I had not heard the GPL interpreted that way, so please expand on that. My understanding was that you had to make the source code available to anyone for a nominal fee (cost of distribution) and that you could not place any restrictions on its use.
Well, I highly highly doubt they would bother (they already have.DOC and WordML to worry about), but I can tweak the bill to make sure this wouldn't fly.
Open means it is documented and the DOCUMENTATION is human readable. The data format itself can be whatever you want, you can "embrace and extend" to your heart's conetent -- just doc it.
Actually I think there are good arguments why open data formats are good for both dominant companies in a market (because it allows their format to become a de facto standard) and small companies (because it's a slight competitive advantage allowing them to make gradual headway). I think the case where you have 3 or more roughly equal competitors is the one where companies will be leery of opening their data formats (or at least being the first one to do so).
It's not that data has to be in human readable format. The DOCUMENTATION has to be human readable...meaning it can't just consist of source code or an XML schema or whatever.
Now as an alternative to open data formats, one of the ones I listed was a preference for "text based" formats over binary ones. That's to make it easier to retrieve some data if the format is lost.
Hmmm. How much of Oracle's competitive advantage is because of their database format (as opposed to how they index, how they parse queries, etc).
What I might do is put a program such as you describe (that can export to an open format, etc) as one of the better alternatives to a completely open format.
The people who mentioned patented formats all brought up a good point that I didn't really address. But I think patented formats are OK. The patent itself presumably defines the layout of the patented part of the file. So then it becomes an issue of is it legal to read data that is stored in a patented format, or do you have to license it, etc.
But the general idea of preserving data for later would be OK if the format were patented. And the patent will eventually expire.
I disagree. What if the "formatting" indicates how data in a database is split into records? You can't just say "all the data is there so everything is OK".
Although you *can* save data in other formats from Word, it's not as rich or clean as the native format (have you ever looked at HTML produced by Word?), PLUS most people don't do it--so in twenty years when someone is trying to retrieve a Word.DOC file long after Word is gone (hypothetically) it won't do much good to say, "you know, the user *could* have saved this in a better format".
I agree 100% with this, and that's why I tried to write the sample bill so you could not get away with saying "Use the source"...even for an open source app, you still had to provide human-readable documentation. Source code is not considered human-readable...any suggestions on how to improve the phrase "human readable" to mean "a real spec" are welcomed.
If some small open source company is selling software to the government...yes they will have to make the extra effort to document their data formats. Really shouldn't they have done that anyway?
Microsoft is certainly a company that stores a lot of user data in proprietary formats, given the widespread use of Office and Windows. But I don't think this proposal is "anti-Microsoft" the way some of the open source bills were anti-Microsoft.
Microsoft was also one of the main companies lobbying against open source bills, thus it will presumably be one of the main companies lobbying against open data format bills...so it makes sense to think "how can this be written to deflect arguments Microsoft will make".
There was always a question of how much Microsoft pushed Netscape and how much they fell. Whatever Microsoft tried to do to hurt Netscape, Netscape arguably did more to themselves with bad strategic decisions. So I was hoping that this lawsuit would lead to a trial that would hash all this out in public, determining once and for all if Andreessen, Barksdale et al were geniuses or just lucky.
But now we'll never know...
- adam
My Segway rental report
on
Rent a Segway
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
I was on a Disney cruise ship in February and they were letting you ride a Segway around the basketball cout for 10 minutes for some "nominal" fee ($10 or $15 as I recall). So I wandered up there with my 1-year-old son and tried it out, and filed this report in email:
"On Friday I rode on a Segway, that newfangled two-wheeled
transporter. Disney has some promotional deal with them and
was offering 10-minute rides. I was watching Noah for a while so
I strolled him up and parked him on the edge of the basketball
court. The Segway is technologically cool but I am baffled by
people who think it is going to revolutionize anything. There may
be a small niche for people who need to go twelve miles an hour
with both hands occupied, but it's pretty small. The thing was
pretty easy to ride. I only fell off twice, once when I was trying
to determine how fast you could go around a corner (and found
out the answer), and once when I got off at the end and it
decided to back up and attack my shins, then lurch forward
ten feet before slowly keeling over in a rough approximation of
the climactic scene of 'Bonnie and Clyde'. The cast member [Disney-speak for employee] who
was helping me assured me everything was fine and the machine
just had to be reset. He whipped up out his little reset key and
applied it to the reset dealie, which seemed to have no effect. I
quickly grabbed the stroller and left, glancing over my shoulder
once to see him ministering to the thing with a worried look on
his face. Still a few bugs in the system I guess. When we get
our final bill, I will check if there is an item for $4,995 marked
'destroyed Segway'".
