Open source software had its origins in the free software movement. By now, most open source users understand that free refers to freedom, not to price. The new lesson is that the freedom belongs to the software, not to users. You are not free to do whatever you want with the open source software and may find yourself in a legal fight if what you do restricts the freedom of the software. (ed. emphasis mine).

Okay, this isn’t strictly true as it’s really referring to Free Software (GPL) rather than Open Source which includes BSD and MIT licenses which are less restrictive. After all you can pretty much do what you want with BSD and MIT licensed software including taking it proprietary.

Of course you’ve never been able to do what you like with Free Software. The GPL is quite clear on the four freedoms that are conveyed with GPL software. Then he writes this:

Changes in the GPL impose other limits on the ability to leverage a proprietary position when open source is involved. Under the new version of the GPL, those limits even extend to hardware that companies may provide to run open source software by prohibiting use of open source software on hardware that blocks execution of modified software.

Again, this is largely the point of the GPL. It isn’t there to help proprietary software companies build software. It’s there to enable a free software ecosystem. Then we have:

The litigation, however, is significant because it pounds home the need to understand the incompatibilities between open source software and many business models. Though settlements in litigation are private, it is likely that the targets of this round of litigation had to make payments and waive their proprietary rights by applying open source terms to their software. Whatever advantage these companies had from not providing the source code initially is likely more than wiped away.

So what. They got a free leg up in their business using Free Software and then don’t want to abide by the license when they seek to distribute that for profit! Funny, I don’t feel the slightest bit sorry for them. Finally we get:

With incompatibilities increasing through changes in licensing practice, for-profit companies now have fair warning that they may face litigation on accusations of restricting software freedom. In future litigation brought by open source advocates, the comfortable understanding in the broader technical community about what it means to keep proprietary software and open source software separate may not apply.

What does this really mean? Businesses need to be concerned that they actually follow the licenses of the software that they decide to use?

I guess what annoys, and perplexes, me is the core assumption that GPL (and most Open Source) software is there for anybody to take and then make money off it. Having to obey its license is annoying because it might reduce the ability of the business to make it a scarce resource and thus more valuable from a monetary rather than utility sense. However, it isn’t (and never has been) possible to just lift code from a proprietary license and use it as one sees fit.

Thus I see double standards; just because Free Software has the free word in it, businesses shouldn’t think they can just use it as they see fit without obeying the license. Would they do this with proprietary software? If found out, I’m sure they would expect to be sued for damages and other civil restraints possible for breaking a contract.

It boils down to this: don’t use the code if you don’t want to obey the license; write your own code if you want to use it as you see fit.

What’s interesting is the reaction to it. John Pugh MP has already raised questions, the UKUUG is seeking legal advice of the matter and numerous people are asking “just what is going on”.

One thing seems clear though; in one stroke the BSI devalued itself, devalued the standards process and made themselves a bit less relevant in an open standards world. It also raises questions about how they make decisions. With corporate interests controlling how and what the BSI approves, can we trust any new or existing standards coming out of the BSI? They have questions to answer and the silence is deafening.

How many spreadsheet formats does Microsoft use internally for running their business on? Why should governments be denied choice in the same field that Microsoft itself exerts its right to chose?

Then there’s the specification itself. 6,000 pages at the first round, growing to something like 8,000 after the BRM. The sheer number of technical errors, failure to incorporate other ISO standards in the appropriate places, and downright contradictions should have ruled out the specification from becoming a standard. That Microsoft shoved this standard into the ISO Fast Track by getting ECMA to rubber stamp it shows a complete disregard for the standards process. Technical committees the world over agreed that the standard shouldn’t have been fast tracked.

Then there is the fact that it probably isn’t possible to implement OOXML. Microsoft Office 2007 doesn’t implement it contrary to what the popular IT press reports, and it’s unlikely to be implemented in Office 2008 (at least on Macs). So even Microsoft doesn’t think so.

So what it the point of this “standard”? Microsoft has expended vast amounts of time, and money, on countless countries’ technical review committees on a standard that it won’t implement. But perhaps it reveals the true purpose of why it did it. Microsoft certainly doesn’t want standards that other organisations can implement as it damages Microsoft’s potential for lock-in. By changing document formats with every version of Office, it can essentially dictate the upgrade cycle to the market and guarantee it’s office monopoly and revenue stream. By producing and getting standardised a fundamentally broken format it again gets to set the agenda for the document format. If we let them.

One oddity is that Microsoft repeats this mantra of choice. They say that customers should have a choice of document formats, and by standardising DIS 29500 (OOXML) they are simply providing customers with a choice. It seems reasonable on the face of it; shouldn’t customers have a choice of document standards?

One way to look at that question is to ask; shouldn’t there be a choice in electrical plug sockets? Shouldn’t there be a choice in the way the pedals are laid out in a car?

Each of these examples provides a clue to whether document formats should come in may different formats for the same type of document. There are many different appliances that plug into electrical sockets and there are a great variety of different cars.  In each case the customer benefits from having a single standard, but has the choice from many implementations of the standard. This is a good thing; multiple pedal layouts on cars would be bad from a safety and cost perspective. Manufacturers would have to support multiple standards so that customers would get the style they need; and certain cars would only come in one standard which would prevent some customers from being able to drive those models.

Multiple implementations of a single document standard are good for the customer. Plenty of choice, the ability to match features to price and the sure knowledge that the document will always be available. But it’s bad for Microsoft as it bypasses their lock-in.

Microsoft repeats that customers should have a choice and equivocates choice in standards with choice in products.  I want a single standard and multiple implementations to choose from. Then our documents can be used by everyone regardless of their product.

This has driven me to write about it. I think it is important for interested parties to take a stand, make a noise, and generally create a fuss about what should be open standards. This is the first of a series of posts where I state my case based on my own reading an understanding of the situation. But I will be boycotting all of the OOXML-like file formats, the .docx format and it’s stable-mates.

Why do I want an open standard?

Open, non discriminatory, standards are essential in ensuring that the documents we, and our governments, produce are actually readable and usable beyond the application that was used to create it. There’s no point in having “supa-dupa” document format “X” when you can’t even open it in 20 years time. By having a truly open standard with multiple applications being able to read and write the format, particularly if one of them is free software or open source, we can guarantee that we will always be able to read that standard.

However, if we continue to use proprietary, monopoly supplied document formats then we run the risk of not being able to access those documents in years to come. We run the risk of permanently losing these documents; this might not be too bad if it is just a letter to your Grandmother, but it is a disaster if it is a contract, historical paper, scientific research or other important documents.

My next post will deal with what’s actually wrong with the MS OOXML ‘standard’.

Her blueprint for success includes:

1. The company’s products are unique, ingenious and inovative.
2. The company’s founder (or other key person) has wide experience and an extensive contact network from previous work in similar industries – does LinkedIn count I wonder.
3. The company has strong relationships with key personnel from large, successful organisations.
4. The company has good relationships with influential figures in the industry.
5. All the personnel in the company are very involved and eager for it to success.

I guess what’s interesting to me is that all (or at least) most of these characteristics are important for any company to be successful in the ‘global’ economy.