475 lines
22 KiB
HTML
475 lines
22 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
|
|
|
<html>
|
|
<version>1</version>
|
|
|
|
<head>
|
|
<title>Internet Governance Forum (IGF) - Sovereign Software, by Georg Greve</title>
|
|
</head>
|
|
|
|
<body>
|
|
|
|
<center>
|
|
<h1>Sovereign Software</h1>
|
|
<h2>Open Standards, Free Software, and the Internet</h2><br />
|
|
</center>
|
|
<div align="right">
|
|
<a href="/about/people/greve/greve.html">Georg C.F. Greve</a><br />
|
|
Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE), President<br />
|
|
written for <a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_for_1st_IGF.htm" target="_blank">substantial contributions to the first IGF</a>
|
|
</div>
|
|
|
|
<center>
|
|
[<a href="SovereignSoftware.pdf">PDF Version, 91k</a>]
|
|
</center>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Introduction</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>Software issues are issues of power and fundamentally shape the
|
|
societies we are living in. Even to those who had not followed digital
|
|
policy issues before this became increasingly evident throughout the
|
|
<a href="/activities/wsis/">United Nations World Summit on the
|
|
Information Society (WSIS)</a>. Two fundamental questions characterise
|
|
this battlefield: Who controls your data? Who controls your
|
|
computer?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The first question generally revolves around Open Standards, and in
|
|
particular how they should be defined and upheld. All players in the
|
|
field speak out in favor of Open Standards, but some wish that term to
|
|
be understood in ways that they still control your data and retain the
|
|
power to lock out competitors at will.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The second question has been one of the key controversies throughout
|
|
the WSIS, it was highly controversial during the WGIG, and remains
|
|
controversial throughout the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This
|
|
issue is one of software models, of proprietary vs Free Software, and
|
|
has been oddly polarised between for-profit and non-profit in the WSIS
|
|
context.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This may have been due to the specific situation that mainly the largest
|
|
proprietary software multinational followed the WSIS intensively while
|
|
the large multinational vendors of Free Software generally did not
|
|
participate and were thus not represented in the CCBI. [<a name="ref1" href="#1">1</a>]</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Open Standards</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>Having been preached as commonplace statement in the information
|
|
technology industry for many years already, Open Standards only
|
|
recently made their entry into the center stage of public policy. One
|
|
of the places where this happened was during the WSIS, and will be of
|
|
major importance for the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). But why are
|
|
Open Standards so important?</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Background on formats</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>All computers store and transmit information in encoded form. These
|
|
used to be very simple representations where certain numerical values
|
|
stand for a certain character, for instance. And while their
|
|
complexity has been increasing steadily with the power and complexity
|
|
of computers, certain basic rules always apply.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The first important rule is that any such choice of encoding is an
|
|
arbitrary, and not a natural choice. The number 33 may represent the
|
|
letter 'a' or 'z' depending on the convention for this standard. There
|
|
is no right way of doing this, there are only possible ways.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The second important rule is that once data has been encoded in a
|
|
certain format, it can only be read by software that implements this
|
|
format, and implements it exactly. Even slight deviations from the
|
|
conventions of the format will easily cause massive data corruption. A
|
|
common and mostly harmless form of this is lost or broken formatting
|
|
in text processing software. In the worst case the data will be
|
|
unrecoverable.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Formats and market failure</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>From a market point of view, such a situation generally brings about
|
|
market failure: Customers who saved their data in one format quickly
|
|
find themselves unable to choose another vendor that was not able to
|
|
implement the same format, or unable to implement it well enough. If
|
|
the only way to migrate is to lose years of data there is a very
|
|
effective vendor lock-in that practically makes it impossible to
|
|
choose software according to its merits.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Additionally, strong network effects dominate today's computer world.
