Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page| Weekly edition | Kernel | Security | Distributions | Search |
| Archives | Calendar | Subscribe | Write for LWN | LWN.net FAQ |
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Digistan will be presenting The Hague Declaration on May 21, 2008, to encourage governments to take open standards seriously. Take a look at the declaration and add your signature if you agree.
(Log in to post comments)
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 16, 2008 20:46 UTC (Fri) by dberkholz (subscriber, #23346) [Link]
Sounds like a country in the former USSR ... was that the intent?
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 16, 2008 20:54 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link]
Not to my knowledge :-).
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 16, 2008 21:14 UTC (Fri) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link]
"-stan" means "land of" in several central Asian languages, including Urdu and Persian. So it's "digital land".
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 16, 2008 20:59 UTC (Fri) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link]
Since there are some sham definitions of "open standard", Digitan has published a specific definition, and I think it's remarkably good: http://www.digistan.org/open-standard:definition What's especially enlightening is their rationale for it: http://www.digistan.org/text:rationale
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 16, 2008 22:09 UTC (Fri) by jordanb (subscriber, #45668) [Link]
I guess a teeny tiny font on your website is now a standard...
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 16, 2008 23:03 UTC (Fri) by rgmoore (subscriber, #75) [Link]
They make one comment that I strongly disagree with:We would argue that copy-left licenses are most appropriate for reference implementations.
The whole point of a reference implementation is that it should be available for anyone trying to implement the standard. Copyleft explicitly fails in that goal; it's available only to copylefted implementations. Reference implementations should use a permissive license that lets any implementer- copyleft, permissively licensed, or proprietary- use it. Otherwise the standardization is no longer open; it's biased in favor of one kind of software.
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 16, 2008 23:25 UTC (Fri) by pieterh (guest, #52123) [Link]
Thanks for making this point. Digistan has no agenda to promote any particular software development methodology or market model. I've clarified the analysis but not changed the basic statement. The reason for preferring copyleft reference implementations is not to favor a particular software development model but rather to protect the standard from capture by silent extension. It is harder for vendors to take a reference implementation, modify it to break compatibility with competitors' products and then package it as closed source. We've seen such behavior quite frequently, it would be less common with copyleft reference implementations.
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 16, 2008 23:45 UTC (Fri) by martinfick (subscriber, #4455) [Link]
Of course, the real problem for openness with a copyleft implementation is that it is likely to be incompatible with even other free/libre copyleft implementations. Perhaps this is not something you want for a standard?
Copyleft reference implementation
Posted May 17, 2008 0:33 UTC (Sat) by rgmoore (subscriber, #75) [Link]
The reason for preferring copyleft reference implementations is not to favor a particular software development model but rather to protect the standard from capture by silent extension. It is harder for vendors to take a reference implementation, modify it to break compatibility with competitors' products and then package it as closed source.
I think that you're missing the point. It's only harder for them to break compatibility if they choose to use the copyleft licensed reference implementation. If they re-implement the standard rather than using the reference version, they're still free to extend it without sharing their work. And proprietary vendors will want to do exactly that because they want to avoid possible license conflicts with the rest of their software. All that making a copylefted reference implementation will accomplish is to make life miserable for any Free Software implementation that uses an incompatible license.
Copyleft reference implementation
Posted May 17, 2008 5:42 UTC (Sat) by cannedfish (guest, #49561) [Link]
LGPL is copyleft too.
Copyleft reference implementation
Posted May 17, 2008 22:06 UTC (Sat) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]
With LGPL: If you change the implementation (and distribute it) you have to distribute the modified implementation as well.
Copyleft reference implementation
Posted May 18, 2008 10:58 UTC (Sun) by cannedfish (guest, #49561) [Link]
Correct. I was commenting on said issue of license incompatibilities with free software though...
Copyleft reference implementation
Posted May 19, 2008 6:48 UTC (Mon) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
It also have the flip side of limiting licensing diversification, which is a bad thing on most counts. The GPL/LGPL, by the sake of being the first (or the first that mattered) and the most popular copyleft license then that means that end users expect compatibility with it. This creates a ad-hoc standard... as long as everything stays compatible with the GPL then that means the GPL is always going to be the 'least free' of the popular free software licenses. I work in a place were I have to go through authorization to include all software in the end product. If a distribution had a dozens of semi-incompatible licenses it would be a nearly impossible task to get the approval to use Linux. Maybe right now it would be 'ok', but the way things are heading it's only getting worse, more expensive, and more difficult. (yeah! government! (that's sarcasm)) The legal overhead would be more expensive then just purchasing some proprietary product from a different vendor. Believe me, the only people that care about having different sorts of licenses are developers. Nobody else cares... well that's not accurate.. everybody else cares (although they'd rather NOT care) and they simply don't want to deal with it. GPL is bad enough, we don't need more of the same. Don't get me wrong. I think the GPL is the key to making free software a competitive system in today's climate (and thus is wonderful).. but having another copyleft license that is not compatible with GPL is only going to hurt except for maybe very specific cases. In other words GPL is a necessary evil and that sort of thing should be kept to a minimum.
Customer choice?
Posted May 17, 2008 14:12 UTC (Sat) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]
I cannot help it: the part about "customer choice" doesn't sound right to me. And yet the declarations sounds fine; I cannot put my finger on it. But I'm sure that "customer choice" can be subverted by Microsoft and similar organizations, while an equivalent appeal to freedom cannot.
Customer choice?
Posted May 18, 2008 0:26 UTC (Sun) by fritsd (subscriber, #43411) [Link]
Well, if even dead "customers" can be represented by the A.T.L organisation, I'm sure you're right.
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 18, 2008 22:43 UTC (Sun) by mattmelton (subscriber, #34842) [Link]
IANALY, but I found it weak. It creates so few obligations as to make it vague and thus unenforceable. All those 'considerings' do nothing more than to identify the position of the writer, not the signature member. The language used should be altered, and opinions set out as either directly applicable obligations, or as guidance/preamble only. It should be made into a workable Treaty. Borrowing from van Gend en Loos, which allows direct effect of Treaty articles and Directives in the EU - Provisions should be 1. clear and unambiguous - they have a clear obligation, open to no other interpretation 2. unconditional - do not require judicial (or otherwise) discretion 3. intended to be operational in members states without further implementation - no reliance on any governing body A feel-happy document won't obligate people to change. You want to get something in to the government and legislature. Most countries have ministerial codes that make their duties and obligations compulsory. Unfortunately ministers will only be interested in a feel happy declaration they're not enforceable (like this is), and not something that might later become powerful and effective like the ECHR did (the ECHR was written to obligate change). Here's an idea. Stop and about turn before the press gets a hold of a great stunt. Have talented writers draw up a "Digital Standards Treaty" and introduce it as a domestic bill to as many countries as you can find drafters, all on the same day. The media loves world wide activism that encompasses the internet and a "wide" audience - and the media also loves the people getting the change to legislate. Matt
The Digital Standards Organization - The Hague Declaration
Posted May 20, 2008 12:07 UTC (Tue) by pieterh (guest, #52123) [Link]
Matt, thanks for your comments. The language is not meant to be statutory, it is a call to action and above all an explanation to activists on how to use constitutional rights to frame the demand for free and open standards to their governments.