Slashdot Mirror
Help Write An Open Data Format Bill
AdamBa writes "There has been a lot of discussion of open source bills, but I think open data format bills have a much greater chance of actually becoming law. Over at the Open Data Format Initiative site, I have written an article explaining "Why Open Data Format Laws Are Better Than Open Source Laws". I also have a sample Open Data Format bill; I invite comments from slashdot readers, in particular on how the sample bill could be improved."
The author has the right idea; it would certainly make building compatible third-party implementations of data-processing software (by that I mean nearly all software) much easier than if the file formats were closed, as they are now.
The trouble is that the distinction between code and data isn't as bright a line as you might think. I don't mean code/data segmenting; if you think about what evals and ELF are, you know what I mean.
Algorithms (not to mention software in the US) are certainly patentable -- and efficient data storage mechanisms are too. Think about what a gold mine in terms of IP value a hash table would have been if it invented at a commercial organization instead of in academia.
So, the conundrum we still face is that there are still valid IP claims WRT data structures, because oftentimes, as much thought is put into them as into the processing software that reads and writes them.
On the second bullet you say "computer data owned by the [government] be permanently available to the [government] throughout its useful life."
Somewhere you may want to define "useful life", I could see this as a possible loophole, this term could mean different time lengths to different people.
I don't think people want open source "laws." We want freedom of choice.
We do not want to be locked into a particular software package so they can exthort money out of us. Charging for what amounts to an upgrade is just wrong. Charging for and upgrade that makes the software do what you said it would do in the first place is wronger. Charging for security fixes is wrong. I don't like to see my tax dollars wasted. If you are a private company, that I have no stock in, do what ever you want...
I have never seen Ford charge their customer for a recall...Only in software.
Except the author thinks that software companies are just going to lovingly hand over specifications on their file formats. Throughout computing history, software companies have used file formats to lock people into their product, force them to buy upgrades, and use them as leverage for strategic partnerships. Ie- it's a huge cash cow to have proprietary formats.
The author, in the very first paragraph, dismisses "open source laws", saying they "won't work". Huh? Says who? Then he says his WILL work. You can't just make enormous blanket statements like that without backing them up!
In his second point, he says "Many open source laws seem designed to force a government to replace Windows/IIS/Office with Linux/Apache/*Office". Where is he getting this crap from? He goes on to dismiss the security benefits of open-source software, the cost savings...he pretty much dismisses every single argument for considering open-source software, with nothing to back up his reasoning. He 'thinks', therefore it is.
My impression of "open source laws" was that they instruct government agencies to -CONSIDER- open source solutions- it does not FORCE them to use them- yet he makes it out like there's a cop sitting there with a gun to a government IT manager's head, saying "Go ahead punk. Make my day. Install Office. Are you feelin' lucky, punk?" Maybe I misread it, but his idea seems to be to -FORCE- companies to release file formats if their software is used by the government.
One requires you consider open-source software, leaving commercial software companies plenty of oppertunity to compete if they've got a better solution(remember, open-source is not $0, you still have labor involved, possibly a migration, maybe staff training and hiring, maybe different equipment.) Open source doesn't automatically, if ever, "win" outright simply because it's open-source, yet the author seems to think open-source always will, and hence open-source laws will be bad because there will be a huge inconvenience to the government or the software companies. Again, consider- not force! If the manager thinks commercial software will overall be better, he/she will make that call.
The other forces software companies to do something that threatens, in a BIG way, how they compete against other companies.
Now, which has more of a chance of failing?
Please help metamoderate.
Open data formats are a good start, but don't fool yourself into believing they are sufficient. HTML is perfectly open, but how many web sites are there that test against anything but IE? How many rely on the behavior (even the bugs) of IE?
The non-openness of Microsoft Word's document formats is not the biggest obstacle. There are plenty of office suites now that can read them. The biggest obstacle is that people write their documents expecting them to look exactly as they do in Word. That's not something that open data formats by themselves will solve. Microsoft could move entirely to XML, and that problem would still remain.
1) well then said app wont be running on any current OS I can think of. Reimplementing low level data storage routines is plain stupid, especially for a high level app like a word processor. (i can hear the grumbling 'but that was just an example you are too literal.. etc)
2) This argument is older than dirt and way too contrived. If a user is inputting records into a database its not code. Besides interpreted basic (as its a structured high level programming language the 'data' is already defined. Besides if the govt. is writing apps in interpreted basic you better ph33r f0r y0ur l1f3!
3) This is the whole point of the exercise, to write your data on purpose such that you document its output. In addition indexes to a database *could* be made user friendly, but since they are ephemeral anyway and are rebuilt and updated as needed and not generally data that is input by a user for long term data storage its kidna falls outside of the bounds here.
4) Well this is forcing the govt. to document their data structures that contain data that is not internal to the govt. And since ostensibly we all own the dat that the govt. has we can tell them (ideally) to do whatever we want.
If software vendors release their software as open source, they may find that cash-strapped governments in other states gladly help themselves to it for free, so the vendor may get only one paying contract instead of fifty.
IIRC, the GPL specifies that you only need to make the source available to the entities to which you distribute binaries. I.e., if Michigan gets a contract with some company for some software, the company can release the software as GPL and only provide the source to the Michigan state government. It is then in the best interests of the state government to NOT redistribute the software. That way another state, say New York, also buys the software to make sure that the company is still there next year. The best thing is that if company X pisses off the state, they can take the source and hire company Y to maintain it. If I understand the intent of the GPL, this is the kind of choice that is available with free software.
Compare that to a previous post (I don't recall the exact thread) where the poster pointed out that his organization used a particalur personnel management product. PeopleSoft bought the competitor and disconitnued the product. Security flaws were found, his company had to spend $2M to switch to PeopleSoft. Had that software been GPL, they could have just hired another company to fix/maintain it. Again, in that situation it is in the company's best interest to NOT freely (as in beer) redistribute the program.
I think the same can be said for many non-commodity software products. I mean, how many people actually need or want (or have the hardware) to run a PeopleSoft level program at home? Better yet, if a company pays, say $250000, for a program and accompanying support, what incentive do they have to turn around and give it away? It seems to me that the GPL is really perfect for situations like this.