264 lines
12 KiB
HTML
264 lines
12 KiB
HTML
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
|
||
|
||
<html>
|
||
<version>2</version>
|
||
|
||
<head>
|
||
<title>Open Standards – Overview – FSFE</title>
|
||
</head>
|
||
|
||
<body class="article" microformats="h-entry">
|
||
|
||
<p id="category">
|
||
<a href="/work.html">Our Work</a>
|
||
</p>
|
||
|
||
<h1 class="p-name">Open Standards</h1>
|
||
|
||
<div class="e-content">
|
||
|
||
<div id="introduction">
|
||
<div class="right" style="max-width: 850px; width: 53%;">
|
||
<img src="/activities/os/robot-protest-dark_2016_plussy.png" alt="robot protest"/>
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
|
||
<p><a href="/activities/os/def.html">Open Standards</a> are the foundation
|
||
of cooperation in modern society. They allow people to share all kinds
|
||
of data freely, prevent vendor lock-in and other artificial barriers to
|
||
interoperability, and promote choice between vendors and technology solutions.
|
||
Open Standards are implementable with Free Software, and thus provide full
|
||
competition in the market. FSFE advocates for fair competition, interoperability of
|
||
solutions, and choice for consumers. Open Standards are necessary prerequisite
|
||
to ensure these freedoms.</p>
|
||
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<h2 id="what-is-a-technical-standard">What is a technical standard?</h2>
|
||
|
||
<p>A technical standard is a set of commonly agreed rules in regard to technical
|
||
systems. It is usually documented in a so-called 'standard specification'
|
||
that describes ways to consistently organise information so that it can
|
||
be understood and used by multiple independent applications. Standards
|
||
which are used for information storage are called 'formats', and those
|
||
for transmissing information are called 'protocols'.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>A standard establishes common ground that provides means for interoperability
|
||
and competition. The antipode of standardisation is monopoly: users of
|
||
one product or service can only interoperate with users of the same product
|
||
or service. Therefore, standards are used to enable competition for the
|
||
public benefit.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Standards can also be beneficial for innovation by allowing all actors
|
||
on the market to innovate on top of the standard and build their own services
|
||
in order to serve the standard.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2 id="why-open-standards">Why Open Standards?</h2>
|
||
|
||
<p>The problem arises when a standard is owned by one market player that uses
|
||
her position to control the further development of the standard, or tries
|
||
to manipulate it through licensing policies in order to exclude or include
|
||
some specific groups of actors. In this case, the standardisation is used
|
||
for contrary purposes than promoting competition and interoperability.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>The full competition in the market is, therefore, provided by standards
|
||
that are open. As Open Standards are freely available without any restrictions,
|
||
they allow standardised technology to be used in products and services
|
||
without any a priori advantage based on the ownership of the standard.
|
||
As a consequence, the access to technology is allowed to all actors on
|
||
the market irrespective of one's business model.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h3 id="what-is-an-open-standard">What is an 'open' standard?</h3>
|
||
|
||
<p>Open Standards are implementable with Free Software. If a standard does
|
||
not meet the following criteria, it discriminates against Free Software and
|
||
cannot be thus called an 'open' standard:</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>An <a href="/activities/os/def.html">Open Standard</a> refers to a format
|
||
or protocol that is:</p>
|
||
|
||
<ol>
|
||
<li>Subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in
|
||
a manner equally available to all parties;</li>
|
||
<li>Without any components or extensions that have dependencies
|
||
on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open
|
||
Standard themselves;</li>
|
||
<li>Free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation
|
||
by any party or in any business model;</li>
|
||
<li>managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in
|
||
a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties;</li>
|
||
<li>Available in multiple complete implementations by competing
|
||
vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all
|
||
parties.</li>
|
||
</ol>
|
||
|
||
<p>This way the standard ensures that technology is accessible for everyone,
|
||
irrespective of business-model, size, or exclusive rights portfolio. </p>
|
||
|
||
<h2 id="why-should-a-stanard-be-minimalistic">Why should a standard be minimalistic?</h2>
|
||
|
||
<p>The aim of standards is to establish a common ground in technology and
|
||
enable different applications to interact with each other. With more and
|
||
more data being digitally stored, the more important is to ensure its
|
||
portability between different applications. This is why it is essential
|
||
to make sure that the format one chooses to store their data is accessible
|
||
with multiple applications, irrespective of vendor or a technical solution.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>This is why the standard needs to be not only open, but also
|
||
<a href="/activities/os/minimalisticstandards.en.html">'minimalistic'</a>,
|
||
in order to solve the technical problem adequately, and allow as many
|
||
implementers of that standard as possible. In other words, there is a need
|
||
to assess whether the standard is as simple as possible, and as complicated
|
||
as necessary.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Overburdened standards with multiple unnecessary features gives its
|
||
vendor an advantage: it is more difficult for another implementer to
|
||
adequately read the format, and the customer is forced to a vendor lock-in.
