So, Amazon's getting into the ebook business; that's nice. But:Amazon isn’t supporting the industry’s open standard around eBooks. Instead they are using their own proprietary format from Mobipocket, a company they acquired in 2005
Bad, bad Amazon.
I've always been struck by how little known the company ActiveState is, given that it's worked with many open source languages such as JavaScript, Perl, PHP, Python, Ruby and Tcl. Now it's opening up its multi-platform, multi-language IDE:With the Open Komodo Project, the focus is on dynamic languages and the open web. Open Komodo is developed on top of many open source technologies including Mozilla, Python, and Scintilla. The primary development technologies used include XUL, JavaScript, Python, and C/C++. The Open Komodo platform will be entirely open source and licensed under the same terms as Firefox: Mozilla Public License (MPL), GNU General Public License (GPL), and GNU Lesser Public License (LGPL).
The Open Komodo Project aims to create a full-featured web development tool for client-side web development integrated with Firefox, Mozilla's free, open source web browser, and based on the award-winning Komodo IDE. This new tool, codenamed Komodo Snapdragon, will be developed in collaboration with the open source community.
Sounds good, particularly the integration with Firefox.
Authored by Joseph Smarr, Marc Canter, Robert Scoble, and Michael Arrington
September 4, 2007We publicly assert that all users of the social web are entitled to certain fundamental rights, specifically:
* Ownership of their own personal information, including:
o their own profile data
o the list of people they are connected to
o the activity stream of content they create;
* Control of whether and how such personal information is shared with others; and
* Freedom to grant persistent access to their personal information to trusted external sites.
Sites supporting these rights shall:
* Allow their users to syndicate their own profile data, their friends list, and the data that’s shared with them via the service, using a persistent URL or API token and open data formats;
* Allow their users to syndicate their own stream of activity outside the site;
* Allow their users to link from their profile pages to external identifiers in a public way; and
* Allow their users to discover who else they know is also on their site, using the same external identifiers made available for lookup within the service.
(Via eHub.)
When are these people going to get a clue?Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) president Dan Glickman is today lobbying UK film minister Margaret Hodge, advisers to prime minister Gordon Brown and the UK Film Council to make camcorder recording in cinemas a criminal offence, FT.com reports.
I have no time for idiots who try to record films in cinemas - but they aren't the problem. As Michael Geist noted, when he was rebutting a similar attempt to force stupid laws on Canada, earlier research has shown it's mostly the film industry itself that is to blame:77% of these samples appear to have been leaked by industry insiders. Most of our samples appeared on file sharing networks prior to their official consumer DVD release date. Indeed, of the movies that had been released on DVD as of the time of our study, only 5% first appeared after their DVD release date on a web site that indexes file sharing networks, indicating that consumer DVD copying currently represents a relatively minor factor compared with insider leaks.
Criminalising the use of camcorders will simply be one more stupid piece of legislation, one more thing the police and legal system don't need, and one more paranoid response to a non-problem.
So MPAA, do us all a favour: save your fantasy world-views for the silver screen.
Hm, don't know what to think about this:Over the last few months we've been working to enable Silverlight support on Linux, and today we are announcing a formal partnership with Novell to provide a great Silverlight implementation for Linux. Microsoft will be delivering Silverlight Media Codecs for Linux, and Novell will be building a 100% compatible Silverlight runtime implementation called "Moonlight".
Moonlight will run on all Linux distributions, and support FireFox, Konqueror, and Opera browsers. Moonlight will support both the JavaScript programming model available in Silverlight 1.0, as well as the full .NET programming model we will enable in Silverlight 1.1.
I suppose it depends on how open the specification is - and whether it's just OOXML by any other name....
Anyone any thoughts?
Well, some openness:BioMed Central, the world’s largest publisher of peer-reviewed, open access research journals, is pleased to announce that Microsoft Research has agreed to be the premium sponsor of the BioMed Central Research Awards for 2007. The BioMed Central Research Awards, which began accepting nominations in late July, recognize excellence in research that has been made universally accessible by open access publication in one of the publisher’s 180 journals.
"Microsoft’s External Research group is proud to be a sponsor of the BioMed Central Research Awards and feel it is important to recognize excellence in research," said Lee Dirks, director, scholarly communications, Microsoft Research. "We are very supportive of the open science movement and recognize that open access publication is an important component of overall scholarly communications."
It may only be promoting open science and open access at the moment, but I predict Microsoft will one day love open source just as much. (Via Open Access News.)
