Summary: The European Commission makes strategic mistakes that weaken Europe and give more power to its rivals across the Atlantic, especially gruesome software monopolists
TECHRIGHTS has a lot of respect for Neelie Kroes and the Commission, but if the current agenda is to pay American companies for the privilege of running systems with American back doors (e.g. FBI access), then the European Digital Agenda (note capitalisation) is a bit of a farce. It also puts the continent at great risk in case of a future war.
A couple of years ago we showed how the Commission had been manipulated by lobbyists, then we also showed dubious appointments that made the Commission somewhat hostile towards Free software, and arguably European SMEs too. See for instance some of the following posts:
In the video above, Neelie speaks not in her mother’s tongue and she actually maintains an interesting YouTube channel a lot of which is in Dutch. She did a better job in the Commission than some of her successors, whom we recently showed to be supportive of RAND (with software patents). They are being stuffed by lobbyists and the following new comments berates them for it. The European commenter writes:
If I am not mistaken Oracle is an American company and Mingorance a lobbyist of an American rightsholder organisation. I can’t see how views from American lobbyists are relevant for a European Digital Agenda, other than that we have to break free from our US lock-ins in the digital markets. In other words, let’s do what hurts them most. Small companies from Europe, companies which actually pay their taxes in Europe, are excluded here. What had the Commission in mind?
In the past, back when the Commission did some laudable work with the likes of Neelie in the right chair, telling off the Commission would seem unreasonably disrespectful. But things have changed. Right now, for example, even the FSFE criticises the Commission by showing that it sets a bad example for others to follow. To quote:
In the Commission’s answer to Staes, EC Vice-President Maros Sefcovic argues that “[t]he Commission does not rely on (or is locked into) one single software vendor”, citing the fact that the Commission’s IT infrastructure uses software from many different vendors.
[...]
While lock-in is a problem that troubles many organisations, our next concern is quite specific to this case: We believe that the European Commission should have put out a public call for tender when it wanted a new software platform. Instead, the EC simply declares that the move to Windows 7 is just an “upgrade” – just a newer version of the same product.
If “it’s just an upgrade” becomes acceptable as an excuse to ignore the competition and cozy up to a single supplier, then Europe’s market is in trouble; and not just the one for software. Imagine a local administration that decides to have the town’s main street repaved by the same company that built it in the first place, saying that they’re just “upgrading” the road surface. No new competitor would ever get a foot in the door. Public bodies would hardly ever have to hold competitive bidding procedures for any type of product or service they’ve bought before. This simply cannot be right.
The foundation of Europe’s procurement rules, Directive 2004/18/EC, says that those rules are intended to guarantee the opening-up of public procurement to competition. But it looks like in this instance, the EC has found a way to sidestep that goal, letting inertia (let’s be kind here, ok?) take precedence over competition and long-term value for Europe’s citizens. The Commission itself feels the need to emphasise that “it always complies with public procurement legislation”. We’d certainly hope so.
It doesn’t help that the EC is obviously confused on the commercial nature of Free Software when it uses “open source” as the opposite of “commercial software”. Some people in the Commission seem to believe that there is no money to be made with Free Software. The many companies that have built their business on software freedom would certainly argue otherwise.
This is not the first such complaint from the FSFE.
Whatever happened to the European Commission, it is now in danger of earning notoriety just like NATO or the UN. If it allows itself to be steered by lobbyists and monopolies, then there is no longer need for it. Taxpayers just do not receive what they paid for, not even fines imposed on Microsoft for breaking the law [1, 2] (which has cost European citizens a lot of money over the years). We need the ‘old’ Neelie back — the assertive one, not the softened one. █
Richard Stallman in a Free Software Briefing (WSIS-2005)
Summary: How Microsoft is daemonising ordinary people and confusing lawmakers using terminology and imposters who pretend to speak for free/open source software
MOVING to Free (libre) software is a decision which ought to be motivated at least in part by the realisation that freedom is hard to earn and it is very valuable. It’s only when it’s lost that its value can be appreciated. Microsoft pretends to be countering counterfeiting while in fact it uses counterfeiting to counter freedom, ensuring that populations especially in poor countries have no control over their computing; instead, Microsoft takes control. Glyn Moody has found this post from China about a new and dishonest Microsoft campaign:
One of the biggest issues Western firms have with China is the country’s stance on intellectual property rights. Despite the Chinese Government stepping up its efforts to battle the issue in recent years, the problems still exist.
Whether it be the stalls in Beijing’s Silk Market selling their staggering range of counterfeit designer goods, Chinese media broadcasters using copyright footage without permission, or the ever impressive copycat products (known in China as ‘山寨’ – Shānzhài) such as the recent ‘iPed’ — the fake iPad, there is no doubt about it intellectual property infringements are rife in the PRC.
[...]
For instance in 2008, Microsoft rolled out a program called “Windows Genuine Advantage” which caused “black screens of death” to appear every hour on unregistered versions of the Windows operating system. The only way to resolve the problem would have been to buy a genuine copy of Windows.
Bill Gates in China 1995
Yet, just a year earlier, Bill Gates stated that he liked the Chinese pirating his software over its competitors, because he believed that eventually Chinese consumers would pay for the real thing.
