from http://www.fsf.org/news/open-access-petition
<quote>
In the wake of the publication of the report from the "EU Study on the
Economic and
Technical Evolution of the Scientific Publication Markets of Europe" a
consortium of
organizations working in the scholarly communication arena is
sponsoring a petition
to the European Commission to demonstrate support for Open Access and for the
recommendations in the report. Signatures may be added on behalf of
individuals or
institutions.
</quote>
To sign the petition please go to http://www.ec-petition.eu/
---
Stefano Spinucci
FSFE Fellow
[ http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/call_for_letters_to_iso_re_o… ]
Call for letters to ISO re: OpenXML
Thursday 25 January 2007
Following up on the articles "[24]Novells 'Danaergeschenk'",
"[25]Is OpenXML now a standard?", "[26]OpenXML wrap-up after D12K"
and "[27]Why criticise OpenXML now?" I would like to make sure that
everyone has had a look at the Groklaw article "[28]Deadline Looms
to Express Concerns about ECMA 376 Office Open XML."
Microsoft is currently trying to push its Ecma 367 OpenXML format
through the "fast track" procedure in the [29]International
Organization for Standardization (ISO) to give it false credibility
as a standard. The Groklaw article explains many of the problems,
why the OpenXML format should never be accepted by ISO and also
highlights the urgency of the issue as the fast track procedure
allows only for a 30 day evaluation period, so time is of the
essence.
If you want an overview and reference of the many problems with the
OpenXML format, here is an [30]overview on Grokdok. But since that
list is very long, I think it might be more useful for most people
to have some examples of formal objections to the ISO. Here is an
excellent one that has been [31]posted to the discussion mailing
list of [32]IFSO, [33]FSFE's Irish associate organisation:
Re: Objections to JTC-1 Fast-Track Processing of the ECMA-376
Specification
To whom it may concern,
I, Gareth Eason, write on behalf of the committee and members of
the Irish Linux User Group to voice our collective concern
regarding the Fast-Track Processing of the ECMA 376 Specification
by the ISO JTC-1 committee.
As more and more of our critical paperwork gets stored in
electronic form, the ISO body recognise the requirement for an open
standard for storing this data -- one with which multiple software
vendors may comply. This avoids a monopoly situation emerging
whereby a single supplier may control access to information simply
because only they can understand the format it is stored in. This
is particularly true for legacy documents -- old documents produced
and 'saved' by an older version of software.
As a predominantly technical body of people within Ireland, we feel
it important to highlight our concerns to the fast-track processing
of this proposed standard for the following reasons:
* The ECMA specification runs to some 6,000 pages, impossible to
review in any meaningful fashion within the 30 days permitted.
* The concept of the standard potentially conflicts with the ISO
body's own stated goal of "one standard, one test, and one
conformity assessment procedure accepted everywhere." ECMA has
been publicly slated as an alternative to an already existing and
ratified open document standard, ISO/IEC 26300:2006.
* There appears to be internal inconsistencies within the proposed
standard and significant conflicts with existing ratified ISO
standards, including ISO8601 (Representation of Dates and Times),
ISO639 (Codes for the representation of Names and Languages),
ISO/IEC 8632 (Computer Graphics Metafiles) and more.
* There are numerous references to proprietary applications and
behaviours which may be impossible to reproduce without
potentially infringing patents granted to, in particular,
Microsoft. No documentation as to proprietary behaviours is
offered in many cases and no legal indemnification appears to be
granted for either reverse engineering or re-implementation of
these behaviours. This renders it legally and technically
impossible for any organisation other that Microsoft to implement
this standard, essentially prohibiting competition -- the
antithesis of ISO standards.
We would suggest that it is inappropriate to fast-track the
processing of this proposed ECMA 376 standard and that it should be
diverted from its present fast-track processing and should be
remanded to Ecma International for: (i) harmonization with ISO/IEC
26300:2006, the OpenDocument standard; and numerous other standards
that it contradicts; (ii) development of more suitable intellectual
property documents that actually grant rights to implement the
specification.
More information on this proposal, and an analysis to date of the
document can be found at
http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
Yours faithfully,
Gareth Eason B.Eng, MIET, (Chairperson) , for an on behalf of the
Irish Linux User Group.