Alright! Finally someone my favorite SF writer. Luckily the "Demon Princes" and "Planet of Adventure" books are back in print in two- and one-volume (respectively) collections.
Not sure what you mean. If you mean an open source version of the app that writes the formats, I disagree. If you mean a standard design by a committee, I disagree also (there may however be a third meaning that I would agree with).
No company will ever go for being required to change their software to support a standard format. Meaning if an attempt is made to legislate that, they will scream long and loud. Just make Microsoft release their internal Office document format, which they obviously must have lying around somewhere.
(in the linked-to article, Tony Stanco gives seven reasons why open source is good). My aim is to think about "how easy is it for a proprietary source software company to defuse these points."
Democratic Implications: I don't know if I would phrase it as "democratic implications", but his point about having data formats be open is excellent. The second argument about transparency in voting software is a bit of a stretch. People already use proprietary software for all kinds of important government functions, and the republic still stands. Presumably if someone really pressured a company to have their e-voting source code examined by an independent person, they could allow it without going full "open source".
Privacy: This might be a good buzzword, but a bad argument. Why can't open source software transmit or leak privacy data? The vague monopoly reference I suppose will play well in a state that was one of the parties to the DOJ Microsoft lawsuit.
Cost: I think it is best not to focus on cost. First of all because the price of software is such a small part and there are more support options for some proprietary software. But mostly because institutions already consider cost when making buying decisions.
R&D/Technology Transfer: Doubtful. Telling a government to buy such-and-such because of a "general good to society/it's the right thing to do" argument is not going to fly in a time of budget crunch.
Education: Not a bad argument, but still not something governments can probably afford to worry about right now. Perhaps you could argue that the programmers working for the city/state itself could benefit from seeing the source.
Job Creation: NO NO NO. Don't say this. It will not work to argue that the open source industry, with its share prices around $1, is a better way to create jobs then the closed source one with Microsoft, Oracle, etc.
Security: This is a good argument, but badly stated. 1) the "more eyeballs" theory of open source code quality is not proven 2) The quote in question relates to *banning* open source software and apparently simply refers to the fact that open source applications such as sendmail are heavily used by the DoD. I think a much better way to approach security is to talk about security of the *data* stored by open source, because it is easier to access.
So in summary -- the real argument should be for open data formats, not open source. That's the argument that Microsoft is going to have a hard time with.
That means if you are missing one of the middle cards in the straight. Like you have 2-4-5-6. The outside draw is when you have 3-4-5-6, because then either a 2 or a 7 will make the straight. With the inside draw, only one rank will save your weak-tight, inside-straight-drawing keister.
If you read the book, you'll see that he was going all in with 500k in chips (or so) in front of him. This in a situation where just sitting tight until someone else busts could net him another 200k in prize money. So he's doing some definite gamblin'
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm, normally my sarcasm radar is set pretty high. Must have dozed off reading the last sentence in your comment.
- adam
I had not heard the GPL interpreted that way, so please expand on that. My understanding was that you had to make the source code available to anyone for a nominal fee (cost of distribution) and that you could not place any restrictions on its use.
- adam
Thst's why I submitted this to slashdot, to get the loopholes and inconsistencies pointed out. Which has been done pretty well, I think.
- adam
Well, I highly highly doubt they would bother (they already have .DOC and WordML to worry about), but I can tweak the bill to make sure this wouldn't fly.
- adam
Open means it is documented and the DOCUMENTATION is human readable. The data format itself can be whatever you want, you can "embrace and extend" to your heart's conetent -- just doc it.
Actually I think there are good arguments why open data formats are good for both dominant companies in a market (because it allows their format to become a de facto standard) and small companies (because it's a slight competitive advantage allowing them to make gradual headway). I think the case where you have 3 or more roughly equal competitors is the one where companies will be leery of opening their data formats (or at least being the first one to do so).
- adam
It's not that data has to be in human readable format. The DOCUMENTATION has to be human readable...meaning it can't just consist of source code or an XML schema or whatever.
Now as an alternative to open data formats, one of the ones I listed was a preference for "text based" formats over binary ones. That's to make it easier to retrieve some data if the format is lost.
- adam
Hmmm. How much of Oracle's competitive advantage is because of their database format (as opposed to how they index, how they parse queries, etc).
What I might do is put a program such as you describe (that can export to an open format, etc) as one of the better alternatives to a completely open format.
- adam
Right, but is a group like OASIS going to do this for every type of data that a government saves?
I would rather keep away from new formats--just document the ones that exist already.