Wikileaks recently taught us something new about the “black screens of death”. To the government, it’s about control (being able to suspend computers in a hostile nation), not about so-called ‘piracy’ (counterfeiting). Be careful of the Microsoft spin, which seems to be everywhere these days.
In a “Guest Post” from Microsoft’s Walli [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6] (who pretends not to understand Free software, e.g. by implicitly comparing it to communism) Microsoft’s Outercurve Foundation gets promoted while Outercurve/Microsoft staff continues to redefine open source. It is infiltrating its competition and obscures freedom as in “free to distribute”, as opposed to free of charge. Not so long ago the same type of people tried to tell us that RAND was compatible with Free software and they managed to derail the second version of EIF [1, 2, 3, 4, 5], which more and more groups are not pleased with. The FFII deciphers this message from Dutch:
IT journalist Brenno de Winter is not impressed by the #EIF
That’s what will happen if Microsoft is allowed to hijack “open source” and then use mobbyists/lobbyists to lie about what it is. Glyn Moody predicted this would happen when he wrote about it for Linux Journal around 3 years ago. █
“There’s free software [gratis, dumpware] and then there’s open source… there is this thing called the GPL, which we disagree with.”
Resumen: La reacción de Microsoft para EIFv2 (Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad version 2) es casi abrumadoramente positiva, mientras que nuevos comentarios de los defensores de la libertad (alrededor de RAND (“Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias)en EIFv2) sugieren que es realmente beneficioso para Microsoft, que EIFv2 se descarriló.
Aquí hay otro análisis de EIFv2[http://gotze.eu/2010/12/19/european-interoperability-framework-2-0/] que dice: “Por desgracia, parece como si la gente que escribió el FEI no recibieron el memo de EIS, nos queda adivinar cómo ven la arquitectura en el juego. Con v2, EFI señala cuatro niveles de interoperabilidad – jurídicos, organizativos, semánticos y técnicos. El nivel de organización incluye la alineación de procesos de negocio, las relaciones de organización y gestión del cambio. En consecuencia, las administraciones deben utilizar un enfoque arquitectónico que abarca a todos los niveles; que, por supuesto, arquitectura de la empresa, yo diría. Por desgracia, en lugar de ir esa dirección, el EFI acaba de dar recomendaciones vagas y no comprometidas en este y oeste “.
La Comisión Europea adoptó una Comunicación titulada “Hacia la interoperabilidad de los Servicios Públicos Europeos”, la introducción de la segunda encarnación del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF) y la Estrategia Europea de Interoperabilidad (EIA) [1]. Esta semana la Comisión también publicó nuevas directrices horizontales [2], en las hace a los cárteles de patentes exentas bloque-de defensa de la competencia.
“El Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad es una leyenda. Es difícil, en efecto, para que el impacto que se compara con el primer EFI. Lamentablemente el lobby diluyó la interoperabilidad europea. Es asombroso que la Unión Europea, el Comisario Šefčovič superó la indecisión, y presento sus “húmedos” documentos. “, Dice el Vicepresidente de la FFII Magos René.
El nuevo Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF), publicado el jueves, incluye una recomendación de que, “la hora de establecer los servicios públicos europeos, las administraciones públicas deben preferencia a las especificaciones abiertas, teniendo debidamente en cuenta la cobertura de las necesidades funcionales, la madurez y de apoyo al mercado”.
La postura de la Comisión en cierta manera de desafiar a la opinión de la Alianza Empresarial de Software (BSA), que había afirmado su preferencia por especificaciones abiertas “socavaría la capacidad de innovación de las normas europeas”.
“El pasado jueves la Comisión Europea ha dado un paso importante en la “apertura” a escala. La ocasión fue el lanzamiento de una nueva versión del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF), que aprobó definitivamente el uso de normas de origen abierto en la prestación de “servicios públicos” dentro de la Unión Europea. Este resultado fue considerado con razón por los defensores de código abierto como Open Forum Europe.”
“Sin embargo, la CE dio dos pasos hacia atrás en todo lo demás, ya que revisó su definición de “estándares abiertos”, presumiblemente reflejando los esfuerzos del sector (por ejemplo, por la Alianza Empresarial de Software) para preservar el valor de las patentes de software.”
“En esta entrada del blog, voy a revisar el largo proceso de siete años en que el “Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad” (EFI) en primer lugar establecer una marca mundial alta para la liberalización de la definición de estándares abiertos, y luego se retiró de esa posición.”
“Si uno tuviera que elegir la pregunta más controvertido en la elaboración de normas en la última década, tendría que ser la pregunta engañosamente simple: “¿Qué significa ser un” estándar abierto? ‘”
[...]
“La preferencia por la ejecución sin derechos de autor también ha sufrido una caída. No se distingue ahora aparece entre FRAND (“JUSTO”, Razonable y “No-Discriminatorias” licencias) y normas libres de FRAND (“JUSTO”, Razonable y “No-Discriminatorias” licencias), incluso en el lenguaje más aspiracional (“la apertura es más plenamente efectivos”) de la EFI en comparación con 2.0 a 1.0 (“los requisitos mínimos de los estándares abiertos son”).”
