Linked by jonas.kirilla on Mon 7th Feb 2011 22:37 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "One member of the European Parliament and a handful of their advisors and assistants started a free software group last Saturday, aiming to increase the use of Free and open source software in the European Parliament's IT infrastructure. The user group is open to all who work in the European Parliament, including staff and assistants working in political groups."
Thread beginning with comment 461266
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: EU giving in to MS
by lemur2 on Tue 8th Feb 2011 00:16 UTC in reply to "RE: EU giving in to MS"
lemur2
Member since:
2007-02-17

Open specification is more important than open source since an open specification enables a level playing field of BOTH closed and open software.


As long as "open" doesn't include "RAND". There is a huge push on right now from certain vested interests to try to change the meaning of "open" so that it no longer includes the right for anyone to implement a specification.

Anyone at all should be able to implement a specification free of royalty charges or threats of lawsuit ... that is what is meant by "open specification".

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[3]: EU giving in to MS
by Soulbender on Tue 8th Feb 2011 06:17 in reply to "RE[2]: EU giving in to MS"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Yes, obviously RAND wouldn't be suitable since I want a level playing field.
Clearly and completely defined of API's and data formats that are freely accessible leave plenty of room for innovation (and black boxes, for those who like those kind of things).

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: EU giving in to MS
by manjabes on Tue 8th Feb 2011 06:33 in reply to "RE[2]: EU giving in to MS"
manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

Anyone at all should be able to implement a specification free of royalty charges or threats of lawsuit ... that is what is meant by "open specification".

(emphasis mine)

No, that's what YOU mean by "open specification". Others might just mean something like "a published specification that I may obtain (either by buying or downloading for free) and implement" (versus "a specification only known inside [microsoft|apple|google|etc] that I have to reverse-engineer to be compatible with") without any implied additions like the "royalty-free" that you seem to be implying.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: EU giving in to MS
by Fergy on Tue 8th Feb 2011 09:19 in reply to "RE[3]: EU giving in to MS"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

No, that's what YOU mean by "open specification". Others might just mean something like "a published specification that I may obtain (either by buying or downloading for free) and implement" (versus "a specification only known inside

You would be correct when it comes to businesses. If the EU pays for the development of a standard they should demand a totally free standard.

When _people_ hear open standard they think _totally free without strings_.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: EU giving in to MS
by cheemosabe on Tue 8th Feb 2011 09:23 in reply to "RE[3]: EU giving in to MS"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

Others might just mean something like "a published specification that I may obtain (either by buying or downloading for free) and implement


Are you #&^@#*&^ serious? ActiveSync then is and open protocol by your definition.

Edited 2011-02-08 09:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: EU giving in to MS
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 8th Feb 2011 11:24 in reply to "RE[3]: EU giving in to MS"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

No, that's what YOU mean by "open specification". Others might just mean something like "a published specification that I may obtain (either by buying or downloading for free) and implement" (versus "a specification only known inside [microsoft|apple|google|etc] that I have to reverse-engineer to be compatible with") without any implied additions like the "royalty-free" that you seem to be implying.


Well, both the EU and Microsoft consider "royalty-free" to be a prerequisite for a standard to be called "open". So, it's not just him.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: EU giving in to MS
by Nth_Man on Tue 8th Feb 2011 18:53 in reply to "RE[2]: EU giving in to MS"
Nth_Man Member since:
2010-05-16

Also, the software that manages the information of the European governments should be audited, be able to be customized, recompiled, modified, etc... if the European Union wants to know what happens with the information of their governments and wants to be able to access to it even if the software company says:
- "Pay that $$$$ if you want the next version you need"
or
- "Sorry, our company is closed"
or
- "You won't access your information without my programs, do you think I'm here for your interests?".

Reply Parent Score: 2