UK Takes Huge Step Forward On Open Standards 67
jrepin sends this news from the FSF Europe site:
"The UK government is certainly taking a long and winding road towards Free Software and Open Standards. The UK's public sector doesn't use a lot of Free Software, and many smaller Free Software companies have found it comparatively hard to get public sector buyers for their products and services. The main reason is that government agencies at all levels are locked into proprietary, vendor-specific file formats. ... The UK government has released a new Open Standards policy. With this policy (PDF), and in particular with its strong definition of Open Standards, the UK government sets an example that governments elsewhere should aspire to,' says Karsten Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe. Under the new policy, effective immediately, patents that are essential to implementing a standard must be licensed without royalties or restrictions that would prevent their implementation in Free Software."
Expect lawsuits... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They will sue the government claiming a taking of their product. this would have more weight in the US where there are constitutional requirements for just compensation.
It also would never happen in the US as certain leaders in the
free software movement decided to take political stands and the opposition parties would claim graft or some other BS and refuse to support it by default.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think anyone said it wasn't in the UK. I know I didn't. I said it would never happen in the US though.
Re: (Score:3)
What? Seriously, the 6th biggest economy in the the world is advocating open standards, and you say expect lawsuits to shut them down......
The point about open standards is that they're... open. They don't infringe upon anyone. That's kind of the point. Open standards don't need companies to give up their proprietary information. Or did you miss that point.... ie. the whole idea behind open standards.
Good luck with the lawsuits...
Not the first time they did it right... (Score:1)
Take a look at I.T.I.L. another very good example of the UK Gov doing it right.
Re: (Score:2)
What? ITIL is about as far from Open as you can get. Intellectual property page [itil-officialsite.com]
Oh - it's for sale if you feel like buying it (but you probably aren't eligible) see an article on the "for sale" [itskeptic.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I predict: (Score:1)
I predict that a probable line of attack on this measure is to complain about this being an anticompetitive measure that throws out otherwise perfectly valid tenders/bids/proposals "unfairly."
Never underestimate private sector willingness to abuse public policy in its own interest.
And? (Score:1, Insightful)
and many smaller Free Software companies have found it comparatively hard to get public sector buyers for their products and services.
Maybe because some of them have a terrible product and services? Just because your a FOSS company doesn't mean your owed the business of the government. Not everything is a "M$" conspiracy.
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Or maybe it's not that at all? But it has to be what you suggest. It can't possibly be anything else.
No one is owed that business. But it's hard to get those contracts when the incumbent holds all the secrets to the document format in use.
Because Microsoft totally hasn't manipulated standards bodies and harassed politicians who have pressed for open standards.
Re: (Score:1)
Just because someone has done something before doesn't mean they are some constant boogeyman in the background. Again, everything is not Microsoft conspiracy. Just like Islamic terrorists are not behind every corner trying to blow you up.
Would you trust a recidivist drunk driver with the keys to your liquor cabinet and your Porsche?
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone has done something before doesn't mean they are some constant boogeyman in the background. Again, everything is not Microsoft conspiracy. Just like Islamic terrorists are not behind every corner trying to blow you up.
Would you trust a recidivist drunk driver with the keys to your liquor cabinet and your Porsche?
I didn't realise I wasn't logged in, oops!
Re: (Score:3)
Microsoft have a long and sordid history of corrupting standards and getting into bed with politicians to ensure their monopoly. In the UK, Microsoft and the Labour party were in bed together ensuring a long and profitable relationship for Microsoft at the expense of the British tax payer. As the government is one of the largest suppliers, all other companies are then obliged to run Microsoft products.
If Microsoft can sell products because they are acceptable quality then good for them, but at least they wi
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst the Labour party is to blame for all manner of IT failings and bad technology ideas (ID card systems anyone?) I don't think it's the Labour party per-se if I'm honest.
My experience of public sector was simply that Microsoft basically bribe the right people throughout public sector regardless of the government. In say local government for example, this would normally mean taking the head of IT for a nice meal, sometimes even abroad for a couple of days written off as a "conference". The open source gu
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, but it also might not be.
Re:And? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Maybe because some of them have a terrible product and services?"
You are probably at least partly right. The interesting question is *why*.
Might it be because when you are out of big contracts by default you lack the money to build a proper product/service?
I now most of the big usual contenders have terrible product and services too. With luck, sometimes, their products and services become from terrible to hardly beareable (and utterly expensive and heavily entrenched by lock-in practices) after some ite
Re: (Score:3)
I'm sceptical (Score:1)
I've worked in local government in London since the early 90s and its been basically Microsoft and proprietary software or nothing. In the pre-NT days, when network file servers were mainly Netware and there was a smattering of big iron Unix for green screen type applications you might have got away with a BSD based firewall or DNS server but that was about it. I've recently left and there was one Linux server in the data center - a lone NTP server.
The people that run these kinds of IT departments are very
Re: (Score:2)
Government is little different in my part of the world. My company has a contract with a government agency that uses a Siebel-based case management system (if Siebel weren't bad enough, this one is customized), and it runs best in IE6, with increasing issues with the compatibility modes in IE7, IE8 and IE9. Supposedly there is a browser-independent front end coming out some day, but until then we are literally stuck with having to use IE 8 and 9 with low security mode and using Siebel's ActiveX controls (ye
Re: (Score:2)
Governments ha
Re: (Score:2)
Siebel is owned by Oracle [oracle.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Buying a proprietary system from a single supplier is actually terrible risk management, where is your second source? what happens if that supplier goes bankrupt, or discontinues the product etc?