Esto se acerca más a la evaluación de Glyn Moody’s ya que concluye con:
“Por alguna razón, parece que la CE ha decidido abandonar la posición de liderazgo que tomó en 2004 para fijar la meta de normas adecuadas para la adopción en el gobierno. Aquellos que creen que los estándares abiertos, libremente definidos, son vitales para abrir gobierno ahora tendrá que buscar otro lugar para la innovación.”
Cuanto más esperemos, más negativa de la opinión sobre EIFv2 parecen ser. Como ha señalado acertadamente por Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller], las reacciones iniciales (por ejemplo, en Twitter/Identi.ca) de la multitud a favor de Europa fueron prematuramente positivas.
Summary: Novell is slammed by a longtime stickler for helping promote Microsoft’s proprietary rival to ODF, which is the international standard for documents
Groklaw turns to Comes exhibits, specifically IBM exhibits. Rob from IBM has just posted this chart which shows what an utter mess Microsoft Office can be for ODF (pretty much by design [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]) and Groklaw links this to what Novell did with Microsoft and what Microsoft did to IBM a couple of decades ago. To quote some parts:
First quietly create incompatibilities to make sure that Microsoft applications wouldn’t run right on OS/2. Then tell the world that they shouldn’t buy OS/2 because Microsoft applications wouldn’t run right on OS/2.
But 1991 is a long time ago, I hear some of you say, and there is a new Microsoft. Oh? Let’s see if that’s so by highlighting one of the recent Novell filings with the SEC, its work agreement with Microsoft titled “Improving Microsoft-Novell Interoperability through Open XML” and dated March of this very year.
It’s regarding work Microsoft was willing to pay Novell to do to make Microsoft’s cynically misnamed Open XML seem like it allows interoperability. Novell has been at work since March to make Novell’s version of OpenOffice.org interoperate, sort of, but as you will see not completely with Microsoft Office 2010 so that it would at least look like Open XML works and that somebody is implementing it.
What a role for Novell to agree to play. We’ve had our suspicions for years, since Microsoft and Novell entered into its patent peace agreement and technical work agreement, and now we know that everything we suspected Novell was doing with its version of OpenOffice.org, it was. It is. This is the smoking gun. And the work agreement runs through November of 2011, so this story isn’t over yet.
[...]
Remember that one of the big objections to OOXML becoming a standard in the first place was that it allowed for proprietary extensions, which it was pointed out would make it difficult and indeed impossible for anyone but Microsoft and any chosen pals to interoperate with the “standard”. And here you see it in real life. Under criticism, Microsoft hires Novell to be a Microsoft pal and to try to figure out a way to make Microsoft Office look like it interoperates with OpenOffice.org up to a point, not any version of it, but just Novell’s version of OpenOffice.
You are not supposed to have to hire people to figure out a private way to be compatible with a true standard.
[...]
Oh, Novell. What were you thinking? Why would you agree to this? I can read these words, so why couldn’t you? They say you are being used to prop up the reputation of Open XML, while not really making it compatible in the end. What kind of goals are these? For a *standard*? For a company selling GNU/Linux?
[...]
Irony is dead. Here you have a so-called standard being used for exclusivity, so Microsoft and Novell have special interoperability that others can’t enjoy.
And as for Novell’s awful role, obviously, Novell executives never grasped the essence of Linux or FOSS. That explains a lot, including the company’s downfall in the end, don’t you think? Selling out the community in secret does not a long-term business plan make. And to everyone who pushed for or accepted Novell’s version of OpenOffice.org, what’s the plan now? Seriously. Time to really make a plan. Microsoft does. How about the community? How stupid are we?
Groklaw also appends the exhibit (we will hopefully have its Spanish translation soon, courtesy of Eduardo Landaveri) and Microsoft’s booster/insider Alex Brown gets slammed for his role in this whole process (he is a Microsoft “mercenary” as Landaveri would probably call him). He is criticised severely not just for his abuse as OOXML convenor but also as a Microsoft booster after all these incidents. Brown also threatened me after I had leaked OOXML, for all the misconduct associated with it (even corruption like bribes). That’s the type of crowd Microsoft surrounds itself with, in order to defend itself from prosecution for crimes.
For those who can recall the debate from 2008, OOXML is filled with RAND traps although it’s not the only issue with this proprietary format. The news about EIFv2 [1, 2, 3] (also in Spanish) suggests that Europe will not exclude OOXML for its unacceptable RAND terms and there is a new analysis (supposedly impartial) of what EIFv2 will mean to Europe:
Whether or not by indirect reaction to some of these developments, Red Hat has this week issued a blog post outlining the European Interoperability Framework (EIF), which has been set out by the European Commission. The commission recognizes that open technologies are key to achieving interoperability and therefore recommends that public administrations should aim for openness at all times.
If the European Commission is right to back this initiative with its emphasis being on “open specifications” and open standards being implemented in practice, then it may help the wider cause of free and open source software application development (in the public sector at least) from the following perspectives:
* The promotion and support the delivery of public services by fostering cross-border and cross-sectoral interoperability;
* To guide public administrations in their work to provide public services to businesses and citizens; and
* To complement and tie together the various National Interoperability Frameworks (NIFs) where they exist.
Although this model is confined to Europe under the auspices of the European commission, if effective it may prove telling for procedural adoption in other developed countries of the Western world from the United States and beyond.
