[Wylug-discuss] Fwd: UK Open Standards: Time to act

Sat Apr 28 10:39:32 UTC 2012

I'm sure many of you will already be aware of this, but in case you
missed it....

Anne

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: UK Open Standards: Time to act
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2012 15:46:55 +0200
From: Fellowship of FSFE <fellowship at fsfeurope.org>
To: Anne Wilson <annew at fsfe.org>

[Read online on:
http://fsfe.org/projects/os/uk-standards-consultation.html]

Dear Fellow of the FSFE,

The Cabinet Office is currently conducting an important consultation
on Open Standards: http://consultation.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/openstandards/

The question is whether companies offering Free Software will in
future have the opportunity to sell their services to the British
government. Whether or not British money will continue to be spent on
supporting  proprietary standards which lock in public bodies,
currently hangs in  the balance.

The Government has already publicly backed away from a strong
definition of what an Open Standard is, and current indications are
not at all good. On 12 April 2012, the Cabinet Office published an
article indicating that it might lean away from freedom and openness,
and towards adopting a definition of Open Standards  which would
exclude Free Software [1].

FSFE  is working with the Free Software Foundation, Open Rights Group,
Open Source Consortium, Open Forum Europe, the Open Source Initiative
and others, to ensure that strong responses are submitted in  favour
of freedom. However, without the help of individuals like you, our
voices risk being drowned out by those corporate interests who want to
keep  public money tied up in their proprietary products.

*What you can do*

_Everyone_:

Please help FSFE and our partners to open up opportunities for Free
Software by taking part in this public consultation. To do this,
please download the questionnaire [2] and submit  your own  response
to the consultation before the May 1st deadline. You  can  answer as
few or as many of the 27 questions as you wish (questions are on pages
22 & 23 of the PDF). Some of the issues are complex. You may find the
links at the end of this message useful when formulating your answers.
Most important in your responses is to argue in favour of truly Open
Standards - standards which anyone can implement, without asking
permission or paying royalties, whether in Free Software or in
proprietary programs. You will do it best in supporting
restriction-free standards, which don't require those who implement
them to pay patent  licensing royalties.

Below, we have identified the questions which from FSFE's perspective
matter most, and outlined how we are going to answer them in our own
response to the consultation. You are welcome to use this as a guide
for your own response. Please take some time to write personal answers
in your own words - using the arguments given here.

Particularly important questions to answer are the following, please
pay special attention to  question number 8:

1. How does this definition of open standard compare to your view of
what makes a standard 'open'?
The formulation "Government bodies must consider open standards [...]"
is relatively weak. We suggest to replace this with "use" as in the
following: "Government bodies must use open standards [...]"
It is also not clear what exactly is meant by a "government body".
Software and in particular document formats come with strong network
effects, and one government body using proprietary formats might cause
problems for many others using formats based on Open Standards. If an
Open Standards policy is to be effective, it needs to encompass the
largest possible set of organisations. In summary, we propose the
following formulation:
"_Public_bodies_or_private_bodies_exercising_public_functions must
_use_ open standards [...]"

5. What effect would this policy have on improving value for money in
the provision of government services?
The policy would substantially open up competition for government
business. For the buyers, this means lower prices, and better quality.
The absence of lock-in would allow government bodies to switch
suppliers with relative ease. This would lead to improved performance
as vendors compete to keep government customers loyal.

6. Would this policy support innovation, competition and choice in
delivery of government services?
Since Open Standards can be _implemented_without_restrictions_, the
proposed policy would greatly contribute to supporting innovation,
competition and choice in the delivery of government services.
Standards provide a platform on on top of which businesses can
compete, and Open Standards mean that there is no limit to the number
and approaches which businesses can take to satisfy government needs.

8.  How could adopting (Fair) Reasonable and Non Discriminatory
((F)RAND)  standards deliver a level playing field for open source and
proprietary  software solution providers?
(F)RAND standards cannot deliver a level playing field for
participants in the software market. Most (F)RAND standards require a
royalty fee to be paid for each copy of a program that is distributed.
This is eminently impossible for Free Software, which anyone may copy
and distribute as they choose. It also clashes with the prohibition on
additional restricitions imposed by the GNU General Public License,
the most widely used Free Software license. (F)RAND standards also
discriminate against Free Software distributed under "permissive"
licenses that allow proprietary implementations, since they often lack
a central body which could successfully negotiate for a patent
license. As discussed here [3], this is likely to pit small
implementers against large, well-resourced patent holders, resulting
anticompetitive terms.

9. Does selecting open standards which are compatible with a free or
open source software licence exclude certain suppliers or products?
Selecting Open Standards does not exclude any supplier. Since by
definition, there are no restrictions on implementing an Open
Standard, developers of proprietary software have the option of
including support for the relevant interfaces or file formats in their
programs, at no cost beyond that of the implementation itself. Claims
that requiring Open Standards would exclude one group of suppliers are
generally without merit.

10. Does a promise of non-assertion of a patent when used in open
source software alleviate concerns relating to patents and royalty
charging?
Businesses serving government needs need a firm legal basis to build
upon. While a promise not to assert a patent is generally a friendly
gesture by the patent holder, it is no replacement for a clear policy
requirement for Open Standards, which can be implemented without
royalty payments or restrictions. Promises of non-assertion may
eventually be rescinded (e.g. when the patents it covers are sold to
another company). Commitments made to standardisation organisations
are much more reliable.

_British Computer Society members_:
The  British Computer Society is currently writing its own response to
this consultation, which could have a major impact on the Government's
future  policy. If you are a BCS member, use this page to tell the BCS
why Open Standards are critical for Free Software, interoperability,
and value  for public money: http://www.bcs.org/content/ConWebDoc/43785

Best regards,
Sam

British Team Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe

PS If you wish to receive occasional emails about Free Software in the
UK, please sign up to the UK Fellowship if you are not already a
member, as most messages like this are only sent there:
https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/fellowship-uk

[1]
http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2012/04/12/are-open-standards-a-closed-barrier/

[2] http://consultation.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/openstandards/

[3] OSI's Simon Phipps discusses the consequences of (F)RAND for Free
Software:
http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2012/04/open-standards-consultation-guide/index.htm

===================================================================
* Background information *
 * Introduction to Open Standards: https://fsfe.org/projects/os/os.html
 * FSFE's definition of Open Standards:
https://fsfe.org/projects/os/def.en.html
 * Why FRAND excludes Free Software?:
https://fsfe.org/news/nl/nl-201010.en.html
 * Standardisation and Patents: http://fsfe.org/projects/os/ps
 * False claims about royalty-free licensing:
http://fsfe.org/projects/os/bsa-letter-analysis.en.html

-- 
Sam Tuke
British Team Coordinator
Free Software Foundation Europe
IM : samtuke at jabber.fsfe.org
Latest UK Free Software news: uk.fsfe.org
Is freedom important to you? Join the fellowship.fsfe.org