Management
Technology
- Applications
- Business Intelligence
- Development
- Hardware
- Mobile & Wireless
- Networking
- Internet
- Operating Systems
- Security Products
- Servers & Datacentre
- Storage
Toolbox
Training
Books
White Papers
Webcast
Resource Centre
EU Wants to Re-define “Closed” as “Nearly Open”
November 02, 2009
Posted by: Glyn Moody
The European Interoperability Framework (EIF) is an important document produced by the “Interoperable delivery of pan-European eGovernment services to public administrations, businesses and citizens” (IDABC) for the European Union.
Version 1 came out in 2004, and since then battles have raged over how Version 2 would address the issue of “openness”. Judging by a leaked version of the near-final result, it looks like the lobbyists acting on the behalf of closed-source software houses have won.
This is what Version 1 had to say on the subject of open standards:
To attain interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, guidance needs to focus on open standards. The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard:
The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.
And here is what it said on open source:
Open Source Software (OSS) tends to use and help define open standards and publicly available specifications. OSS products are, by their nature, publicly available specifications, and the availability of their source code promotes open, democratic debate around the specifications, making them both more robust and interoperable. As such, OSS corresponds to the objectives of this Framework and should be assessed and considered favourably alongside proprietary alternatives.
Here is what the leaked Version 2, obtained by Brenno de Winter of Webwereld, Computerworld UK's Dutch sister-title, has to say on open standards and open source: nothing.
Instead, it has this incredible section on “Openness”:
Within the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of interest, having as ultimate goal the advancement of knowledge and the use thereof to solve relevant problems. In that sense, openness leads to considerable gains in efficiency.
Notice how the throwaway phrase “the availability of their source code promotes open, democratic debate around the specifications, making them both more robust and interoperable” in the first version has been expanded to become the *main* “idea” in the second version – although something so vague, woolly and content-free doesn't really deserve to be called anything quite so grand as “idea”.
But it gets worse: not content with totally eliminating the concrete definitions of open standards in Version 1, Version 2 then goes on to re-define “closed” as just another shade of openness, but without any of the openness:
There are varying degrees of openness.
Specifications, software and software development methods that promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be accessed, reused and shared are considered open and lie at one end of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications, proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse solutions, i.e. the "not invented here" syndrome, lie at the other end. The spectrum of approaches that lies between these two extremes can be called the openness continuum.
Got that? “Closed” lies at one end of the *open* spectrum, which conveniently means we can *include* closed solutions in the interoperability framework because they are part of that continuum. Indeed, Version 2 goes on to say:
Jump to page : [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!
<<newer entry | back to blogs index | older entry>>
Advert
Email this article to a friend or colleague:
PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.
- This article is now being printed.
What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.
Click below to add 'EU Wants to Re-define “Closed” as “Nearly Open”' to your blog.
If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.
If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.
Advert
Newsletters
Sign up to our Weekly Round-Up for the past week’s not-to-be-missed news analysis and insight delivered straight to your inbox.
WHITE PAPERS
-
Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees. -
Phishing for victims
This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
About the author
Glyn Moody Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. The blog will look at the organisations that are embracing open source, old and new alike (start-ups welcome), and the communities of users and developers that have formed around them (or not, as the case may be).
Comments received
Sam Johnston said on Monday, 02 November 2009
Great catch - I used v1 of the EIF in defining the Open Cloud Principles (OCP) and felt that it had found a happy medium in allowing vendors to keep their secret sauce secret while exposing interoperable interfaces and formats. Version 2 is a disgrace in comparison to what could well have become a gold standard.
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 02 November 2009
@Sam: the difference is quite shocking, isn't it?
Keith Jones said on Monday, 02 November 2009
Glyn, I think that it's a bit of a stretch to say that the EIF is redefining "closed" as "open". It isn't. It's attempting to include "closed" in the definition of "interoperable", which is - to be fair - slightly different.
It is technically accurate to point out that at one end of the "opennness" spectrum you have completely open-source software and open standards and that at the other, well, you don't - just as it is technically accurate to point out that the "brightness" level on your TV goes from zero to 100.
Further, at the end of that "openness" section, the bullet-point Recommendation #5 states that: "Public administrations should favour openness when working together to
establish European Public Service while taking into account their priorities and constraints."
Okay, the term "openness continuum" is a crime against the English language for which someone ought to be taken out and shot, but that's not something about which I would get all that exercised.
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 02 November 2009
@Keith: gosh, you're not accusing me of journalistic exaggeration for the sake of grabbing people's attention, are you?
What's truly shocking is the chasm between the first and second versions: these are no mere linguistic quibbles, but a deep repudiation of the kind openness espoused in the earlier version.
E.T. Anderson said on Monday, 02 November 2009
War is peace?