The EIF is more than just a typical paper from another government committee. It is the result of a multi-year, multi-stakeholder effort that sets out to shift the paradigm for IT deployment in the public sector. Indeed, in the words of the EIF, it… “should be taken into account when [governments are] making decisions on public services that support the implementation of policy initiatives… [and] should also be considered when establishing public services that in the future may be reused as part of public services.”
OOXML was never supposed to get anywhere near ISO, but Novell helped it along the way, in order to appease Microsoft which had paid Novell hundreds of millions of dollars. Boyott Novell and whatever comes after it (AttachMSFT is buying Novell, so the name of the target will change). █
Summary: The European Interoperability Framework does not go far enough to serve as a bridge between free/libre applications and this helps Microsoft
THE question about software patents can determine winners and losers. It’s a battle which takes place in the courts rather than the markets and it’s not over yet. The most recent Red Hat USPTO/SCOTUS news helped show the company’s great interest in the outcome and here is further news coverage of that:
A group of US companies including Red Hat, Yahoo, eBay, Electronic Arts, General Motors and HP, have joined together to challenge a recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which threatens to seriously exacerbate problems in the already highly controversial software patent system within the United States.
The group has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking correction of the standard for inducing patent infringement, relating to the case of Global-Tech Appliances, Inc v. SEB S.A. Under the existing ruling, the Court of Appeals held that organisations and individuals can be held liable and prosecuted for infringing patents of which they have no knowledge. It used a standard of “deliberate indifference,” which it then equated to negligence.
[...]
The Supreme Court challenge is likely to be scheduled for sometime this spring.
Richard Adhikari writes about the subject for ECT and gathers comments from various stakeholders:
The European Union has announced public procurement rules for technology that appear to favor open source.
The European Interoperability Framework sets out interoperability standards to create a trusted information exchange between public administrations of member countries.
The EIF encourages open specifications for the framework.
Members of the Business Software Alliance, which offer proprietary software, are apparently contesting this provision.
The announcement of the EIF is the another step in a years-long process.
“The EU’s work in this area has been going on since at least 2000, when OpenOffice.org was named as the preferred word processor for Denmark’s government,” Bill Roth, executive vice president at LogLogic, told LinuxInsider.
The European Parliament’s press office did not respond to requests for comment by press time.
In “Trond’s Opening Standard” (Oracle blog, not Oracle’s statement though) it is asked whether EIFv2 is “a new beginning” and the opening goes like this:
The most controversial document in the history of the European Commission’s IT policy is out. EIF is here, wrapped in the Communication “Towards interoperability for European public services”, and including the new feature European Interoperability Strategy (EIS), arguably a higher strategic take on the same topic.
Leaving EIS aside for a moment, the EIF controversy has been around IPR, defining open standards and about the proper terminology around standardization deliverables. Today, as the document finally emerges, what is the verdict?
Groklaw quotes a page which is no longer accessible at the old address but can still be found here. Citing this letter[PDF] it says that “[p]atents do not give protection to inventive small businesses because they are impossible to enforce” (not news).
“A false assumption is made that an SME holding a patent will have ‘protection’ for their related investment in R&D and any resultant innovation,” the letter says.
This whole debate matters because the law is increasingly discriminatory in the sense that it discourages the small person with the small business. As Microsoft fails to make new products stick, it is turning further into the realms of patent trolling as white-collar racketeering company [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. A new blog post titled “Microsoft patent chief: 2010 was a significant year of invention” led Groklaw to saying: “Uh oh. Writers call that foreshadowing. From the blog: “Patents will continue to play a key role in fostering technologies that enable interaction with people in new, unexpected ways. Our commitment to world-class creativity and invention in computer science and our R&D investment will enable Microsoft to continue setting the standard for patent quality in the technology industry.” That means they want you to pay them.”
…Microsoft Chief Patent Officer Bart Eppenauer notes in a blog post that 2010 will “go down in history as a significant year for creativity and invention at Microsoft.”
When they say “invention” they means patents, which EIFv2 allows them to embed inside formats and protocols (e.g. OOXML and FAT, respectively), in order to marginalise software freedom and competition from the likes of Red Hat. █
Resumen: Las primeras evaluaciones de la última versión del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF)
¿Qué tan bueno o mala es la versión final (como en la revisión) de EIFv2 (Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad)? Bueno, depende de quién la pidió. Glyn Moody miró a la diferencia entre las diferentes versiones, que la FSFE (Free Software Foundation de Europa) también se destaca en su página web. Se levantaron en contra de los grupos de presión de Microsoft EFI[http://techrights.org/2010/08/26/microsoft-lobbyists-for-rand/]. Microsoft Florian[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Florian_M%C3%BCller], BSA (Alianza Empresarial de Software)[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Business_Software_Alliance], y ACT (Estadounidenses por Tecnología “Competitiva”)[http://techrights.org/wiki/index.php/Association_for_Competitive_Technology], por ejemplo, siguieron promoviendo RAND (“Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias) utilizando exactamente las mismas mentiras sobre el Software Libre. Moody, que se activa refutar estas personas, dice que “los grupos de presión ganaron, el software libre pierde [en] #EFI#eu#” y escribe un artículo titulado[http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2010/12/european-interoperability-framework-v2---the-great-defeat/index.htm] “La Gran Derrota”:
“El largo sufrimiento de lectores de este blog sabrán que el Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad me ha ocupado durante algún tiempo – escribí acerca de el por primera vez en 2008, y han estado siguiendo los giros y vueltas del proceso de revisión desde entonces.
