Microsoft Redefines "Open Standards"

Glyn Moody writes "Microsoft is at it again: trying to redefine what 'open' means. This time it wants open standards to be 'balanced' — for them to include patent-encumbered technologies under RAND (reasonable and non-discriminatory) terms. Which just happens to be incompatible with free software licensed under the GNU GPL."

Comments

GPL is not the definition of open

[Richard_at_work]

Which just happens to be incompatible with free software licensed under the GNU GPL."

Hate to break it to you, but the GPL is not the be-all end-all of openness, and the benchmark of "open" is not necessarily "compatible with the GPL".

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, but Patent-encumbered definitely means NOT open.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[stinerman]

That's absolutely true.

I'd say an "open" standard would mean that anyone could implement the standard without need to buy a license to implement all or part of it.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[thisnamestoolong]

GPL is certainly not the end-all be-all of openness, but we need to define our terms somewhere. When defining static terms in a non-static world, the line is always going to be arbitrary and cases that are close to that line will always highlight this fact readily. Microsoft, however, does not even approach the line, no matter how one defines the term. If you are going to retain patents on your software, it is not open. Period. End of story. There is no legitimate argument that can be made here, the patent in and of itself proudly claims 100% ownership over the code in question, which is the antithesis of openness under any standard. The GPL has absolutely nothing to do with anything in this case.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[Dragonslicer]

the patent in and of itself proudly claims 100% ownership over the code in question, which is the antithesis of openness under any standard.

Copyright would be the claim of 100% ownership over the code. A patent is even less open, since you aren't even allowed to re-implement the software, even if you write it entirely yourself without ever seeing any of the source code of the original implementation.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[swillden]

The term that people seem to be looking for is 'royalty free', which is orthogonal to 'open'. If a standard is open and royalty free then it can be implemented without problems by GPL'd software

Open and royalty-free are necessary but not sufficient conditions for use by GPL software.

There could be additional encumbrances on a patent other than royalties. A common one is that each user has to obtain permission from the patent holder. Even if this permission is easy to obtain and costs nothing, that would still be encumbered from the GPL's perspective because it would impose restrictions on those who receive the software.

Contrary to the GGP's opinion, while the GPL may not be the "be-all end-all" of openness it's a pretty damned good yardstick. If a license (copyright or patent) is compatible with the GPL, you know that it's open.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[jipn4]

In that case, you seem to be using a different definition of 'open standard' to the rest of the world.

I'm using the definition of the EU, half a dozen EU member states, by Bruce Perens, and even Vijay Kapoor of Microsoft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard

You can redefine terms to mean something different from how they have been used for decades and complain that everyone else is using the wrong definition, but you are unlikely to get much sympathy.

Yes, *you* can, *you* are obviously trying to, but *you* shouldn't.

Of the million or so search results for 'MPEG open standard' you will find very few claiming that MPEG is not an open standard

The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open", and they have the might and force of some of the biggest entertainment, marketing, and consumer electronics companies behind them. We should not let them.

If MPEG is "open", then the term "open" has lost any useful meaning.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[TheRaven64]

Did you even read that link? From the second paragraph:

The terms "open" and "standard" have a wide range of meanings associated with their usage

The definition I gave is the one that has been accepted by the computing industry since around 1970. The definition you quote:

The definitions of the term "open standard" used by academics, the European Union and some of its member governments or parliaments such as Denmark, France, and Spain preclude open standards requiring fees for use, as do the New Zealand and the Venezuelan governments

This is a very new definition. Look at the citation at the end of the article; this definition was adopted by the EU in 2004, after several decades of use of the term with other meanings. The other citations for this definition also date from 2004. From the fourth paragraph of the Wikipedia entry:

Many definitions of the term "standard" permit patent holders to impose "reasonable and non-discriminatory" royalty fees and other licensing terms on implementers and/or users of the standard. For example, the rules for standards published by the major internationally recognized standards bodies such as the IETF, ISO, IEC, and ITU-T...

The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open. These organisations have been issuing open standards with this definition since 1947 and 1986, respectively.

The fact that, around 2004, a number of groups decided that they would only accept open standards that were also royalty free as being 'real' open standards does not alter the fact that the this has, historically, not been part of the definition. A large number of patented standards were published and described as open standards before 2004, and retroactively changing the definition means that these suddenly go from being open to non-open.

You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion. Why not call open, royalty-free, standards Free Standards or something which does not have historical meanings associated with it?

