Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Help Write An Open Data Format Bill

Posted by timothy on from the avoiding-chainware dept.

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."

5 of 208 comments (clear)

  1. Hmmm by alptraum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Re:He's right by gnuadam · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is it really good public policy to permanently store records that are meant to be for the public's benefit in a data format that cannot be guaranteed to be readable in the future?

    This is the argument.

    Closed standards are of course allowed by law. Companies and individuals should be allowed to use them. I argue that it is not good public policy, and governments should demand that their software vendors provide them with software that stores its data in a publicly reproducible way.

    --
    You say :wq, I say ZZ. Why can't we all just get along?
  3. Re:The color scheme made my eyes hurt by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:no facts back him up by rjch · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Except the author thinks that software companies are just going to lovingly hand over specifications on their file formats.
    No, that's not what he said. What he said is that if open data laws were passed, companies would be more likely to open up their data formats in order to retain lucrative government contracts.
    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!
    Gee... maybe we weren't reading the same article. The great bulk of the article was discussing why software companies would be more likely to open their data formats than their source code.
    Likewise, he is not talking about forcing companies to open their data formats, he's talking about making it more commercially viable. You seem to be picking quotes out from their context and twisting them to your preferred view.
  5. Re:Damned by genuine praise by MrLint · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.