Estas incluyen la versión infame filtrada que redefinió “cerrado”, como “casi libre”. Ahora por fin tenemos la versión final del EFI v 2 – y no es un espectáculo agradable.
[...]
Esta cuestión de si FRAND (“JUSTO”, Razonable y No-Discriminatorias” licencias) o no-restrictivas y/o libre de regalías debe ser aprobado por los estándares abiertos es el que he discutido mucho en columnas recientes, señalando que RAZONABLES y “NO DISCRIMINATORIAS” no son compatibles en general con las implementaciones de software libre. Podría parecer que la Comisión Europea ha llegado a un compromiso bien “equilibrado” por el que se especifica que ambas FRAND y libre de regalías son aceptables. Pero si lo piensas, “FRAND o libre de regalías” es idéntico a FRAND, porque FRAND incluye libre de regalías como un subconjunto estricto. La Comisión Europea se ha limitado a mencionar “libre de regalías” como una concesión a las personas que lo requerían.
Pero espera, usted puede decir, no lo especifica que incluso términos FRAND(“JUSTO”, Razonable y “No-Discriminatorias” licencias) deben ser “de una manera que permita su aplicación tanto en el software de código abierto como el propietario”? Ciertamente no, pero eso sólo significa que debe existir la posibilidad de algún tipo de código abierto para aplicar la normas FRAND, que no dice que todos los tipos de código abierto deben ser capaz de hacerlo.
Así, en la práctica, esto significa que las normas FRAND (“JUSTO”, Razonable y “No-Discriminatorias” licencias) que excluyen software GPLv2 (Licencia Pública General v2), por ejemplo, es perfectamente aceptable siempre y otras licencias de código abierto – de los cuales hay muchas – se puedan acomodar. Una vez más, la Comisión Europea ha adoptado un texto que parece responder a las preocupaciones de la comunidad de código abierto, pero que en la práctica ofrece a los aficionados FRAND exactamente lo que quieren: la posibilidad de BLOQUEAR el código GPLv2 (Licencia Pública General v2)- que son usados por la mayor parte del mundo del software libre – respetando al mismo tiempo EIFv2.”
Bueno, no todo el mundo está de acuerdo con esta evaluación (hay muchos comentarios en Identi.ca) y es reclamado por un empleado de Red Hat que la BSA y Microsoft están molestos por este resultado. Para algunos antecedentes más información, véase:
1. Grupo de Trabajo Europe de Software de Código Abierto una estafa total: secuestrado y subvertido por Microsoft y sus chácales[http://techrights.org/2009/02/27/microsoft-sap-seize-control/]
2. Astroturfing de Microsoft, Twitter, Waggener Edstrom, y Jonathan Zuck[http://techrights.org/2009/03/12/microsoft-astroturf-roundup/]
3. ¿Tiene la Comisión Europea un puerto de destrucción de Free / Open Source Software grupo de trabajo?[http://techrights.org/2009/03/24/refusal-disclosure-ess/]
4. La ilusión de la transparencia en el Parlamento Europeo y la Comisión (a Microsoft)[http://techrights.org/2009/04/30/illusion-of-transparency/]
5. 2 Meses y No Divulgación del Parlamento Europeo[http://techrights.org/2009/05/22/european-parliament-disclosure/]
6. Después de 3 meses, Europa Permite la influencia del Grupo Especial de Microsoft en la UE [http://techrights.org/2009/06/05/microsoft-corrupted-eu-panel/]
7. Queja formal contra la Comisión Europea por Albergar los Grupos de Presión de Microsoft[http://techrights.org/2009/06/25/ombudsman-posted-complaint-text/]
8. Estrategia “Europea” de Software, Escrita por Grupos de Presión y las Multinacionales[http://techrights.org/2009/09/14/eu-strategy-document-truths/]
9. Microsoft Utiliza Influencia Interior para Toma de Control, Redefinir “Open Source”[http://techrights.org/2009/09/19/microsoft-open-source-spider/]
10. Con amigos como estos, ¿quién necesita de Microsoft?[http://techrights.org/2009/09/28/microsoft-bear-hug-oss/]
11. Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF) Dañado por Microsoft y sus Grupos de Presión[http://techrights.org/2009/11/03/eif-derailed-by-microsap/]
12. EFI Orwelliano, Open Source Falso, e Implicaciones de Seguridad[http://techrights.org/2009/11/04/orwellian-eif-manipulation/]
13. No hay Sentido de la Vergüenza en Microsoft[http://techrights.org/2009/11/07/microsoft-inverses-open/]
14. Grupos de Presión lleva a la Protesta – la FFII y el surgimiento de la FSFE en oposición a la subversión del EFI[http://techrights.org/2009/11/08/march-against-eif-corruption/]
15. IBM y Foro Abierto Dirección habla del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad (EIF) Fiasco[http://techrights.org/2009/11/11/open-forum-europe-on-eif/]