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 02 November 2009
Indeed
ben said on Monday, 02 November 2009
oh good, i was a bit worried for a moment with the EU stumbling upon a good idea, thankfully theyre making amends and watering it down meaninglessness.
Carl said on Monday, 02 November 2009
Shocking to see lobbying efforts blatantly shining through. You can almost read the email from Steve Ballmer between the lines. It is OOXML all over again.
You're right: time to start harrassing our respective EU representatives about this matter
Andrew Websdale said on Monday, 02 November 2009
Yes - whats the best place/person to send one's views on this? What the EU decides is hugely important as their decisions trickle down to national policies.I thought they'd been supportive of FLOSS until now - as others have said, the stench of Ballmer rises from this & it smells awful
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 02 November 2009
@Andrew: generally, I just write to my MEP and ask them to pass the message on - it's better than nothing. For the UK, this site is indispensable:
http://www.writetothem.com/
Leonardo Garcia said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
I work for a Government in Mexico and took some ideas from version 1 of the EIF for an Interoperability Framework of our own.
IMHO it is truly a disgrace what they have done to it, I guess that all the governments are alike since my experience pushing this effort here was almost the same. There were mixed reactions but mostly was fear of choosing an "unsupported" standard and the obvious consequences, complete ignorance and apathy and laziness. Sad but true.
Unknown said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
The irony of this (if EIF 2.0 publishes as leaked) is that the rest of the world had begun to follow the lead set by the E.U. and incorporate the principles in EIF 1.0 into their GIF's.
There is only one software company that stands to loose enough to justify the resources reqiured to weaken the definition of open standards. Time to identify how much Redmond has invested in derailing the EIF.
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
Thanks for those comments. The good news is that this is now getting out in many outlets, so the EU can't just present it as a fait accompli. The more noise we make the better.
Felis silvestris said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
I'm scared. Norway is not in the EU, but the previous minister of Administration pushed openness as hard as she could, with good results. Now the balance of parties within the govt. changed after the September election, and the post has been taken over by an unknown figure from a party that's much more closed-friendly. One of the new ministers used to be a director of Microsoft Norway - Grete Faremo.
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
@Felis: sounds like you have every reason to be scared, alas...
jeykey said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
Hello, thanks for the information Glyn. I'm from Germany, what can I do?
Hognoxious said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
To accuse you of journalistic exaggeration would be a gross slur - against journalists.
Seriously, get a dictionary and look up what a continuum is.
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
@jeykey: I think contacting your MEP is always useful - ask them to find out why this is being sneaked through.
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
@Hognoxious: There is most definitely *no* "continuum" in openness, since a continuum varies continuously (sic) through an infinitude of points (in fact, it's an uncountable infinitude). In real life that just doesn't happen. You get discrete jumps - and that's not a "continuum".
But the key point is EIF 2 tries to reframe openness as spanning openness *and* closed with that "continuum". It's a blatant attempt to blur the key concept - in this case openness - by introducing grand-sound but spurious concepts.
Anonymous said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
Interoperability in this case clearly refers to the ability of partners' systems to operate with one another. If all of the partners use the same kind of system, then their systems are interoperable. It's perfectly clear.
The point of promoting open standards is simply to promote competition amongst implementations. However, this will not necessarily produce optimal outcomes. If there are sufficient efficiency gains from scale or scope, for example, then a single provider of a proprietary system may be able to provide a more cost-effective solution than multiple competing providers implementing an open standard.
The effect of open-source and open-standards lobbying, especially from firms like IBM, has been apparent for some time in EU IT policy. It's good to see the other side are making their case too, and thereby achieving more balance. Governments should use the most cost-effective solutions, and not allow lobbyists to push expensive services in the name of open standards.
Glyn Moody said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
@anon: as I pointed out, using a single system is not interoperability, although it may play the same function. It might seem cost effective, but that's because it ignores longer-term factors like monoculture vulnerabilities and long-term lock-in, both of which can outweigh any apparent savings.
The benefits of true interoperability - multiple players on a level playing field - are that the dynamics automatically tend to create lower-cost solutions through competition - something not possible in a monoculture.
Whatever IBM may or may not have been doing (I don't know), the main push for openness has come, not surprisingly, from people who can see the benefits of open systems, level playing field et al. If EIF 2 goes through in its current form it will be a scandal, because there has been *no* consultation or discussion to justify such a U-turn: it is a completely arbitrary exercise of power for who knows what reasons....
Lose said on Tuesday, 03 November 2009
What is shocking to me is how the foreign lobby succeeded to delay and capture the process. Time to kick the lobby out.
PL Hayes said on Wednesday, 04 November 2009
“If there are sufficient efficiency gains from scale or scope, for example, then a single provider of a proprietary system may be able to provide a more cost-effective solution than multiple competing providers implementing an open standard.” --Anon.