|
||
In addition, standards bloated with rarely used features leave backdoors
|
||
and vulnerabilities for malicious attackers to take advantage of.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2 id="standard-that-is-implementable-with-free-software">Standard that
|
||
is implementable with Free Software</h2>
|
||
|
||
<h3 id="reference-implementation">Reference implementation</h3>
|
||
|
||
<p>For software standards the actual standard is defined through both
|
||
the formal specification and the actual implementation. Acquiring the
|
||
formal specification is often not enough in order to implement the standard
|
||
for complex digital systems. For any company wishing to implement the
|
||
standard, knowledge of existing implementations can be as valuable as
|
||
the formal specification, as this helps to avoid the
|
||
extended trial-and-error process for resolving ambiguities in formal
|
||
specification.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Hence, for a standard to be sufficiently 'open', the openness needs to
|
||
address both the specification and implementation.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Consequently, for open implementations it is economically more beneficial
|
||
to publish reference implementations under a Free Software licence.
|
||
This will allow the reference implementation to be freely available and
|
||
also act as a formal specification without the institutional process of
|
||
standard setting.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h3 id="patents-in-standards">Patents in standards</h3>
|
||
|
||
<p>Sometimes, the standard specification includes technical solutions
|
||
that are needed in order to implement the standard. These technical
|
||
solutions can be protected by patents. Whoever wishing to adopt and implement
|
||
the standard has to, therefore, acquire the appropriate licence from the
|
||
patent-holder.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>Industry has turned to different licensing practices in order to overcome
|
||
the issue of patents essential to standard implementation: for example
|
||
'royalty-free' (RF) or an alternative 'fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory'
|
||
(FRAND) terms. <a href="/activities/os/why-frand-is-bad-for-free-software.en.html">FRAND
|
||
terms are incompatible with Free Software</a>. Furthermore, due to the
|
||
fact that FRAND are usually kept secret, it is impossible to prove whether
|
||
the imposed terms are objectively 'fair' or 'non-discriminatory'.