The MPEG consortium has a vested interest in changing the definition of the term "open"

You'll note that I didn't mention the MPEG-LA as people describing MPEG as an open standard. Do the IEEE (which is, among other things, a standards body) and BBC (which has produced a patent-free video CODEC that is due to become VC-2) have a vested interest in redefining 'open'? Or are they just using the definition in the same way that it's been used for decades. MPEG-1 was described as an open standard back in 1988, 16 years before the EU decided on a definition that excludes it, and it certainly wasn't the only standard with RAND-licensed terms, just one of the most well-known.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[jipn4]

This is a very new definition.

Even if that were true (it is not), so what? It is the current definition, and it's the only meaningful and useful definition.

Just because we accepted slavery, lack of voting rights for women, throwing people in jail for their sexual orientation, or mixing church and state in the past doesn't mean we have to continue to do so. And it's the same with the misuse of the term "open".

The ITU-T and IETF explicitly refer to such standards as open.

Yes: old bodies dominated by big corporate interests. In the past, they have been able to get away with it. Today, we don't let them anymore.

You can try to redefine the term according to the new EU definition, but you shouldn't be surprised if you get confusion

Nothing surprises me. I'm just saying that enough is enough. Don't use the term "open" to describe standards that are clearly proprietary. That kind of misuse and deliberate confusion may have been fine in the 1970's, but it is unacceptable today, period.

Re:GPL is not the definition of open

[hairyfeet]

Because it was NOT done so that kilo means the same everywhere. It WAS done so that HDD manufacturers could bone you by saying a drive is a Gb when it was actually 900 and something Mb.

You see children, once upon a time, or as my oldest puts it "when dinosaurs ruled the earth", there was this little thing called the "race to a gigabyte" which equaled big cash to the company that won the race. That was because data was beginning to explode and bigger is better, especially when we are talking megabytes of storage. So a company said "Hey, we can use metric instead of computer jargon and win the race!" and so they did.

If this was about fixing the metric system for computers then the ONLY thing you would see on hard drives boxes is MiB or GiB, but you don't. In fact you would be hard pressed to even find anything other than a "formatted size may be different" hidden in tiny print on the back somewhere. Folks don't like getting boned by bullshit, especially when it complicates everything and the only "good" it does is giving a marketing drone another bullet point on his hard drive PPT.

So lets just call a spade a spade, shall we? The whole screwed up Gb VS GiB was cooked up by a bunch of butt monkey marketing drones to win the size race. If they find a bullshit reason for labeling 1Tb as 5Tb and actually get away with it, how fast do you think they jump on it? The definitions of Kb, Mb, and Gb had been made in the 1960s. So don't buy the bullshit. Either demand that they go back to being honest, or demand that the ONLY thing they label is GiB and MiB. Because otherwise you are just falling for marketing speak.

GPL is not the *only* open license

[Anonymous Coward]

And being incompatible with the GPL doesn't mean something isn't open.

Can't evolve? Change your environment.

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

How is this surprising? TFA explains it best:

The idea behind truly open standards is to create a level playing field so that everyone can compete on an equal and fair basis. The benefits are obvious: it ensures a true Darwinian selection process is possible

Microsoft, just like tha *AAs, find themselves in the same position as the dinosaurs after the comet strike winter: their surroundings (markets) are changing and they are unable to adapt. So they try to adapt their environment to themselves. In the case of companies, this is done by "educating" (think "don't copy that floppy"), threatening and cajoling their customers. But in the end, they'll meet the same fate as the dinos.

Sounds familiar

[CopaceticOpus]

Microsoft reminds me of the RIAA here, whining about the need to prop up their business model. Their license to print money is in danger, as the online world is moving on.

balanced in favour of microsoft

[hiddenharmony]

Someone ask these idiots when you are willing to allow the usage without royalty why on this earth you want a patent on it ? Why cant we modify the law to ensure that any patented technology can be used without royalty when it becomes part of an open standard ? Infact the US patent law allows government to use any technology without paying patent fees to anyone, so why cant the same be applied to open standards which are going to be useful for a wider number of humans on this earth ? This seems to be the Exterminate phase of standard microsoft policy of 'Embrace extend exterminate'.

Re:balanced in favour of microsoft

[Attila Dimedici]

This seems to be the Exterminate phase of standard microsoft policy of 'Embrace extend exterminate'.

No, this is the "Extend" phase. If they can get people to accept patent encumbered software as "open", then they can move into the Exterminate phase.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[MBGMorden]

OSI's definition isn't necessarily the gold standard either. The GPL, BSD, and other licenses, as well as the whole concept of "open source" was around long before OSI existed.

I have always felt, and continue to do so, that "open source" merely indicates that the source code for a product is available. There are a ton of times where that's all that I wanted. I'd kill to have the source to some of my vendor purchased apps so I could fix some long standing bugs and send the patches back to them. Creating/distributing a derived work, or redistributing the code is not a priority in that case. Access to the code is.

Is anyone suprised?

