https___blogs.fsfe.org_greve__p_160_2.xml
http___fsfe.org_activities_os_def.hr.html_2.xml
1.1 1.2 1.3 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 4.1 4.2 5.1 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 10.2 10.3 11.1 12.1 12.2 13.1 13.2
Open Standards have been somewhat of a holy grail for some time now. Interoperability and vendor-independence, the IT industries’ equivalent of eternal life, are the prize for those who find the grail that are Open Standards. This conquest took decades, has spawned many different definitions of what people might call an Open Standard, but has also left many of the seekers with a much better understanding of what it is we really seek. Some of the more interesting definitions are But there are also many others. Based on practical experience, the understanding of Open Standards continued evolving in various fora, including the Dynamic Coalition on Open Standards (DCOS) at the United Nations Internet Governance Forum, where governments, industry and civil society discuss Open Standards in an open and inclusive way. There are also the recent discussions around the European Interoperability Framework, the controversy around ISO approval of MS-OOXML, the various discussions on interoperability in almost any country, the effects of lacking interoperability on procurement cost, including at WIPO, and so on. Allow me to share with you five criteria that have emerged from dialog between stakeholders, and constitute a concise and balanced definition of what an Open Standard should be. Such a standard is - subject to full public assessment and use without constraints in a manner equally available to all parties; - without any components or extensions that have dependencies on formats or protocols that do not meet the definition of an Open Standard themselves; - free from legal or technical clauses that limit its utilisation by any party or in any business model; - managed and further developed independently of any single vendor in a process open to the equal participation of competitors and third parties; - available in multiple complete implementations by competing vendors, or as a complete implementation equally available to all parties. It is obviously impossible for a new format or protocol to meet the fifth criteria, so there will have to be a grace period for new protocols of formats until it is fully applied. There also needs to be active and continuous checking of Open Standards against this definition to prevent abuse or false labelling, but this would be true for any definition. In balance I do consider the five points presented above to be rather solid. One of the first projects to adopt this definition is Science, Education and Learning in Freedom (SELF), including the Internet Societies in the Netherlands and Bulgaria, various Universities, some NGOs (including FSFE) and is funded by the European Union in its framework programmes. Ideally we should all come to some common understanding of what constitutes an Open Standard. Considering that there are some parties that base their business model on lack of Open Standards and have a commercial interest in falsely declaring proprietary formats as Open Standards, that is unrealistic. But if the majority of politics, industry and society at large came to a common understanding on the issue, that would probably be sufficient. So I hope that we’ll be able to continue this discussion further at the IGF in Rio.
1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.1 5.2 6.1 7.1 8.1 9.1 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14.1 14.2 14.3 15.1 15.2 15.3 16.1 16.2 16.3 17.1 17.2 18.1 19.1 19.2 20.1 21.1 22.1 23.1
Naš rad / Pregled otvorenih standarda Otvoreni standardi Ne postoji opće prihvaćena definicija što čini otvoreni standard, no postoji mnogo prijedloga. Poveznice na neke prijedloge su niže navedene. FSFE nije htio predložiti još jednu definiciju. Odlučili smo prihvatiti definiciju otvorenog standarda koja je nastala kroz pripreme za Certified Open. Rad na ovoj definiciji počeo je prije nego se FSFE uključio u projekt i inicijalno se bazirala na definiciji iz Europskog okvira za interoperabilnost (EIF) Europske komisije. U dijalogu u kojem su sudjelovali razni ključni industrijski igrači, politika i zajednica, definicija je preoblikovana u definiciju pet točaka oko kojih se postigao konsenzus. Definiciju je potom usvojio EU-ov projekt SELF, ženevska Deklaracija o standardima i budućnosti Interneta iz 2008. i Document Freedom Day. Definicija Otvoreni standard odnosi se na format ili protokol koji je - podložan potpunoj javnoj procjeni i korištenju bez ograničenja tako da je jednako dostupan svim stranama; - bez komponenti ili proširenja koji su ovisni o formatima ili protokolima koji sami ne zadovoljavaju definiciju otvorenog standarda; - lišen pravnih i tehničkih klauzula koje bilo koga ili bilo koji poslovni model ograničavaju u korištenju; - otvoren za ravnopravno sudjelovanje konkurenata i trećih strana u upravljanju i daljnjem razvoju, neovisan o pojedinom proizvođaču; - dostupan u više potpunih implementacija konkurentskih proizvođača ili koji je kao potpuna implementacija svima jednako dostupan. Napomene za standarde u nastajanju Kada je novi format ili protokol u razvoju, 5. klauzula nije ostvariva. FSFE drži da je ovo ispravno stajalište u slučajevima u kojima je potrebna tehnološka potpunost. U nekim situacijama, npr. u primjeni za vladu, trošak zbog pogreške može biti vrlo visok. U situacijama u kojima se želi promicati razvoj otvorenih standarda strogo pridržavanje klauzula može onemogućiti nove otvorene standarde. Sa stajališta definicije takvi standardi bi izravno konkurirali vlasničkim formatima pod kontrolom proizvođača. U takvim slučajevima razumno je dozvoliti neispunjavanje 5. klauzule "standarda u nastajanju". Kakav tretman primaju takvi "standardi u nastajanju" u velikoj mjeri ovisi o situaciji. Tamo gdje je trošak zbog pogreške vrlo visok trebaju se koristiti samo potpuno otvoreni standardi. Standarde u nastajanju treba posebno promicani tamo gdje se želi promicati otvorene standarde. Općenito govoreći, otvoreni standardi su bolji od standarda u nastajanju i standardi u nastajanju su bolji od formata specifičnih pojedinom proizvođaču. Što se format više približi ispunjenju svih točaka definicije, više ga treba rangirati u situacijama gdje su interoperabilnost i pouzdana dugotrajna pohrana podataka od iznimne važnosti. Poveznice na druge definicije Wikipedija pruža pregled termina otvoreni standard i razne definicije. Slijedi skup nekih definicija: - Europski okvir za interoperabilnost - Interpelacija B 103 danskog parlamenta - Otvoreni standardi - načela i praksa, Bruce Perens - Digistanova Definicija otvorenih standarda