|
|
If a company invested heavily into a desktop infrastructure in the
|
|
past and this infrastructure uses certain communication protocols,
|
|
they find themselves faces with two alternatives: Get only such
|
|
software that implements these protocols perfectly or write off the
|
|
investment and replace the entire infrastructure, obviously at a high
|
|
additional investment.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>A third party vendor that wishes to enter this market is faced with a
|
|
situation similar to someone finding themselves in a room of people
|
|
speaking a foreign language, with no dictionary and syntactic help
|
|
available. Human languages are collections of arbitrary decisions just
|
|
like computer formats and protocols. There is no inherent natural
|
|
reason to call a table a table, or call a chair a chair. For someone
|
|
not speaking that language and without a dictionary or at least
|
|
someone willing to explain the language it becomes very hard to
|
|
communicate.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>In information technology, some people have been able to divine
|
|
information about such protocols and file formats merely by watching
|
|
others use that language. This is called protocol analysis and has
|
|
helped mitigate the negative influences of the systematics above
|
|
somewhat.[<a name="ref2" href="#2">2</a>] It
|
|
is also the reason why some dominant vendors start inserting
|
|
cryptography into their protocols, preventing further protocol
|
|
analysis in the future.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Public Policy implications</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>All of this is obviously a major concern for public policy for various
|
|
reasons and has been discussed in various fora, e.g. the Danish
|
|
parliament for its motion <b>B
|
|
103</b>[<a name="3" href="ref3">3</a>]
|
|
in which the following reasons are elaborated.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Healthy procurement policy</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is obviously not sustainable to make investments that will become
|
|
subject to the effects explained above. There is virtually no market
|
|
and a single vendor is in the position to vitiate the entire
|
|
investment. As this is not in line with the principles of efficient
|
|
and sustainable procurement by the public sector, such situations have
|
|
to be avoided.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Protect democracy from networking effects</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>The same networking effects that were described above take place when
|
|
the software needs to communicate with citizens. Only citizens that
|
|
choose the one vendor implementing that proprietary protocol would
|
|
then be able to communicate with their administration, violating the
|
|
basic principle of citizens being able to freely communicate with
|
|
their governments. Using proprietary formats and protocols would
|
|
instead force them into the same vicious cycle of investment and
|
|
increasing stakes explained above.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Ensure open competition</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Such a situation is obviously contrary to the principles of
|
|
open competition and markets and will quickly bring issues of market
|
|
concentration and stifling of innovation. As this is contrary to the
|
|
goals of any government, governmental procurement should support open
|
|
and competitive markets.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Merging effects, ensuring accessibility</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>In the scope of more efficient administration, many municipalities and
|
|
different parts of administration are starting to pool resources. If
|
|
this is attempted with proprietary formats, it usually means that
|
|
unless all parts have already been using the same software,
|
|
significant investments by one or several of the administrations would
|
|
be lost.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Also all of this will have to take into account the rights of people
|
|
with disabilities, who may have special requirements in software that
|
|
the implementation of that proprietary format may not meet. In this
|
|
situation there will be no possibility for people with disabilities to
|
|
communicate with their governmental services.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Commercial-political perspectives</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Ultimately there are strong political issues with storage of data in
|
|
proprietary formats. What if those data become inaccessible in the
|
|
future due to problems with that particular vendor? Can a government
|
|
really rely blindly and without alternative on the goodwill of any
|
|
singular commercial entity?</p>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Long term commercial aspects</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Also, with all of the above, increasing choice and freedom to choose
|
|
in an open market will bring additional long-term commercial benefits.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3><a name="os" />What is an Open Standard?</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>There are various definitions for what should or should not be
