Source files of fsfe.org, pdfreaders.org, freeyourandroid.org, ilovefs.org, drm.info, and test.fsfe.org. Contribute: https://fsfe.org/contribute/web/ https://fsfe.org
You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
 
 
 
 
 
 

192 lines
8.1 KiB

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<html>
<version>1</version>
<head>
<title>UK Open Standards: Time to act</title>
</head>
<body>
<p id="category"><a href="/freesoftware/standards/standards.html">Open Standards</a></p>
<h1>UK Open Standards: Time to act</h1>
<p>
The Cabinet Office is currently conducting an important <a
href="http://consultation.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/openstandards/">consultation on
Open Standards</a>
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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 <a
href="http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/2012/04/12/are-open-standards-a-closed
-barrier/">which would
exclude Free Software</a>.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<h2>What you can do</h2>
<ol>
<li><a href="#id-everyone">Everyone</a></li>
<li><a href="#id-british-computer-society-members">British Computer Society members</a></li>
</ol>
<h3>Everyone</h3>
<p>
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 <a
href="http://consultation.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/openstandards/">questionnaire</a>
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 and 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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
Please pay particular attention to the following questions, with
special consideration to question 8.
</p>
<dl>
<dt>1. How does this definition of open standard compare to your view of
what makes a standard 'open'?</dt>
<dd>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:</dd>
<dd>"Public bodies or private bodies exercising public functions must
use open standards [...]"</dd>
<dt>5. What effect would this policy have on improving value for money in
the provision of government services?</dt>
<dd>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.</dd>
<dt>6. Would this policy support innovation, competition and choice in
delivery of government services?</dt>
<dd>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.</dd>
<dt>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?</dt>
<dd>(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 <a
href="http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/simon-says/2012/04/open-standards-
consultation-guide/index.htm">here</a>, this is likely to pit small
implementers against large, well-resourced patent holders, resulting
anticompetitive terms.</dd>
<dt>9. Does selecting open standards which are compatible with a free or
open source software licence exclude certain suppliers or products?</dt>
<dd>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 ygroup of suppliers are
generally without merit.</dd>
<dt>10. Does a promise of non-assertion of a patent when used in open
source software alleviate concerns relating to patents and royalty
charging?</dt>
<dd>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.</dd>
</dl>
<h3>British Computer Society members</h3>
<p>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 <a
href="http://www.bcs.org/content/ConWebDoc/43785">this page</a> to tell the BCS
why Open Standards are critical for Free Software, interoperability,
and value for public money.</p>
</body>
<date>
<original content="2012-04-26" />
</date>
</html>