Open Source, Open Standards Under Attack In Europe 164
Glyn Moody writes "A battle for the soul of European IT is taking place behind closed doors in Brussels. At stake is the key Digital Agenda for Europe, due to be unveiled in a month's time. David Hammerstein, ex-Member of European Parliament for the Greens, tweeted last week: 'SOS to everyone as sources confirm that Kroes is about to eliminate "open standards" policy from EU digital agenda; Kroes has been under intense lobbying pressure from Microsoft to get rid of interoperability and open source goals of EU.' This is confirmed by the French magazine PC Inpact (Google translation), which also managed to obtain a copy of the draft Digital Agenda (DOC). It's currently supportive of both open source and open standards — but for how much longer?"
objection (Score:4, Informative)
IT, whether European or otherwise, has no soul
Re:Importance (Score:4, Informative)
BSA tries to ensure that EU bureaucracy would use the software of the companies it represents, in the case mainly Microsoft and namely M$Office. Wanna send a paper to a ministry electronically? Gotta buy the WinWord.
One has to carefully weigh all the factors: bribes one can get off M$ right now + bribes one can get off M$ later vs. ... On second thought, forget about the open thing we have discussed before.
P.S. FSFE take on the case [fsfe.org].
Re:Importance (Score:5, Informative)
I dont[sic] know much about this and am curious why it is so important. Wont[sic] open source continue to be open source independent of what the EU decides?
First this is more about open standards than open source software. Some organizations certainly will use them regardless, but lacking a clear directive, the status quo rules, and that tends to be proprietary formats and protocols now dominating the industry and harming interoperability and reducing competition.
Or is this saying that the EU gov'ts will only use open source programs, and that is defined by this document?
Originally this document established a preference for more open formats that are more likely to be usable to later generations and which provide more choice of both IT vendors and clients going forward. This was a recognition of the importance of open and documented protocols and formats. Note, nothing in this was pro or con of any given vendor. Rather it was in favor of open standardization where all vendors could compete instead of just one vendor (read Microsoft). The idea was that it is important for say word processing in EU governments to standardize on a format where any company could create an interoperable solution so governments could take competitive bids on a level playing field.
Re:Importance (Score:5, Informative)
The leaked "Digital Agenda" doesn't appear to be so bad.. it mainly aims to promote cross-border interoperable electronic ID, health systems, and open standards in general. This will make it easier for European citizens to trade and physically relocate across borders (the existing systems are different in every country, and moving between countries is a PITA). The reason this kind of stuff is important is that the aims and details will be hammered out at a European level, then implemented as policy by the various counties of Europe. Once a few of the more powerful countries (Germany, France, UK) establish a common framework for digital ID or whatever, it will be required to interact with government online services in those countries, a software ecosystem will develop around these protocols, and the other countries will follow within a few years. The EU will provide funding for development of software platforms that implement these open standards. The potential risk here is that Microsoft and other companies will twist the definition of "open" to include proprietary patented protocols (which are "open" because you are free to license them at some cost), and then they can lobby countries and companies taking part in public sector procurements to choose closed standard solutions, which would obviously be a bad thing for cross-border interoperability. The relevant parts of the document are:
The Digital Agenda outlines a set of crucial policy actions, including legal measures and programmes that must be launched or upgraded to get the Union on track. The actions are clustered in six areas:
(1)Very fast internet access;
(2)A digital single market;
(3)A sustainable digital society;
(4)Trust and security;
(5)Research and innovation;
(6)Open standards and interoperability.
Use CIP support seamless cross-border public services, based on open and internationally recognised standards, and a European eID management infrastructure;
An "EU eHealth Passport" could give citizens secure online access to their personal health data. On such a platform, improved medical services can be developed raising efficiency and patient empowerment. The Commission will work with the competent authorities to equip 15% of Europeans with such passports by 2015. The eHealth Lead Market Initiative1 will promote standardisation and interoperability testing and certification.
Electronic identity (eID) technologies and services are key to trust in electronic transactions and in e-payment systems, including mobile payments. A European framework for eID and authentication, and internationally agreed standards and practices can help the cross-border recognition of eID and increase citizens' trust and confidence. A European eID and authentication framework by [.] is the headline target for this action area.
Promoting more open standards
The headline target for this action area is to reform the EU standardisation regime by 2015 to reflect the rise and growing importance of ICT standards developed by various fora and consortia, in particular as regards the internet.
Another challenge is to ensure that public authorities – including the EU institutions – can make the best use of the full range of existing open standards when procuring hardware, software and IT services, for example to adhere to technology neutrality and to avoid technological lock-in to legacy ICT.
Transparent disclosure rules for intellectual property rights (IPR) and licensing conditions in the context of standard-setting can contribute to lower royalty demands for the use of standards and thus to lower market entry costs for SMEs. This can be achieved without a negative impact on the owners of IPRs. Therefore rules for ex-ante disclosure of essential IPR and licensing terms and conditions will be promoted.
Key actions
Reform the governance system for ICT standards in Europe to recognise ICT fora and consortia standards;
Issue a Recommendation to streamline the use of open standards in p
Re:Great! (Score:5, Informative)
Not just any woman.
Rember that Microsoft got fined hundreds of millions ?
Heard about the windows7 browser selection tool ?
That was all her work, actually.Until last year she was the European Competition Commissioner.
Re:Desperation? (Score:4, Informative)
Not too long ago I was modded troll for saying: while you buy their products, they buy your political leaders.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1571214&cid=31359062 [slashdot.org]
It is still true!
Re:Great! (Score:3, Informative)
$2.7 billion even. She is very pro open standards and open source. She seems to know her stuff.
Re:Desperation? (Score:3, Informative)
However, the cloud concept never got developed, and
Gates indicated that the company's software Promised Land will be a new version of its Windows operating system code-named Longhorn, which is still at least two years off.
Re:War (Score:3, Informative)
Secession might be, but interposition is what Jefferson came up with as a solution. There are several examples in US history of it getting the job done too. Tom Woods has a pretty good historical speech on the topic if you care to youtube for it.
Confirmation?! (Score:4, Informative)
The French magazine cited for confirmation doesn't say anything about Microsoft.
So all that leaves is with is that some guy twittered that the bogeyman^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HMicrosoft is coming, and when we look at the latest draft of the Digital Agenda document--its still fine.
Re:War (Score:5, Informative)
Well the EU antitrust office did declare Microsoft to be an abusive monopoly in 2004.
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=860&dat=20040323&id=BAAgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=8BUFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1269,2934192 [google.com]