Leaked Letter — BSA Pressures Europe To Kill Open Standards 156
An anonymous reader writes "The Business Software Alliance is trying to kill open standards. Free Software Foundation Europe has gotten hold of a letter in which the BSA tries to bully the European Commission into removing the last traces of support for open standards from its IT recommendations to the public sector. FSFE published the BSA's letter (PDF), and picked apart its arguments one by one."
Hope (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Some open standards lobbying in EU isn't credib (Score:1, Interesting)
Credible? Who cares at this point. EU is the last barrier holding corporations like Adobe, Oracle or Microsoft from openly suing and wipping most of FOSS projects. Software patents are evil, period.
Re:Seems pretty simple to me (Score:3, Interesting)
The only difference between an open and a closes specification is that the you usually have to pay patent license fees to implement a closed one. Whether a specification is closed or not does not protect you from patent trolls.
Dear BSA, the liability is yours.. (Score:5, Interesting)
ISO standards are in principle open as well (well, they more or less were until Microsoft showed us just how easy it is to bribe leadership, but I digress). Following the BSA logic, this should prevent competition.
Just how many different makes of child seats are there? Should we stop this too? And the checking of how secure they are according to OPEN specifications that can be validated for quality?
These people are *so* blinded by their desire for control that they don't just ignore the collateral damage they cause, they actively don't care. Let's give them the benefit of their idea of "innovation" and send them to live in caves to write their next memo on a stone with a blunt chisel.
Re:As if there were any doubt (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Some open standards lobbying in EU isn't credib (Score:5, Interesting)
Who's talking about FOSS licenses?
This discussion is about open standards. And whoever is pushing the open standards (no, it doesn't matter a jot whether it's big blue, redhat, google and what ethical issues they may have or even if they implement the standards properly) the BSA's move here is unethical and just plain wrong.
And please don't mention OOXML opposition in the same ... universe as money and corruption when we all saw how that utter abortion of a non-standard was pushed through.
Another recommendation.. (Score:4, Interesting)
If this is their stance, are we not talking about cartel building? With this sort of letter I would be most curious to know just what other actions have taken place behind the scenes to make that BSA stance reality. Or, in plain English: maybe an anti-trust investigation could well be in order..
Re:Concern Troll is a Troll (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Reasonable and non-Discriminatory isn't (Score:3, Interesting)
So you are trying to say a company made up of a sole developer cannot make good software? The capital requirement in those scenarios is likely zero as the person that goes this route is likely developing at home, off hours from his "real" job, already has a computer and perhaps the only additional expense is keeping the lights and computer on longer. I also know of a few 2 and 3 person companies that perform in exactly the same manner. So your claim of it being a "grossly misleading claim" is exactly that.
Re:Concern Troll is a Troll (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah yes, you're not advocating OOXML, you're just suggesting that unencumbered document formats are an IBM conspiracy. And oh how you wish there was a better way than RAND! But there isn't, so the best thing for us to do is sign licensing agreements with Novell, Oracle, and Microsoft.
Since it's all too unreasonable to comment on, just address one point: Categorically deny that you are being paid for this PR campaign, and that your posts and the the obscene moderation thereof are part of said campaign (not that I have any hope for an honest answer).
Re:Some open standards lobbying in EU isn't credib (Score:4, Interesting)
Good points, but there may be some cases where a file format is actually patented (despite exclusions in patent law).
In that particular situation, I think the EU should actually do what the BSA letter suggests, and refrain from using that particular technology for its public standards. In the probably most relevant field for government bureaucracies, formats for office documents, there is already a good enough open standard in the form of ODF.
Re:Repugnant (Score:3, Interesting)
There is a 'trick' to it, but it's more of a hack around USB's limitations than an explicit lockdown ploy by Apple. There's not a cryptographic lockout chip in the Apple chargers or anything. They signal the charge current (as high as 1-2A, while the USB spec only allows 500mA) by tweaking the pull-up resistor values on the D+/D- lines which ordinarily allow the host to identify lo/full/hi speed devices.
If you have an older/unofficial/DIY charger which shows 'Unsupported', you can add 4 ordinary resistors to make it supported (and limit the charge rate, if needed):
http://www.ladyada.net/make/mintyboost/icharge.html [ladyada.net]
Re:Seems pretty simple to me (Score:4, Interesting)
It's all about saving money and avoiding unpleasant surprises (patent trolls) after a standard is deployed. What the hell is wrong with that?
Uh... While that statement sounds logical on the surface, there's one slight flaw in this "insightful" comment. The members of the BSA ARE the patent trolls.
http://www.bsa.org/country/BSA%20and%20Members/Our%20Members.aspx [bsa.org]