- adam
The people who mentioned patented formats all brought up a good point that I didn't really address. But I think patented formats are OK. The patent itself presumably defines the layout of the patented part of the file. So then it becomes an issue of is it legal to read data that is stored in a patented format, or do you have to license it, etc.
But the general idea of preserving data for later would be OK if the format were patented. And the patent will eventually expire.
- adam
I disagree. What if the "formatting" indicates how data in a database is split into records? You can't just say "all the data is there so everything is OK".
- adam
Although you *can* save data in other formats from Word, it's not as rich or clean as the native format (have you ever looked at HTML produced by Word?), PLUS most people don't do it--so in twenty years when someone is trying to retrieve a Word .DOC file long after Word is gone (hypothetically) it won't do much good to say, "you know, the user *could* have saved this in a better format".
- adam
I agree 100% with this, and that's why I tried to write the sample bill so you could not get away with saying "Use the source"...even for an open source app, you still had to provide human-readable documentation. Source code is not considered human-readable...any suggestions on how to improve the phrase "human readable" to mean "a real spec" are welcomed.
If some small open source company is selling software to the government...yes they will have to make the extra effort to document their data formats. Really shouldn't they have done that anyway?
- adam
I know it is not the most eye-pleasing...I'm just using a default style.
Any suggestions on improving it are welcome!
- adam
I will definitely get in touch with Larry Rosen. Thank you!
- adam
Has it been revived? I thought it was dead for this year. If you have a link to current status, please post it. Thanks.
- adam
Microsoft was also one of the main companies lobbying against open source bills, thus it will presumably be one of the main companies lobbying against open data format bills...so it makes sense to think "how can this be written to deflect arguments Microsoft will make".
- adam
But now we'll never know...
- adam
"On Friday I rode on a Segway, that newfangled two-wheeled transporter. Disney has some promotional deal with them and was offering 10-minute rides. I was watching Noah for a while so I strolled him up and parked him on the edge of the basketball court. The Segway is technologically cool but I am baffled by people who think it is going to revolutionize anything. There may be a small niche for people who need to go twelve miles an hour with both hands occupied, but it's pretty small. The thing was pretty easy to ride. I only fell off twice, once when I was trying to determine how fast you could go around a corner (and found out the answer), and once when I got off at the end and it decided to back up and attack my shins, then lurch forward ten feet before slowly keeling over in a rough approximation of the climactic scene of 'Bonnie and Clyde'. The cast member [Disney-speak for employee] who was helping me assured me everything was fine and the machine just had to be reset. He whipped up out his little reset key and applied it to the reset dealie, which seemed to have no effect. I quickly grabbed the stroller and left, glancing over my shoulder once to see him ministering to the thing with a worried look on his face. Still a few bugs in the system I guess. When we get our final bill, I will check if there is an item for $4,995 marked 'destroyed Segway'".
- adam
- adam
- adam
No company will ever go for being required to change their software to support a standard format. Meaning if an attempt is made to legislate that, they will scream long and loud. Just make Microsoft release their internal Office document format, which they obviously must have lying around somewhere.
- adam
Democratic Implications: I don't know if I would phrase it as "democratic implications", but his point about having data formats be open is excellent. The second argument about transparency in voting software is a bit of a stretch. People already use proprietary software for all kinds of important government functions, and the republic still stands. Presumably if someone really pressured a company to have their e-voting source code examined by an independent person, they could allow it without going full "open source".
Privacy: This might be a good buzzword, but a bad argument. Why can't open source software transmit or leak privacy data? The vague monopoly reference I suppose will play well in a state that was one of the parties to the DOJ Microsoft lawsuit.
Cost: I think it is best not to focus on cost. First of all because the price of software is such a small part and there are more support options for some proprietary software. But mostly because institutions already consider cost when making buying decisions.
R&D/Technology Transfer: Doubtful. Telling a government to buy such-and-such because of a "general good to society/it's the right thing to do" argument is not going to fly in a time of budget crunch.
Education: Not a bad argument, but still not something governments can probably afford to worry about right now. Perhaps you could argue that the programmers working for the city/state itself could benefit from seeing the source.
Job Creation: NO NO NO. Don't say this. It will not work to argue that the open source industry, with its share prices around $1, is a better way to create jobs then the closed source one with Microsoft, Oracle, etc.
Security: This is a good argument, but badly stated. 1) the "more eyeballs" theory of open source code quality is not proven 2) The quote in question relates to *banning* open source software and apparently simply refers to the fact that open source applications such as sendmail are heavily used by the DoD. I think a much better way to approach security is to talk about security of the *data* stored by open source, because it is easier to access.
So in summary -- the real argument should be for open data formats, not open source. That's the argument that Microsoft is going to have a hard time with.
- adam
- adam
- adam
- adam