And the efficient single provider couldn't possibly be required to implement open standards because...?
This corruption of the original EIF really is inexcusably bad policy. Regulatory capture strikes again in the lobbyist infested economic literacy vacuum of Brussels. :(
Annoyed said on Wednesday, 04 November 2009
It is generally accepted that Open Standards promote competition between code bases to provide the best, most-interoperable and most-efficient implementations. The Many Eyes argument is also often used to promote increased security offered by open standards and code bases.
Unfortunately this doesn't always work. Case in point: Simple Mail Transport Protocol (SMTP), one of the most prolific open standards in the world. Because the original and basic standard requires no authentication of senders, as servers needed to be able to exchange communications freely, it is possible for you, me or anybody world to pretend to be you, me or anybody in the world and spam everyone with all sorts of unsolicited communication selling banking services, life insurance, tertiary qualifications, viagra, etc., or attempt to steal your identity. SPAM/UCE is allegedly one of the worst problems in the world (I'd rate deprivation of liberty and famine higher).
I'd still choose open standards over closed!
Anonymous said on Wednesday, 04 November 2009
@Glyn: Your point is clear, but you have misunderstood what 'interoperability' means in this context. It is referring here to interoperability between different organisations, for example different DGs, agencies of the national governments, partner organisations, etc. The hardware and software systems in question need not come from different vendors.
To my knowledge, most of the lobbying for 'open standards' has been funded by corporations such as IBM and Sun/Oracle, whose aim is simply to reduce the value of the software layer, so they can sell proprietary services. It now appears that proprietary software firms have responded with lobbying of their own.
The idea of a 'level playing field' sounds nice, but when promoted by firms with weak market positions, the true aim is often simply to restrict competitive innovation within a given market segment, by forcing all firms to produce at the lowest common denominator. The Commission may finally have seen through this tactic.
Glyn Moody said on Wednesday, 04 November 2009
@annoyed: yes, you're right - open standards don't *guarantee* perfect solutions. For SMTP, open standards have probably produced the best *implementation*, but the standard is flawed in the ways you mention; first the standards needs updating, then the implementation will follow.
Glyn Moody said on Wednesday, 04 November 2009
@anon: well, if the software comes from "different" vendors, then we're not talking about using one software products. Being able to have stuff from different vendors is precisely why you need open standards - and precisely what is missing with OOXML, say (as far as I know, nobody implements OOXML strictly, not even Microsoft).
You're probably right that IBM has been lobbying, but to claim it is the main reason there were open standards in EIF 1 overlooks the efforts by many people in the free software community and elsewhere for the last 15 years pushing for this for quite altruistic reasons.
And the level playing field *by definition* forces everyone to play by the same rules: it *promotes* innovation there - unless, of course, you include proprietary lock-in as a kind of innovation. Personally, I don't, and I don't think the EU should either.
KW said on Wednesday, 04 November 2009
If this is what will be published, it's a sad day for opensource indeed... At least the US is endorsing opensource, the amount of influence they have on the rest of the world just might be enough to save version 3 of this document.
Paul Johnston said on Wednesday, 04 November 2009
Happy to admit that this is not a debate I am close to, but while some things start closed and proprietary and stay that way forever, isn't it also quite common for some innovations to start proprietary and then become part of an open standard? I can certainly see the advantages of open and agree that the public sector should favour and encourage it, but I am less convinced that an absolute ban is in the common interest (though as I say, I am no expert).
Glyn Moody said on Wednesday, 04 November 2009
@Paul: the issue here is that things *started* completely open, and are now regressing...
Vance said on Thursday, 05 November 2009
@E.T. Anderson: No, you misunderstand. You see, war is just one location on the peace continuum.
Anonymous said on Thursday, 05 November 2009
@PL Hayes
"And the efficient single provider couldn't possibly be required to implement open standards because...?"
If there are clear economic externalities that it corrects, do it. If not, why impose such a requirement arbitrarily?
Where there are manufacturing economies of scale, eg in microprocessors, mandating an open standard design is close to granting a legal monopoly to the largest (and hence most efficient) producer. Without such a mandate, smaller competitors with less efficient manufacturing can still compete through innovation (eg AMD with AMD64).
Where the economies of scale/scope are mostly in design/development, as in software, mandating open standards drastically reduces the potential for differentiation through innovation. This in turn reduces the incentive to invest in R&D, potentially leading to large reductions in R&D spending and to technological stagnation (eg Unix after POSIX).
PL Hayes said on Thursday, 05 November 2009
“If there are clear economic externalities that it corrects, do it”
Indeed there are: network externalities. (I think!) we're talking data communication and interoperability standards here, and to clarify (since my wording /was/ poor), I'm suggesting a mandate for openness is desirable - not, of course, a mandate for particular open standards. Your Unix/POSIX point is well taken but it isn't really relevant.