There are probably other good letters out there and [34]FSFE is also
working on a letter of its own right now, but this example is very
good for various reasons, including the right tone, the right style
and some of the strongest arguments. Please consider writing a letter
yourself, with your company or organisation. If you do, I recommend
including the following arguments:
* OpenXML violates various ISO standards
A list of the standards violated can be found at
[35]http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_co
ntradicts_numerous_international_standards
* There is already an ISO standard for office documents
The usefulness of ISO is largely based on its [36]stated principle
of "one standard, one test and one conformity assessment procedure
accepted everywhere." By accepting the OpenXML format, ISO would
violate its own principles and undermine itself.
* OpenXML depends on undocumented, proprietary information
As [37]documented here, Ecma 376 OpenXML depends on undisclosed,
proprietary information of Microsoft.
* 6000 pages in 30 days
It is absolutely impossible to parse 200 pages of technical
documentation per day with the diligence necessary for an
organisation such as ISO.
The first three are very strong to explain why ISO should never
approve OpenXML and instead give the format back to Ecma to be
harmonised with the real and approved standard ISO/IEC 26300:2006,
also known as Open Document Format (ODF). The last point shows that
even if ISO is not willing to make this decision immediately, it
should at least not be fast-tracked.
Microsoft is currently working very hard on many groups and
organisations to bring just that about and make ISO accept OpenXML as
an ISO standard through the fast-track. It is up to all groups and
companies that value Open Standards to object to this now.
So please [38]check this page for more information, advice on how to
get in touch, and contact details of the various parties that need to
be informed about the objections.
Spread the word!
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.5 License.
24. https://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/novells_danaergeschenk
25. https://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/is_openxml_now_a_standard
26. https://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/openxml_wrap_up_after_d12k
27. https://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/why_criticise_openxml_now
28. http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20070123071154671
29. http://www.iso.org/
30. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections
31. http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/fsfe-ie/2007-January/002655.html
32. http://www.ifso.ie/
33. http://fsfeurope.org/
34. http://fsfeurope.org/
35. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_contradicts_num…
36. http://www.iso.org/iso/en/commcentre/pressreleases/archives/2001/Ref805.html
37. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Ecma_376_relies_on_undis…
38. http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_Contacts
--
Georg C. F. Greve <greve(a)fsfeurope.org>
Free Software Foundation Europe (http://fsfeurope.org)
Join the Fellowship and protect your freedom! (http://www.fsfe.org)
What everyone should know about DRM (http://DRM.info)
What about classifying businesses according to the
Debian
guidelines (main, contrib and non-free)?
Businesses that deal with 100% free software (from
development to production) will fit in the main
section, the others in either contrib or non free.
By the way, I remember somebody here telling me some
time ago that the GBN was thrown a spanner from the
outside. I can only see spanners from inside.
Ottavio Caruso
--
No individual replies, please!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
1. Looking back and forward
2. Georg Greve at "Nexell informiert"
3. Get Active: Join the Fellowship!
1. Looking back and forward
2006 was an exciting year for the Free Software community and for FSFE.
The Free Software Foundation Europe was and is involved in the
preparation of the new version of the GPL, the world's most successful
Free Software license, in the European Commission's efforts to stop
Microsoft abusing their monopoly, in the UN World Summit on Information
Society (WSIS), the UN Internet Governance Forum (IGF), the World
Intellectual Property Organsiation (WIPO), and the EU funded project for
Scientific Education and Learning in Freedom (SELF). Besides that, FSFE
has taken the main initiative to launch drm.info, a portal about the
dangers of Digital Restriction Management.
Probably the most important project for the next year will be the
Freedom Task Force (FTF), which will provide licensing education,
ficuciary activities and license enforcement in the field of Free
Software.
2007 will be an important year for Free Software: With more and more big
players (like Sun or Novell) shifting a growing share of their business
activity towards Free Software, effects of a single move of one of these
players get stronger for both good and bad decisions. The existence of
an independent organisation like FSFE that keeps the focus on the long
term goals is essential for the Free Software ecosystem to remain
balanced.
2. Georg Greve at "Nexell informiert"
In Zurich, Georg Greve gave a lecture titled "What is Free Software and
are Free Software solutions professional enough for our daily business?"
during the "Nexell informiert". "Nexell informiert" is a meeting where
experts are invited to talk and spread awareness about Free Software
issues, organised by the Nexell, an independent team of international
and multilingual CRM professionals.