16. EFI Analizado, ODF Evoluciona y las OOXML de Microsoft “mentiras” de Plomo Backlash al Comité danés de Normas [http://techrights.org/2009/11/18/microsoft-is-accused-of-lying/]
17. Quejas sobre EFI Pervertido Siguen Acumulándose [http://techrights.org/2009/11/25/eif-many-complain-after-forums/]
18. Más Quejas sobre EIFv2 Indebido y el Software Libre FUD de General Electric (GE) [http://techrights.org/2009/12/02/second-version-of-the-eif/]
19. Patentes Resumen: derechos de autor por consultas SQL, Microsoft Alianza con Compañía que Atacs F/OSS con las Patentes de Software, Peer-to-patentes en Australia[http://techrights.org/2009/12/09/free-software-legal-restriction/]
20. Microsoft Bajo Fuego: Grupo de Software de Codigo Abierto Temática se queja de EIFv2 Subversion, NHS proveedor de Software Bajo Investigación Penal [http://techrights.org/2010/01/06/msft-related-scandals-draw-fire/]
21. Diputado británico responde a Microsoft lobby contra EIFv2; Tecnologías Visible de Microsoft infiltra/descarrila Foros frecuentemente [http://techrights.org/2010/01/14/bsa-and-visible-technologies-do-evil/]
22. Patentes Resumen: Las Escaladas en Europa, las pretenciones de SAP, CCIA Sale Mal, y el IETF Se Abre [http://techrights.org/2010/02/14/sap-pretense-ccia-trans-atlantic/]
23. Patentes Resumen: Varias Derrotas para los Tipos Malos de las Patentes, Apple embarga Riesgos, y Microsoft cabildea intensamente en Europa [http://techrights.org/2010/03/31/government-approved-monopolies-watched/]
24. Europeos solicitan que se detenga le Subversion de Microsoft del EIFv2 (Versión Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad 2) [http://techrights.org/2010/03/29/call-for-action-eifv2/]
25. Ex miembro del Parlamento Europeo Describe un Microsoft “Golpe de Estado en proceso” en la Comisión Europea [http://techrights.org/2010/03/26/entryism-msft-eu-commission/]
26. Batalla de Microsoft para Consumir – No Asolar – Open Source [http://techrights.org/2010/04/10/microsoft-strategy-eif-foss/]
27. Resumen de Patentes: David Hammerstein sobre cabildeo de Microsoft en Europa; Objetivos Harrison cabildeo sobre las patentes de software en Nueva Zelanda, Stevens Justice deja SCOTUS [http://techrights.org/2010/04/11/hammerstein-eu-harrison-leads-lobbying-nz/]
28. Oracle no “Go Bananas En EFI 2.0″ ser subvertido por Microsoft y sus Amigos [http://techrights.org/2010/06/22/rant-about-eif-2-0-gone/]
29. La Inacción de la Comisión de la UE Defensor del Pueblo. En cuanto a los grupos de presión de Microsoft descarrilan las Políticas Públicas [http://techrights.org/2010/06/29/ec-employees-coverup/]
30. La diferencia entre Florian Müller y Hugo Lueders (grupos de presión pro-Microsoft) [http://techrights.org/2010/09/13/lobbyists-as-pretenders/]
31. BSA, ACT, y otros grupos Frente Microsoft todavía tratan de derribar el EFI en Europa promoviendo al mismo tiempo las patentes de software [http://techrights.org/2010/10/14/swpats-drama-in-europe/]
32. Los Defensores del Software Libre Exponen los Microsoft-financiados grupos de presión RAND y sus MENTIRAS, Microsoft Lobby Directamente en SOSOCON 2010 [http://techrights.org/2010/10/21/mobbyists-and-frand-fail/]
33. Luchando contra la Hidra BSA – Interpretación y Traducción en español [http://techrights.org/2010/10/22/karsten-gerloff-translation/]
El jefe de la FSFE respondió a la EIFv2 en varias ocasiones y luego escribió sobre ello en su blog[http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/2010/12/17/assessing-the-new-european-interoperability-framework/]:
“Ayer, la Comisión Europea publicó finalmente la nueva versión de la Comunidad Europea Marco de Interoperabilidad [pdf]. Nosotros, en la FSFE ha estado trabajando en este documento por un largo tiempo. Cuando se publicó ayer, le dimos la bienvenida a pesar de algunas reservas.
Glyn Moody señala una serie de puntos débiles en el nuevo documento. En realidad, me preocupa que muchos de los mismos puntos que él. Sin embargo, no estoy de acuerdo con su juicio de que EIFv2 es una “gran derrota”. El documento sin duda habría sido mucho peor sin el arduo trabajo de la FSFE y otros. A pesar de que deja abiertas algunas cuestiones clave, que representa algunos avances.
Ya sea para dar la bienvenida EIFv2 o no es una cuestión de lo que toma como punto de referencia para la comparación, y si ve el documento aislado o en su contexto. Mucho dependerá también de cómo se implementa el EFI.
Pero vamos a llevar las cuestiones a su vez.”