|
||
Consequently, FRAND can be used as a tool to manipulate the standardisation
|
||
process to exclude competition.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>While RF licensing is addressing only the royalty-payment criteria,
|
||
it does not address other restrictions that may be placed on adoption
|
||
and implementation of a standard by Free Software. In this regard, the
|
||
licensing policies of patented technology in standardisation have to be
|
||
compatible with the widest range of actors on the market, as the purpose
|
||
of standardisation is to promote competition and to allow innovation on
|
||
top of it.</p>
|
||
|
||
<p>It is noteworthy, that hardly any new system in ICT is built without
|
||
the use of Free Software, and the exclusion of companies basing their
|
||
products on Free Software from standardisation can significantly hamper
|
||
innovation. Therefore, the appropriate licence for standard-essential-patents
|
||
is the one that is not placing any restrictions to the standard implementation
|
||
with Free Software, i.e. 'restriction-free', according to the
|
||
<a href="#what-is-an-open-standard">Open Standard definition</a>.</p>
|
||
|
||
<h2 id="what-can-you-do">What can you do?</h2>
|
||
|
||
<blockquote>
|
||
<h3 id="as-a-citizen">As a citizen</h3>
|
||
|
||
<p>
|
||
<ul>Insist on Open Standards: don't let your government, university, employer,
|
||
or a local public administration push you into using locked down formats.</ul>
|
||
</p>
|
||
</blockquote>
|
||
|
||
<blockquote>
|
||
<h3 id="as-a-politician">As a politician</h3>
|
||
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li>Promote policies that in practice ensure competition and innovation
|
||
in standardisation, i.e. minimalistic Open Standards implementable with
|
||
Free Software.</li>
|
||
<li>Promote licensing policies that are based on 'restriction-free' terms
|
||
in order to achieve the widest adoption of standards and allow their
|
||
implementation by all actors on the market.</li>
|
||
<li>Prioritise the use of Open Standards in public procurement and software
|
||
development in order to increase the interoperability of all software
|
||
solutions used in public sector.</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
</blockquote>
|
||
|
||
</div>
|
||
|
||
<related-feed tag="openstandards"/>
|
||
|
||
</body>
|
||
|
||
<sidebar promo="open-standards">
|
||
|
||
<h2>Further reading</h2>
|
||
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/ps.html">"Analysis on balance: Standardisation and
|
||
Patents"</a> by Georg Greve</li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/why-frand-is-bad-for-free-software.html">Why
|
||
FRAND is bad for Free Software?</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/eif-v3.en.html">FSFE's comments on the revision of
|
||
the European Interoperability Framework v.3</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/eifv2.html">"EIFv2: Tracking the loss of
|
||
interoperability"</a> by Karsten Gerloff and Hugo Roy</li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/bsa-letter-analysis.html">"Defending Open Standards:
|
||
FSFE refutes BSA's false claims to European Commission"</a> by Karsten
|
||
Gerloff, Carlo Piana and Sam Tuke</li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/2012-06-uk-consultation-os.en.html">FSFE's
|
||
submission to the UK Open Standards Consultation 2012</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/policy/eu/digital-single-market-comments.en.html">FSFE
|
||
comments on the EU Digital Single Market Strategy</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/policy/igf/sovsoft.html">"Sovereign Software: Open Standards,
|
||
Free Software, and the Internet"</a> FSFE contribution to the first IGF</li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/20150213.EC-patents-standards-consultation.FSFEresponse.pdf">FSFE response
|
||
to the European Commission's consultation on patents and standards</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/2014-03-26.OpenLetterToVilella.en.html">Open
|
||
Letter on Document Freedom Day 2014 to Giancarlo Vilella, Director of the European Parliament's
|
||
DG ITEC and Chair of the Inter-Institutional Committee for
|
||
Informatics</a> by Karsten Gerloff</li>
|
||
<li><a href="/activities/os/msooxml.en.html">MS-OOXML: a pseudo-standard
|
||
that pretends to be open</a></li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
<h2>External links of interest</h2>
|
||
<ul>
|
||
<li><a href="http://documentfreedom.org">Document Freedom Day</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="http://www.odfalliance.org">ODF Alliance</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="http://www.pdfreaders.org">PDFreaders.org</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="http://www.fsf.org/resources/formats/playogg">Play Ogg!</a></li>
|
||
<li><a href="http://isp.law.yale.edu/static/papers/Open_Documents_and_Democracy.pdf">"Open
|
||
Documents and Democracy"</a> by Laura de Nardis and Eric Tam, Yale
|
||
Information Society Project</li>
|
||
<li><a href="http://www.intgovforum.org/Substantive_1st_IGF/openstandards-IGF.pdf">"An
|
||
Economic Basis for Open Standards"</a> by Rishab A. Ghosh</li>
|
||
<li><a href="https://blogs.fsfe.org/greve/?p=160">"An emerging understanding
|
||
of Open Standards"</a> by Georg Greve</li>
|
||
</ul>
|
||
|
||
</sidebar>
|
||
</html>
|
||
<!--
|
||
Local Variables: ***
|
||
mode: xml ***
|
||
End: ***
|
||
-->
|