|
|
considered an Open Standard. The aforementioned Danish motion
|
|
describes it as:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>well documented with its full specification publically available</li>
|
|
<li>freely implementable without economically, politically or legal
|
|
limitations on implementation and use, and </li>
|
|
<li>standardized and maintained in an open forum (a so-called standards organisation) through an open process.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>This is relatively similar to the definition of an Open Standard by
|
|
the European Commission in its European Interoperability
|
|
Framework.[<a name="ref4" href="4">4</a>]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Both these definitions were criticised by the vendors that profit
|
|
commercially from the dependency cycles explained above, as well as
|
|
organisations representing their interest. The usual argumentation for
|
|
this criticism is generally oriented along the lines of patents that
|
|
were granted on such a format or protocol, and for which the patent
|
|
holder might choose to generate license revenue. The euphemism du jour
|
|
for this is usually ''Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory'' (RAND)
|
|
licensing.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This is but a euphemism because patents are by their nature limited
|
|
monopolies granted by law to a single entity. This entity will always
|
|
have the upper hand in any dispute, and indeed there are plenty of
|
|
stories about formats and protocols that are theoretically known, but
|
|
remain proprietary due to patent issues.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>That all other vendors not holding this patent are put in an equally
|
|
bad position may indeed seem non-discriminatory, but it does not
|
|
fundamentally change the balance of power of the situation.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p><b>All
|
|
formats and protocols are fundamentally arbitrary in nature, but must
|
|
be followed precisely for the data that was stored in them to be
|
|
recovered.</b></p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Open Standards in practice</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>In theory, the definitions of the European Union or the Danish
|
|
parliament would be sufficient to define an Open Standard. In practice
|
|
things have proven to be more complicated because the situation with
|
|
proprietary formats described above is immensely profitable for the
|
|
vendor in control of that software.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>So ultimately, a proprietary vendor with a certain amount of market
|
|
penetration has an economic incentive to violate the Open Standard and
|
|
turn it into a de-facto proprietary one. This indeed has happened
|
|
repeatedly in history. The European Commission antitrust investigation
|
|
against Microsoft provides testimony to how deviating from an Open
|
|
Standard (CIFS, the ''Common Internet File System'') allowed Microsoft
|
|
to leverage its desktop monopoly into near total dominance on the
|
|
workgroup server market. This has proven so profitable that Microsoft
|
|
appears more inclined to pay billions in fines than to stop this
|
|
practice.[<a name="ref5" href="#5">5</a>]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Often this is also done by slightly changing the implementation in
|
|
ways that are hard to pinpoint or can be debated within the limits of
|
|
human interpretation, but make sure that the implementations of other
|
|
vendors will not integrate flawlessly anymore. The economic incentive
|
|
for this is huge for proprietary players that bypass a certain
|
|
threshold in size.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>How to maintain an Open Standard</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>The only way to prevent this sort of thing seems to add one more
|
|
criterion to the definitions above: ''The standard must have at least
|
|
one Free Software implementation and all implementations that seek to
|
|
be compliant with the Open Standard must be regularly tested against
|
|
the Free Software implementation(s), which act as the common reference
|
|
base.''</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Because Free Software[<a name="ref6" href="#6">6</a>] is, inter
|
|
alia, defined by the freedom to study its implementation, this allows
|
|
all players in the market to study the common reference base not only
|
|
in specification language, but also in language, and regular tests
|
|
against that base can help curb deviations from the Open Standard.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Free Software also provides the freedoms of use, modification and
|
|
distribution, therefore most vendors can also simply include that
|
|
implementation in their own software, further reducing
|
|
interoperability barriers.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>So while there is in theory no connection between Open Standards and
|
|
Free Software, in practice Free Software becomes a necessary component
|
|
to maintain an Open Standards against economic incentive to
|
|
propertise or deviate from an Open Standard.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Open Standards and the WSIS/IGF</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>A good example for this is the internet. Before the internet became