Su conclusión:
“Así que lo que tenemos ahora es una declaración de estrategia, sin el nivel de detalle que hizo EIFv1 como un documento útil. Pero esta estrategia general, va en la dirección correcta, y es mucho más poderoso que antes, gracias a su carácter oficial.
Supongo que el cambio se verá en toda Europa será lento, sino que será continua y muy amplia. EIFv1 siempre un punto de reunión para los Estados miembros y los organismos públicos que se interesaron por el Software Libre y Estándares Abiertos. EFIv2 es un impulso general para todo el mundo a usar más los estándares abiertos, a pesar de que contiene generosa conseguir-hacia fuera cláusulas.
En general, damos la bienvenida a EFIv2. No es todo lo que deseabamos, pero es mucho mejor de lo que temíamos. Vamos a ver su puesta en práctica con mucho cuidado, y moverlo a lo largo de su caso.”
Aquí hay una página en cuestión[http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/10/1734&format=HTML&aged=0&language=en&guiLanguage=en] y comentarios relacionados de la FSFE:
* La FSFE da la bienvenida revisada Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad [http://fsfe.org/news/2010/news-20101216-01.en.html]
“La Comisión Europea ha publicado su largamente esperada revisión del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad. Este documento tiene como objetivo promover la interoperabilidad en el sector público europeo. El documento es el resultado de un proceso prolongado y muy reñida. Free Software Foundation Europa acompañado este proceso y de entrada ofreció a la Comisión Europea en varias etapas.
“Durante la historia de la EIF, que tenía motivos para preocuparse que el Software Libre efectivamente sería excluida del sector público europeo. La FSFE ha trabajado duro para evitarlo, y lo hemos conseguido “, dice Karsten Gerloff, el presidente de la FSFE. “Con este documento, la Comisión muestra que está dispuesto a llevar. Vamos a apoyar y acompañar a la CE en este esfuerzo. ”
* La Libertad para Competir: la Fijación de la Contratación de Software [http://www.fsfe.org/projects/eu/freedomtocompete.en.html]
“El martes 07 de diciembre, se emitió un comunicado de prensa acerca de un contrato adjudicado por la Comisión Europea, en virtud del cual la CE y otras instituciones europeas se gastan hasta 189 millones de euros en software propietario y servicios relacionados. Somos de la opinión de que en la expedición de este contrato, la CE ha vuelto a no estar a la altura de sus propias directrices y recomendaciones sobre el uso del Software Libre y estándares abiertos, y ha perdido una oportunidad para abrir la contratación de software a la competencia de libre Las compañías de software.
Marcos Bohannon, el Vicepresidente de Asuntos Corporativos y Global de Políticas Públicas de Red Hat, dice[http://opensource.com/government/10/12/european-interoperability-framework-supports-openness] en un sitio de Red Hat de propiedad que “Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad apoya la apertura”, y citan el final:
“Es el nuevo EIF perfecto? No. Debido a un fuerte cabildeo de intereses creados tecnología propia, algunos sectores clave de la EIF se han hecho confuso (de hecho, la definición de “estándares abiertos” se ha diluido en la versión 2004 y ya no incluye el requisito de ser “sin derechos libre “). La definición de “abrir” las normas o especificaciones sigue siendo un motivo de discordia en la industria de TI. Un ejemplo de una definición más precisa de los estándares abiertos se pueden encontrar en el recientemente lanzado Política de Normas de la India e-Gobierno, que especifica que la propiedad intelectual debe tener una licencia libre de regalías y que alguna especificación requerida debe ser de neutralidad tecnológica.”
“Si bien la nueva definición no da a la comunidad de código abierto y estándares abiertos todo lo que hubiera deseado, y algunos ciertamente critican el resultado, la política de la UE aún debe ser aplaudido como una declaración general en favor de la apertura. En su corazón es una reafirmación de la apertura y el reconocimiento de que el código abierto no sólo es un elemento clave de la -, sino también un factor creciente en la – La agenda europea de TI.”
“Red Hat y la comunidad de código abierto y estándares abiertos seguirá trabajando para las políticas de derechos de propiedad intelectual libres de derechos de licencia que nivelar el terreno y promover la elección de los consumidores. Teniendo en cuenta este último anuncio de política de la UE, la comunidad de código abierto y estándares abiertos tendrá que ser vigilantes para que esta política se lleva a cabo de una manera significativa y alcanza su verdadero objetivo: la interoperabilidad, la elección de proveedor, la portabilidad, la innovación colaborativa y la competencia en la prestación de productos y servicios.”
Comentarios de Simon Phipps ‘se puede encontrar en Identi.ca, pero también en su blog [http://webmink.com/2010/12/17/links-for-2010-12-17/], por ejemplo:
“Lugar de referencia la publicación del Marco Europeo de Interoperabilidad de la Comisión Europea. Por supuesto, esto es sólo una orientación y el contexto político es muy complejo como lo demuestra el lenguaje en torno a “FRAND” y las patentes. Vamos a ver si pueden adherirse a este mejor de lo que puede pegarse a sus directrices propias adquisiciones.”
[...]
“Como si para proporcionar cuidado los acoge con satisfacción la publicación del EIF, FSF Europa sigue de cerca muy racional y bien argumentada sobre el fracaso de la Comisión Europea a seguir sus propias reglas.”