3. Get Active: Join the Fellowship!
The Fellowship of FSFE is a community for digital freedom. Becoming a
Fellow is the easiest and most direct way to support the Free Software
Foundation Europe and Free Software in general. Fellows contribute in
three ways: financially, through the weight they give to the voice of
FSFE, and - if they want - through the work they do.
To help the Fellows in getting active, FSFE provides some infrastructure
for them to meet and coordinate: blogspace on fsfe.org, an email address
forwarding, a jabber account, and ad-hoc mailing lists - all available
exclusively for the Fellows.
However, probably the nicest thing a Fellow gets from FSFE is the
personalised OpenPGP conformant crypto card, so each Fellow can protect
his freedom and privacy directly and immediately.
https://www.fsfe.org
You can find a list of all FSFE newsletters on
http://www.fsfeurope.org/news/newsletter.en.html
Hello everyone,
I would to present a project proposal to you, which can be found
below and also ask you for your input on the proposal.
Regards,
Stephan
--
PROJECT PROPOSAL: FreeAlternatives (LibreAlternatives?)
Lately, I've again and again stumbled accross a problem. People have been asking for Free Software Alternatives to proprietary programs.
I am sure that most of you know this problem and there is no way of actually knowing every single alternative out there. Now this is the point where 'FreeAlternatives' drops in.
The idea is to have a database containing information on which software package is a Free Software alternative for one or more proprietary software packages. There are some problems with such a database and one of the major problems is probably keeping maintaining the database.
But there is a possible solution for this. FreeAlternatives should be a community-driven project, asking users to contribute and also enabling them to do so. Now this could lead to invalid data quite easily. Here an approval system for new submissions comes into play.
THE APPROVAL SYSTEM
First of all, every user has to register to add new entries or modify exitsing data. Upon registering a user gets a score assigned, which should be 0 points for normal users and maybe a few points for users known to be part to the Free Software movement (ie. users registering with a gnu.org, fsf.org, fsfeurope.org, fsfe.org, etc. email address).
Now, if user A, with a score of 0, submits an entry the entry should not be added straight away, but rather be added to some sort of 'to be reviewed' queue.
User B, with at least a score of user A's score plus one, sees the submission which needs to be reviewed in the queue, reviews it and either approves it as being a valid entry, or marks it as invalid. Whatever action user B has taken now, there is still need to review if his decision was correct.
At this pont user C, having a score of at least user B's score plus one again, sees the entry in the queue and either approves it or marks it invalid.
If the submission has been approved and marked as valid it is added to the database and made 'world-visible'. If not it is deleted from the database again. Both user A and B get, if their decision has been 'correct', a point added to their score making visible that they 'know what they are doing'. One might also want to remove a point from a user's score for adding invalid entries (and also for users approving such entries).
This method should make sure that the data in the database is correct.
I also think that having some score-treshold, which cuts down the need for two approvals to one for experienced users might be a good idea. This should make it easier for such experienced users to add entries or modify data.
As I mentioned earlier, only users who want to add entries to the database have to be registered. Read-only usage is possible for everyone without the need for registering.
DATABASE CONTENTS
Now, what data should be in the database? For starters, one needs the name of the Free Software package, an URL to the project's page and a list of proprietary packages it can replace. Additionally, one might want to list the license of the package and a brief summary of its functions.
It is also possible that the information changes and thus there should be a way of changing information in the database similar to adding a new entry. Approvals for such changes should be needed as well to ensure that the database stays 'clean'.
ACCESSING THE DATABASE
How should the database be accessible? Obviously, there should be a web-interface and a command-line client accessing the database via the net. However, I think that providing all information the database contains to users and also having some kind of incremental update method is a good idea. As the software running the 'system' should (has to) be Free Software this enables users to have their own mirror of the whole database for offline use in an organization for example.
Last but not least, why am I informing you about this project? Quite simple, I would really like to make this project community-driven as a whole. I want your input such as questions on things that are unclear and your ideas on how things could be better or are plain wrong in your opinion.
If enough people think this is a good idea there will also be need of hackers, translators (?) and any other help available when starting the project.
So finally, I would like to ask you for your input and would also like to start a discussion on this idea.