On the other hand, if every supplier has to comply with the same standards then it makes some sense to go with the market leader, as you still have all the other options as second sources.
Re:I'm sceptical (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm sceptical (Score:4, Informative)
Local government is notoriously backward and inefficient in the UK. It's one of these institutions which is stuck in the 70's in terms of product decisions in some places. They've updated some practices but not others.
National government has gone the other way. IT projects are almost uniformly outsourced, on a massive scale, and cost billions because of private sector profiteering and inefficiency. The NHS database has cost about 15 billion so far for something no one really wanted. That's a few hundred pound every man, woman, and child of the UK pays each, for that project. No, I'm not bitter.
ps. I'm also a massive fan of local government and the nhs, and am very glad they are there - I just hate the things they get so obviously wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
and www.gov.uk is developed in the open... (Score:5, Informative)
Hi,
The main UK Government Website is built in the open, using open-source tools where possible:
Code: https://github.com/alphagov [github.com]
Blog Post: http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/govuk-launch-colophon/ [cabinetoffice.gov.uk]
Disclaimer: I work for them ;o)
--
ZG-Rules
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
FWIW, from the metoo dep't., the US uses Drupal left and right, which however you feel about it is exceptionally open.
Re: (Score:2)
Does this include the BBC? (Score:2)
Just wondering if this includes the BBC in its mandate?
I, for one, would LOVE all BBC offerings to be using patent-unencumbered codecs, etc. Of course, this could have a negative impact on license deals between the BBC and private media, but the BBC is big enough that I think it would win after the first few skirmishes.
Re:Does this include the BBC? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Does this include the BBC? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't think the BBC is technically part of the UK government. It's autonomous in a lot of ways, although it's been a while since the exact nature was explained to me.
The BBC is funded by a license fee, which is paid for directly by everyone in the UK that watches TV. The BBC's budget is controlled by the government and agreed every 10 years.
It's free of direct government control, so for example released damning material into the Iraq War, and reported an accusation that the government "sexed up" the case for war, and that WMDs did not exist. The BBC was later proven 100% correct.
The event, partly due to a cock-up by a BBC reporter, led to a scientist's death. There was a government inquiry by a government stooge that found in favour of the government over the whole affair. This led to the enforced resignation of the head of the BBC (who had been on holiday at the time of the incident).
Since then, the BBC has kow-towed to the government and lost much of it's teeth where it really mattered.
The license-fee part of the BBC has also been forced to take on funding of the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring (which were always government funded, although in the former case, editorially independent and trusted to tell the truth around the world by everyone from sheep herders to jihadists).
The BBC Boss since the Hutton affair, Mark Thompson, recently left to become a Murdoch stooge (his reward for damaging the BBC as much as he did). The new DG, George Entwistle, has dropped into position in the middle of the whole Saville controversy in a "don't you dare try to shake anything up" style thing. Amazing timing.
On top of the fear of government (especially when Labour and Peter Mandleson were still in power), the BBC's journalism has suffered recently due to a dumbing down of output. It's the same across the industry. They're trying to produce too much materia, with too little
Leading BBC journalists, speaking privately yesterday, called for radical reform of the BBC's News division, claiming it had become afraid of running difficult stories. "There is a general timidity about broadcasting anything that's controversial," said one senior figure. "We have got to have a sense of devilment and we don't have that at all." [independent.co.uk]
The BBC has amazing correspondents, but the culture at the head is the biggest problem.
Jeremy Bowen, a middle-east expert, was recently criticised for spending too much time in the middle east during the Arab spring. Their knowledge rarely makes it out on mainstream BBC News, you sometimes get some good programs like "Reporters", and the occasional Newsnight and Radio 4 program, but even the 1/6/10 doesn't scratch the in-depth knowledge of the BBC's overseas correspondents.
Re: (Score:2)
There was Dirac, a long time ago, that they were planning to use.... but that died a death. Not sure how willing they would be to fund another project of the same kind.
I think you're confusing patent-unencumbered codecs with license deals. The private media don't care how content is delivered, as long as they can control it. The people who control it aren't all that big players, as long as it works.
Re: (Score:1)
There was Dirac, a long time ago, that they were planning to use.... but that died a death. Not sure how willing they would be to fund another project of the same kind.
I think you're confusing patent-unencumbered codecs with license deals. The private media don't care how content is delivered, as long as they can control it. The people who control it aren't all that big players, as long as it works.
Actually, I was referring to the Dirac fiasco -- Dirac died because the private media wanted a controllable codec with DRM bundled in and closed-source players to protect the DRM. Without this, the private media didn't want to provide content to the BBC. Eventually the BBC complied, and Dirac died.
So, with the codec AND the player being legislated to be more open, we'd likely see all of this go around again, but with stronger government support -- IF this legislation applies to the BBC.
Re: (Score:2)
Parliament video format? (Score:2)
Ironic (Score:2)
Considering they released the policy document in a proprietary postscript-esque format... it uses PDF version 1.5 with Adobe-specific extensions.
Source: the linked PDF, Acrobat X Reader 10.1.4 Document Properties page