Con todo, no hay consentimiento aquí. Parece haber acuerdo en que el EIFv2 podría ser mejor, algunos de F/OSS defensores están razonablemente satisfechos, pero RAND se las arregló para encontrar su camino en el EIF. En cierto modo, el mobbyists y grupos de presión salieron con la suya. █
Summary: Microsoft turns to mischief in Vista 7 [sic], which puts RAND traps inside Mozilla Firefox
MICROSOFT HAS been aggressively pushing for contamination of the Web with MPEG patents (held by a patent troll, Mr. Horn), whereas Mozilla consistently pushed it back [1, 2, 3]. Firefox and Mozilla don’t mix with MPEG-LA, so Ogg and WebM are advocated by its executives and developers. For some more context and background regarding MPEG-LA see:
According to CNET, Microsoft now uses Vista 7 to push MPEG-LA patent traps into Firefox, which is not even Microsoft’s own software (this would not be the first time that Microsoft injects blobs of self interest into software that’s not its own, despite the user providing no consent either). Here is the Slashdot discussion regarding this acceptable behaviour from Microsoft and some of the article from CNET:
Mozilla is outspoken in its dislike of the patent-encumbered video technology called H.264, but Microsoft, an H.264 fan, is providing a plug-in that will let Windows 7 users use it anyway.
[...]
Mozilla is working to try to establish WebM as a required codec for HTML5, a specification standardized by the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C).
As Glyn Moody put it, Microsoft is “desperate to stuff #swpats [software patents] down the poor beast’s gullet” (shame on Microsoft seems to be a consensus).
Microsoft’s patent ‘contamination’ strategy is similar to the scam chosen by Monsanto, which uses patents to force farmers to pay it a tax (won’t matter if they are clients of Monsanto, they can be ‘accidental’ clients too due to litigation). As we explained many times before, the Gates Foundation and Monsanto think alike and they are very close, unsurprisingly. There is this new article in French about it and Moody remarks on it by writing that “monopoly-lovers meet”.
“The likes of MPEG-LA would only be part of such a strategy, so it’s important to abolish H.264 and perhaps file a formal complaint against Microsoft for pushing MPEG-LA patents into its rival, Firefox (without permission).”Meanwhile, the eternally-vigilant Benjamin Henrion (FFII president) wrote to tell us that the “European Commission says Free Software can pay royalties” based on this EIF document[PDF]. He quotes from it: “Intellectual property rights related to the specification are licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software.”
One must not forget who is promoting RAND in Europe (see our RAND category), even based on lies about Free/libre software. That would be well-paid Microsoft lobbyists. The likes of MPEG-LA would only be part of such a strategy, so it’s important to abolish H.264 and perhaps file a formal complaint against Microsoft for pushing MPEG-LA patents into its rival, Firefox (without permission). As our reader “twitter” put it 2 hours ago, Microsoft’s motto is, “What’s ours is ours and what’s yours is ours.” █
Last week, India became another major country to join the growing, global open standards movement. After three years of intense debate and discussion, India’s Department of IT in India finalized its Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance, joining the ranks of emerging economies like Brazil, South Africa and others. This is a historic moment and India’s Department of Information Technology (DIT) deserves congratulations for approving a policy that will ensure the long-term preservation of India’s e-government data.
A major victory for the Open Source community is that the policy now says, “4.1.2 The Patent claims necessary to implement the Identified Standard shall be made available on a Royalty-Free basis for the life time of the Standard.”
This victory is really important to the open source community because open source and open standards have a symbiotic relationship. While open source is the freedom to modify, share and redistribute software source code, open standards refer to the freedom to encode and decode data and network protocols. One freedom without the other is a limited freedom.
“India mandates open IT standards as fears grow over EU policy” was the headline from Computer Weekly (British publication). There are many Microsoft lobbyists and mobbyists pushing for RAND in Europe and we’ll have a separate post about that.
The government of India has mandated open standards for all its IT systems as fears mount that Europe’s equivalent European Interoperability Framework has been hijacked by rights holders.
India’s policy orders software patent holders to give up any royalty rights they have over interoperability standards. If rights holders refuse, their standards simply won’t be used in government systems.
Separately, an intellectual monopolies blog from India wrote about a “Copyright Victory for the Disabled”, which helps show another area where India’s intellectual monopoly policies are ahead of those found in the West (ahead as in more humane and sane).
Prashant recently highlighted the key findings of a Parliamentary standing committee constituted to study the copyright amendment bill. In particular, the report comes as a huge victory to two sets of stakeholders, namely film/music artists on the one hand (music composers and lyricists who can now claim a good 50% royalty on all exploitations of their work, notwithstanding any assignments) and the disabled or differently-abled communities on the other.
Let me focus on the disability sector in this note. I’ll leave recommendations pertaining to music composers/lyricists (an aspect on which we’d written several times in the past) to a later post.
Our previous posts highlighted the gross inadequacy of the “disability” exception sought to be carved out in the copyright bill. Particularly the fact that the proposed exception was limited to conversions of copyrighted works to only “special” formats.
See what Stevie Wonder had to say on the subject. The copyright cartel is a lot stronger where he lives. So again, kudos to India for showing the right way and setting an example. █