[Zantac69]

This is the company that basically redefined an "operating system" to no longer just mean the basic power plant that manages the computer's operations...the "operating system" now takes care of antivirus/firewall, digital media, as well as internet browsing and more.

Almost like the MCP in Tron - may Ram R.I.P. (Rest in Pixels)

GPL is great, but not for everyone.

[judolphin]

The GPL promotes one type of "open" source model.

Exactly. I love the idea of GPL and am glad it exists. I use GPL software whenever possible. This post however, is not about the merits of GPL, but to drive home this point: it's difficult (not impossible, but difficult) to make a living by relying on GPL software. Finding a "balance" between the GPL model and complete closure is something worth pursuing. It's not like GPL couldn't still be used by those who wanted to use it.

The GPL is simply not for every developer. It does not allow for trade sectrets, and trade secrets are legally protected for a legitimate reason: the opportunity to be rewarded for innovation. Without it, there would be *less* incentive to invent and innovate.

Clearly, some are willing to invent and develop technology without this protection, but many such as Microsoft, Adobe, Oracle, the average person with a Computer Science degree, will demand some of this protection when they really want to earn a living from their software.

As someone who's worked for software companies, it's hard to imagine those companies GPLing their products, and easy to imagine the company losing half its profits or going under altogether if any company with an IT department could legally recompile the source code and use the software without payment.

After all, companies do have the right to act in their own self-interest, even if you feel they are misguided.

"Standard" incompatible with "software patent"

[dwheeler]

It's true that "GPL" is not the same as "open". But a good test for openness of a standard is "can you implement it using the GPL?". In short, if a standard CANNOT be implemented by GPL'ed software, then it CANNOT be an open standard. Why? That's because the GPL is by far the most popular open source software license; nothing else even comes close. And increasingly, major market niches have an open source software implementation as the #1 or #2 implementation. A standard that locks out major implementations cannot possibly be an open standard. The whole point of a software patent is the power to exclude implementation (without paying royalties, etc.), while the whole point of a standard is to allow arbitrary use - they are fundamentally incompatible. Digistan has a more reasonable definition of open standard - and why you would want one.

Re:Now who's redefining "open"?

[guruevi]

Fixing a bug by changing the source code and then recompiling it is creating a derivative work. When you have access to the source code, it doesn't always mean you are allowed to make a 'better' version of it. A few years ago, we had access to the Windows (NT/2000) source code but it's still not legal for me to fix their bugs and then install it on my computer.

Embrace, Extended, Extinguish

[commodore64_love]

Well yeah it's the same EEE philosophy they've followed over th last twenty years. Why abandon the philosophy when it works do brilliantly for them?

- EMBRACE the concept of open standards (previous phase).

- EXTEND these standards with Microsoft proprietary formats (the current ongoing phase).

- EXTINGUISH future competitors by claiming they violate these proprietary formats and may not use them, which means customers must buy Microsoft software to gain full functionality. Thus a once-open standards model becomes a closed MS-proprietary format. Again.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[ozmanjusri]

*sigh*

Yes sigh. And the astroturf starts right on cue as well.

Microsoft has finally started to understand the web, to recognise that opinions are being formed in the relatively informal arena of social and discussion websites. Their evangelists and reputation management teams are invading social web sites posing as ordinary participants.

There is pattern of saturating discussions with the same marketing points. This demand that Microsoft be given "fair treatment", criticism of the GPL as being "unfair", claims that anyone who criticises Microsoft is a zealot who would complain no matter what they do, the harassment, ridicule and abuse of people they perceive as representing competitors viewpoints, constant reiteration that, as much as they love [competing product], Microsoft's implementation is undeniably superior. Anyone who's participated in Slashdot discussions for any length of time will recognise these and the rest of their marketing checklist of memes they wish to propagate.

In the process they have come close to destroying Slashdot, and other tech discussion websites. We need at least a small element of trust that the people participating here really believe what they are posting, and are not simply reiterating from a script planned by some marketing team.

Re:Cue Microsoft bashing...

[gtall]

On the contrary, I think their attacks are going to be self-defeating. Posts such as yours point out the schtick being advertised (the schtick having same veracity as the Marketing Dept. of the Sirius Cybernetic Corp. from Hitch-hiker's Guide to the Galaxy). PHBs don't read these boards, tech-savvy people do (well, more so than PHBs).

Put in a boarder context, MS would like to define a collection of lies by which it would like to be judged. The terms of that judgement, however, are collectively settled upon. MS is in effect attempting to lie to itself, and therein lies the seeds of MS's failure, Their approach cannot work and will only further antagonize and engender opposition. Who among us wants to be dictated to by semi-evolved Business School Product (will the people from the marketing dept. at MS please put your hands down, its embarrassing)?