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.
 
 
 
 
 
 

64 lines
3.0 KiB

  1. <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
  2. <html newsdate="2016-06-24">
  3. <version>1</version>
  4. <head>
  5. <title>FSFE's answers to the European Commission's Public Consultation:
  6. Revision of the European Interoperability Framework</title>
  7. </head>
  8. <body>
  9. <h1>FSFE's answers to the European Commission's Public Consultation:
  10. Revision of the European Interoperability Framework</h1>
  11. <p>The European Commission is
  12. <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/isa/consultations/impact-assessment-for-the-revision-of-the-eis-eifl_en.htm">asking
  13. for public input with regard to its plans to renew the European
  14. Interoperability Framework</a> (EIF). The EIF aims to promote enhanced
  15. interoperability in the EU public sector. The document, originally intended
  16. as a set of non-binding guidelines for the EU public administration, is
  17. going through its third revision since its initial adoption in 2004. The
  18. FSFE has prepared its <a href="/activities/os/eif-v3.en.html">comments
  19. for the draft of the revised guidelines</a>.</p>
  20. <p>The FSFE sees some improvement compared to
  21. <a href="/news/2010/news-20101216-01.en.html">the previous
  22. revision</a>, in particular concerning the preferred use of Open Standards (called
  23. "open specifications" in the draft revision) in European public services.</p>
  24. <p>However, we need to address several shortcomings. The statement that
  25. FRAND (allegedly "fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory") licensing terms
  26. for standards "will foster competition" (according to the Commission) is
  27. just plain wrong. FRAND licenses are highly anti-competitive in nature
  28. and it is a well-established fact that
  29. <a href="/activities/os/why-frand-is-bad-for-free-software.en.html">they
  30. make it impossible for a standard to be implemented in Free Software</a>.</p>
  31. <p>The draft also ignores the proven relationship between interoperability
  32. and Free Software. Most, if not all, national interoperability frameworks
  33. across Europe have based their success on substantial adoptions of Free
  34. Software and Open Standards in public services. So much so it is to all
  35. effects impossible to implement an interoperability framework without Free
  36. Software. For more information, please see
  37. <strong><a href="/activities/os/eif-v3.en.html">our full comments on the revision of the EIF</a></strong>.</p>
  38. <p>The FSFE encourages you to <a href="http://ec.europa.eu/isa/consultations/impact-assessment-for-the-revision-of-the-eis-eifl_en.htm">provide
  39. your own input to the ongoing consultation</a>. Replies can be submitted
  40. by individuals, companies, academic institutions, and public administrations
  41. before <strong>29 June</strong>. Feel free to reuse the arguments laid out
  42. above for your own submission and tell the Commission how Free Software
  43. and Open Standards are quintessential for interoperability.</p>
  44. </body>
  45. <tags>
  46. <tag key="front-page"/>
  47. <tag key="eif"/>
  48. <tag key="openstandards">Open Standards</tag>
  49. <tag key="policy">Policy</tag>
  50. <tag key="europeancommission">European Commission</tag>
  51. <tag key="digitalsinglemarket">Digital Single Market</tag>
  52. </tags>
  53. </html>