Mak said on Thursday, 05 November 2009
Swedish minister Mats Odell said in a speech in Maastricht Thursday that we need a clear definition of openness in the European Interoperability Framework and that the definition of open standards and open source as defined by the European Interoperability Framework version one has served us well so far.
Glyn Moody said on Thursday, 05 November 2009
@Mak: hear, hear
Mak said on Thursday, 05 November 2009
Full speech (in English) now available on Swedish government website: http://www.regeringen.se/sb/d/11678/a/134858
"Another important development to increase efficiency, promote interoperability and improve the performance in public sector delivery is the move towards the use of open standards and open source alternatives in new procurements. It is my belief that we need a clear definition of openness in the European Interoperability Framework and that the definition of open standards and open source software as defined by the European Interoperability Framework version one has served us well so far. The use of open standards and open source solutions decreases the public sector´s reliance on specific vendors and platforms and it increases European competiveness as well as the transparency and ability to interact with third party developers of services built on public data."
Glyn Moody said on Friday, 06 November 2009
@Mak: thanks
Holmes Wilson (FSF) said on Friday, 06 November 2009
This kind of thing happens because "open" is not a firm ethical concept. (That's why the people who did not want to take a firm stand
chose to say "open source" instead of "free software".)
Once you make your position weak by formulating it in terms of "openness", further concessions are easy.
Something can be relatively more or less open. But the term "free formats" (like "free software") is based in a firm ethical concept with a clear definition.
Glyn Moody said on Friday, 06 November 2009
@Holmes: I agree that rooting things ethically solves many problems. Unfortunately, the one big one it *doesn't* solve is terminology. "Free" is probably even worse than "open" when it comes to allow all kinds alternative interpretations...
Anonymous said on Saturday, 07 November 2009
@PL Hayes
Yes and no. There is a positive platform/network externality, in that when a DG etc chooses a system, it adds value to the system for partners. The 'no' comes in because this effect is independent of open standards.
Suppose a DG A would like to use a system X, in part because many other DGs and partners also use X. Part of the value of X comes from network/platform effects, but these effects are already internalised by A. What is not internalised by A is the effect of its own choice on all the others. If A narrowly prefers a system Y to X, but the gain to A of choosing Y over X is smaller than the gain to partners of choosing X, then the better outcome is to choose X.
The aim of promoting interoperability is to highlight the positive externalities of choosing systems that are interoperable with those of important partners. Whether these are standards-based or proprietary is irrelevant. In the first version of the IEF, the two issues were erroneously combined.
PL Hayes said on Sunday, 08 November 2009
@Anon.
Eh?
Glyn Moody said on Sunday, 08 November 2009
@anon: but network effects are only one externality. Also important is the huge downside of promoting monocultures, and the privileged position that the claimed owner of software patents has in that ecosystem.
PL Hayes said on Sunday, 08 November 2009
Well quite. When Anon. said, “If there are clear economic externalities that it corrects...” and I replied with, “Indeed there are: network externalities...”, I could hardly have been referring to the (proprietary/open agnostic) positive externalities. Its pretty obvious even to dumb economics amateurs like me that positive effects don't really need 'correcting'!
gibello said on Wednesday, 18 November 2009
French translation available here:
http://www.gibello.com/publi/transl/articles/eu_interop_glyn_moody_nov09.html
wholesale Omega Watches said on Sunday, 24 January 2010
walk <EM>mbt</EM> shoesis a healthful <EM>shoe</EM>,<a href="http://www.b2bsharing.com/leopard-print-ugg-bailey-button-boots-5803-p-47643.html"><strong>uggs bailey button boots</strong></a><EM>,</EM><a href="http://www.b2bsharing.com/footwear-ugg-boots-c-2341_2367.html"><strong>wholesale ugg boots</strong></a>,<a href="http://www.b2bsharing.com/sunglasses-chanel-sunglasses-c-2349_3127.html"><strong>wholesale chanel</strong></a>,can be a therapeutic tool for back hip, leg and foot problems,<a href="http://www.b2bsharing.com/nike-air-max-shoes-nike-air-max-2009-shoes-c-3502_3551_3552.html"> <strong>nike air max 2009 </strong></a>,.<strong><a href="http://www.b2bsharing.com/sunglasses-louis-vuitton-sunglasses-c-2349_3128.html">Louis vuitton glasses</a></strong>,<strong><a href="http://www.b2bsharing.com/footwear-gucci-shoes-c-2341_2813.html">wholesale gucci shoes</a></strong>,The <EM>mbt</EM> walking boots body is forced to maintain ,<a href="http://www.b2bsharing.com/footwear-mbt-shoes-c