|
|
what it is today there were various different attempts to establish
|
|
something similar. Why did the internet succeed? Because the
|
|
implementations of basic internet protocols such as TCP/IP were Free
|
|
Software and therefore equally available to all.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>The World Wide Web repeated this story when Tim Berners-Lee waived all
|
|
patents on the protocols and formats, and they were implemented in
|
|
Free Software. More than 60% of the world's web sites run on Apache,
|
|
one of several Free Software web servers.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Sadly enough, the language on Open Standards adopted in the WSIS and
|
|
subsequently carrying into the IGF would not be sufficient to build
|
|
something like the internet. Formats and protocols going by that
|
|
definition would be subject to all the effects elaborated above.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>So it is important that the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) now goes
|
|
beyond this insufficient language and works out true international
|
|
consensus that will protect the internet from ''propertisation creep''
|
|
in all its protocols and formats. Open Standards are an essential
|
|
building block of the internet -- they must be maintained for the
|
|
internet to not fall victim to a tower of babel syndrome.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h2>Free Software</h2>
|
|
|
|
<p>The practical connection between Free Software and Open
|
|
Standards has already been elaborated, but there are other, genuine
|
|
Free Software issues that have no direct connection with Open
|
|
Standards. These are issues of software model and ultimately of
|
|
control over your own computer.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Free Software is software that gives all users and developers the
|
|
following four freedoms:</p>
|
|
<ul>
|
|
<li>The freedom to run the program, for any purpose.</li>
|
|
<li>The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs.</li>
|
|
<li>The freedom to make and redistribute copies.</li>
|
|
<li>The freedom to improve the program, and release improvements.</li>
|
|
</ul>
|
|
|
|
<p>It is important to note that any of these activities can be
|
|
commercial, indeed there are large international companies for which
|
|
Free Software is a very profitable business, IBM, SUN, HP and others
|
|
among them.[<a name="ref7" href="#7">7</a>]</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>The difference of software models</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>So commerciality is not the dividing line between proprietary and Free
|
|
Software. In the ultimate abstraction the issue of software models
|
|
comes down to one fundamental question: Who has control over the
|
|
software that runs your computer?</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>With proprietary software, that is always and exclusively the
|
|
proprietor of the software. The owner of the computer generally gets
|
|
some usage permissions for certain purposes, but these can usually be
|
|
revoked and the user never owns or controls the software in any
|
|
meaningful sense. With Free Software, the user is put in charge and
|
|
control of their own software.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>This shift in power from ''one over everyone else'' to ''everyone over
|
|
themselves'' fundamentally affects how national economy, enterprises,
|
|
science, education, politics and society as a whole works. A full
|
|
elaboration of these issues would be beyond the scope of this paper,
|
|
so it will focus on a few selected issues of governance and
|
|
sovereignty.</p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>An issue of control</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Although this may seem like an obviously falsehood, there is
|
|
widespread common belief that the user controls their computer. In
|
|
reality, it is only the software that actually controls the computer,
|
|
taking some hints from the user if so programmed. This is an important
|
|
fundamental distinction, because it makes clear that only by
|
|
controlling the software can users control what their computer
|
|
actually does.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>There are plenty of examples of software doing things secretly, and
|
|
without the knowledge of the user. One recent example includes a piece
|
|
of software that comes with SONY CDs and informs SONY every time that
|
|
CD is played, and on which machine. All of this happened without
|
|
visible signs on the computer, and without any information for or
|
|
agreement by the user. Indeed, the user was falsely informed by SONY
|
|
that this did <b>not</b> happen until someone was able to prove them
|
|
wrong.[<a name="ref8" href="#8">8</a>]</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Similar stories exist for various other proprietary software
|
|
solutions, including collaboration and conferencing software that was
|
|
allegedly safe and highly encrypted and most likely used by
|
|
governments for confidential activities around the world.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Because there is no way to know for sure what your software does
