it gets you.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cue Microsoft bashing... (Score:3, Insightful)
"After RMS put the TiVo "gotcha" (its horrible! TiVo won't let me hack it so I can get free TiVo!)"
Straw man.
It was never about free TiVo as in how much you pay for it, you know. It was about DRM. TiVo can remotely delete/expire stored content, so it was actually inferior to the old VCR model in terms of letting you format/time shift.
That being said, MythTV had a provider of subscription-based TV listings but too many people just copied them around/accessed the stream without paying and now it's gone. This idea that people think they don't have to pay for software, any software, is why we can't have certain classes of nice things.
Re:FOSS-type patent license != encumbered (Score:3, Insightful)
Any license that requires that you allow those to whom you distribute to code to modify and redistribute it requires that any patents that you require in order to modify and redistribute the code have the right to use them distributed with the code.
GPL2 isn't as explicit about it as the GPL3 is, but it's implicit in the license. (Caution: IANAL)
The BSD doesn't have that problem because it doesn't have that right of redistribution. And I happen to believe that the right of redistribution is important.