UK Takes Huge Step Forward On Open Standards

jrepin sends this news from the FSF Europe site: "The UK government is certainly taking a long and winding road towards Free Software and Open Standards. The UK's public sector doesn't use a lot of Free Software, and many smaller Free Software companies have found it comparatively hard to get public sector buyers for their products and services. The main reason is that government agencies at all levels are locked into proprietary, vendor-specific file formats. ... The UK government has released a new Open Standards policy. With this policy (PDF), and in particular with its strong definition of Open Standards, the UK government sets an example that governments elsewhere should aspire to,' says Karsten Gerloff, President of the Free Software Foundation Europe. Under the new policy, effective immediately, patents that are essential to implementing a standard must be licensed without royalties or restrictions that would prevent their implementation in Free Software."

Comments

Expect lawsuits...

[TWX]

...when companies do not wish to give up their proprietary information. After all, they went with a proprietary format specifically give them the advantage with vendor-lockin in the first place.

Re:Expect lawsuits...

[dotbot]

Expect lawsuits...? How can a company sue a prospective customer because the customer is not asking for what they want to sell?

Re:Expect lawsuits...

[Smauler]

What? Seriously, the 6th biggest economy in the the world is advocating open standards, and you say expect lawsuits to shut them down......

The point about open standards is that they're... open. They don't infringe upon anyone. That's kind of the point. Open standards don't need companies to give up their proprietary information. Or did you miss that point.... ie. the whole idea behind open standards.

Good luck with the lawsuits...

Re:And?

[Microlith]

Maybe because some of them have a terrible product and services?

Or maybe it's not that at all? But it has to be what you suggest. It can't possibly be anything else.

Just because your a FOSS company doesn't mean your owed the business of the government.

No one is owed that business. But it's hard to get those contracts when the incumbent holds all the secrets to the document format in use.

Not everything is a "M$" conspiracy.

Because Microsoft totally hasn't manipulated standards bodies and harassed politicians who have pressed for open standards.

and www.gov.uk is developed in the open...

[ZG-Rules]

Hi,

The main UK Government Website is built in the open, using open-source tools where possible:

Code: https://github.com/alphagov
Blog Post: http://digital.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/govuk-launch-colophon/

Disclaimer: I work for them ;o)

--
ZG-Rules

Re:and www.gov.uk is developed in the open...

[TapeCutter]

Thanks, if I hadn't posted elsewhere I would give you a karma cookie. I particularly like how the introduction makes it clear it's a "work in progress". Your links put the lie to the anti-government hyperbole that flies like monkey turds around the internet, I don't work for government and never have, but the vast majority of government workers I've met over my 35yr working life have been involved in providing essential infrastructure and useful services.

Re:and www.gov.uk is developed in the open...

[drinkypoo]

FWIW, from the metoo dep't., the US uses Drupal left and right, which however you feel about it is exceptionally open.

Re:And?

[king neckbeard]

And the best way to find out is to level the playing field so those issues are no longer factors.

Re:And?

[slowLearner]

Just because someone has done something before doesn't mean they are some constant boogeyman in the background. Again, everything is not Microsoft conspiracy. Just like Islamic terrorists are not behind every corner trying to blow you up.

Would you trust a recidivist drunk driver with the keys to your liquor cabinet and your Porsche?

I didn't realise I wasn't logged in, oops!

Does this include the BBC?

[Em Adespoton]

Just wondering if this includes the BBC in its mandate?

I, for one, would LOVE all BBC offerings to be using patent-unencumbered codecs, etc. Of course, this could have a negative impact on license deals between the BBC and private media, but the BBC is big enough that I think it would win after the first few skirmishes.

Re:Does this include the BBC?

[king neckbeard]

I don't think the BBC is technically part of the UK government. It's autonomous in a lot of ways, although it's been a while since the exact nature was explained to me.

Re:Does this include the BBC?

[isorox]

I don't think the BBC is technically part of the UK government. It's autonomous in a lot of ways, although it's been a while since the exact nature was explained to me.

The BBC is funded by a license fee, which is paid for directly by everyone in the UK that watches TV. The BBC's budget is controlled by the government and agreed every 10 years.

It's free of direct government control, so for example released damning material into the Iraq War, and reported an accusation that the government "sexed up" the case for war, and that WMDs did not exist. The BBC was later proven 100% correct.

The event, partly due to a cock-up by a BBC reporter, led to a scientist's death. There was a government inquiry by a government stooge that found in favour of the government over the whole affair. This led to the enforced resignation of the head of the BBC (who had been on holiday at the time of the incident).

Since then, the BBC has kow-towed to the government and lost much of it's teeth where it really mattered.

The license-fee part of the BBC has also been forced to take on funding of the BBC World Service and BBC Monitoring (which were always government funded, although in the former case, editorially independent and trusted to tell the truth around the world by everyone from sheep herders to jihadists).

The BBC Boss since the Hutton affair, Mark Thompson, recently left to become a Murdoch stooge (his reward for damaging the BBC as much as he did). The new DG, George Entwistle, has dropped into position in the middle of the whole Saville controversy in a "don't you dare try to shake anything up" style thing. Amazing timing.

On top of the fear of government (especially when Labour and Peter Mandleson were still in power), the BBC's journalism has suffered recently due to a dumbing down of output. It's the same across the industry. They're trying to produce too much materia, with too little

Leading BBC journalists, speaking privately yesterday, called for radical reform of the BBC's News division, claiming it had become afraid of running difficult stories. "There is a general timidity about broadcasting anything that's controversial," said one senior figure. "We have got to have a sense of devilment and we don't have that at all."

The BBC has amazing correspondents, but the culture at the head is the biggest problem.

Jeremy Bowen, a middle-east expert, was recently criticised for spending too much time in the middle east during the Arab spring. Their knowledge rarely makes it out on mainstream BBC News, you sometimes get some good programs like "Reporters", and the occasional Newsnight and Radio 4 program, but even the 1/6/10 doesn't scratch the in-depth knowledge of the BBC's overseas correspondents.

Re:I'm sceptical

[trewornan]

Nothing's changed and this policy is meaningless until the Cabinet Office releases the guidelines for applying for an exemption. Every dept purchasing an IT system will trump up some half assed excuse and apply unless there are some serious restrictions imposed by the Cabinet Office.

Re:I'm sceptical

[Smauler]

Local government is notoriously backward and inefficient in the UK. It's one of these institutions which is stuck in the 70's in terms of product decisions in some places. They've updated some practices but not others.

National government has gone the other way. IT projects are almost uniformly outsourced, on a massive scale, and cost billions because of private sector profiteering and inefficiency. The NHS database has cost about 15 billion so far for something no one really wanted. That's a few hundred pound every man, woman, and child of the UK pays each, for that project. No, I'm not bitter.

ps. I'm also a massive fan of local government and the nhs, and am very glad they are there - I just hate the things they get so obviously wrong.

Re:And?

[hawkinspeter]

This is more about using open standards rather than FOSS companies. There's nothing to prevent any company, FOSS or proprietary, from using open standards. This way, they can choose the best product (and company) and not be locked in forever due to ridiculous proprietary "standards" that only one company can use.

Re:And?

[horza]

Microsoft have a long and sordid history of corrupting standards and getting into bed with politicians to ensure their monopoly. In the UK, Microsoft and the Labour party were in bed together ensuring a long and profitable relationship for Microsoft at the expense of the British tax payer. As the government is one of the largest suppliers, all other companies are then obliged to run Microsoft products.

If Microsoft can sell products because they are acceptable quality then good for them, but at least they will start to have to compete on an even playing field.

Phillip.