|
|
unless you have full control over it, the German Agency for Security
|
|
in Information Technology (BSI) has a recommendation for Free
|
|
Software.[<a name="ref9" href="#9">9</a>] Indeed, the German embassies
|
|
around the world are networked with the German government through Free
|
|
Software, using the GNU/Linux based SINA box.[<a name="ref10"
|
|
href="#10">10</a>] </p>
|
|
|
|
<h3>Issues of political mandate</h3>
|
|
|
|
<p>Even though there has been considerable movement on the issue, Open
|
|
Standards in public administration are still the rare exception. And
|
|
in the proprietary world, which is still the norm in many governments,
|
|
generally only one vendor can provide software that will be able to
|
|
access those data and processes. So effectively much of public
|
|
administration and governmental processes are controlled by software
|
|
which in turn is controlled by only one vendor that the government has
|
|
no meaningful control over.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>Free Software is the only way to ensure that governments actually
|
|
control their own data and processes, including critical
|
|
infrastructures. Free Software also avoids the aforementioned
|
|
"propertisation creep" on Open Standards: There is no profit in this,
|
|
as generally any vendor can choose to supply or maintain that
|
|
solution.</p>
|
|
|
|
<b>Only Free Software is ever truly Sovereign Software.</b>
|
|
|
|
<h4>Free Software and the WSIS/WGIG/IGF</h4>
|
|
|
|
<p>Free Software and the internet go hand in hand. It was Free Software
|
|
that critical to making the internet possible, and indeed Free
|
|
Software continues to shape and run the internet. At the same time,
|
|
Free Software and its representatives has been all but excluded from
|
|
the WGIG and the IGF processes thus far.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p>If the Internet Governance Forum is to become a truly inclusive forum
|
|
to discuss internet related issues, Free Software and its
|
|
representatives should be included in all relevant fora and all
|
|
political levels of the IGF. Otherwise there is a possibility that the
|
|
people who actually continue to build the internet will simply take
|
|
their discussions elsewhere.</p>
|
|
|
|
<hr />
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote">
|
|
[<a name="1" href="#ref1">1</a>] Some people see the two issues connected, other argue they should
|
|
always be treated separately. As will become clear later on, the two
|
|
issues are indeed not connected in theory, but have a connection in
|
|
practice. In order to understand this, it is important to consider
|
|
them isolated and individually first.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote">
|
|
[<a name="2" href="#ref2">2</a>] This is how OpenOffice (<a
|
|
href="http://www.openoffice.org">http://www.openoffice.org</a>) came
|
|
to its ability to generally read most documents written with Microsoft
|
|
Word, for instance, or how the Samba (<a
|
|
href="http://www.samba.org">http://www.samba.org</a>) software became
|
|
able to replace large parts of the functionality of Microsoft
|
|
workgroup servers.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote">
|
|
[<a name="3" href="#ref3">3</a>]
|
|
<a href="http://www.ft.dk/Samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/index.htm">http://www.ft.dk/Samling/20051/beslutningsforslag/B103/index.htm</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote">
|
|
[<a name="4" href="#ref4">4</a>]
|
|
<a href="http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7728.html">http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7728.html</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote">
|
|
[<a name="5" href="#ref5">5</a>]
|
|
<a href="/activities/ms-vs-eu/">https://fsfe.org/activities/ms-vs-eu/</a>
|
|
</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote"> [<a name="6" href="#ref6">6</a>] For a full and
|
|
concise definition of Free Software please consult the ''<a
|
|
href="/activities/wipo/fser.html">Free Software Essentials
|
|
Reference</a>'' also supplied in the <a
|
|
href="http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions_for_1st_IGF.htm">substantial
|
|
contributions</a> to the IGF.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote"> [<a name="7" href="#ref7">7</a>]
|
|
A more complete and elaborate definition of Free
|
|
Software and a clarification of the most common misunderstandings is
|
|
available on the ''<a href="/activities/wipo/fser.html">Free Software Essentials Reference</a>'' sheet also in
|
|
the substantial contributions to the IGF.</p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote"> [<a name="8" href="#ref8">8</a>]
|
|
<a href="http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,69601,00.html">http://www.wired.com/news/privacy/0,1848,69601,00.html</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote"> [<a name="9" href="#ref9">9</a>]
|
|
<a href="http://www.bsi.bund.de/oss/index.htm">http://www.bsi.bund.de/oss/index.htm</a></p>
|
|
|
|
<p class="footnote"> [<a name="10" href="#ref10">10</a>]
|
|
<a href="http://www.bsi.bund.de/fachthem/sina/index.htm">http://www.bsi.bund.de/fachthem/sina/index.htm</a></p>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
</body>
|
|
|
|
</html>
|
|
<!--
|
|
Local Variables: ***
|
|
mode: xml ***
|
|
End: ***
|
|
-->
|