Nice little victory here for Larry Lessig and friends in their fight to defend the shrinking public domain in the US:The 10th Circuit decided our appeal in Golan v. Gonzales today. In a unanimous vote, the Court held that the "traditional contours of copyright protection" described in Eldred as the trigger for First Amendment review extend beyond the two "traditional First Amendment safeguards" mentioned by the Court in that case. It thus remanded the case to the District Court to evaluate section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act (“URAA”) under the First Amendment, which removed material from the public domain.
This is a very big victory. The government had argued in this case, and in related cases, that the only First Amendment review of a copyright act possible was if Congress changed either fair use or erased the idea/expression dichotomy. We, by contrast, have argued consistently that in addition to those two, Eldred requires First Amendment review when Congress changes the "traditional contours of copyright protection." In Golan, the issue is a statute that removes work from the public domain. In a related case now on cert to the Supreme Court, Kahle v. Gonzales, the issue is Congress's change from an opt-in system of copyright to an opt-out system of copyright. That too, we have argued, is a change in a "traditional contour of copyright protection." Under the 10th Circuit's rule, it should merit 1st Amendment review as well.
Pebble on the cairn. Good luck with the next one.
Orange has repackaged some of its services for telecommuting workers into a portfolio called "Open Office."
And yet it doesn't think this might be confused with a certain office suite of a similar name:A spokesman for Orange UK said that the telecommunications company's use of the name "Open Office" should not create any confusion because it did not refer to a software package, and the term was not yet a registered trademark in the U.K.
Well, maybe not, but how about this: as a gesture of goodwill, why doesn't Orange start offering links to (the other) OpenOffice.org on its site? It will cost it nothing, avoid confusion, and earn it plenty of brownie points with the free software world. Heck, it could even hook up its Open Office with users' PCs running copies of OpenOffice.org. What's not to like?
This isn't right:The British Standards Institution has sent its response to the International Organization for Standardization on the subject of whether Microsoft Office Open XML should be certified with the ISO, but has refused to say whether it voted "yes," "no" or "abstain."
Well, excuse me: how can we be dealing with open standards here when everything is done behind closed doors? Unless the process itself is completely transparent, there can be no confidence in the outcome.
Beyond the particulars of OOXML, this is something we need to sort out for the future, as truly open standards become increasingly central to computing - and the incentive for diluting them correspondingly greater.
Update: Apparently, to their credit, they voted against. But I'd still like more transparency.
Classic Microsoft press release here on the OOXML decision under the upbeat heading "Strong Global Support for Open XML as It Enters Final Phase of ISO Standards Process":Today the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) released the results of the preliminary ballot to participating National Body members for the ISO/IEC DIS 29500 (Ecma 376 Office Open XML file formats) ratification process. The results show that 51 ISO members, representing 74 percent of all qualified votes, stated their support for ratification of Open XML. Along with their votes, the National Bodies also provided invaluable technical comments designed to improve the specification. Many of the remaining ISO members stated that they will support Open XML after their comments are addressed during the final phase of the process, which is expected to close in March 2008.
Sounds almost like a "yes" - but note: no mention of the crucial "P" votes, and even the 74 percent is insufficient according to ISO rules:Although no date has been formally set, the final tally is likely to take place in March 2008. ISO/IEC requires that at least 75 percent of all "yes" or "no" votes (qualified votes) and at least two-thirds of "P" members that vote "yes" or "no" support ratification of a format in the Fast Track process.
So we'll take that as a "no", then?
More analysis once we get all the details of how people voted, and how many comments there are, which together will show just how much of a "non" it was. One thing is certain: now begins the real work to make sure that the vote in March is fair and not bought.
Here's another billion reasons why DRM'd music downloads will die out - and why copyright law will need to be rewritten:Like millions of other young Chinese, he downloads them for free using Baidu.com (BIDU ), the country's biggest search engine. Baidu makes it so easy—just hit the MP3 tab on the home page, type in the name of the song, and click. What's more, Zhu doesn't believe he and his friends are doing anything wrong. "I think it's a problem with the law, not with us users," he says.
Peter Murray-Rust has been coming out with some cracking posts recently. First, there was the charming story of OUP demanding that he pay $48 to use his own paper, whose copyright he holds, and which is CC-licensed, for teaching purposes.
Now he has a wonderful post contrasting the legally-enshrined right of public access to the wilderness to the lack of a right of public access to academic papers.
Hot off tomorrow's press - the launch of Science, Education and Learning in Freedom (SELF):SELF is an international project aiming to provide a platform for the collaborative sharing and creation of free educational and training materials on Free Software and Open Standards.
Of course this begs the question, What is free education material? To which SELF's answer is:There are few existing definitions on what is Free Documentation, and almost no discussion of what is Free Educational Material, both of which have comparable roles in the SELF project. The most significant contribution to this debate has probably been made by the Open Access movement, in particular the Berlin Declaration but also by the Creative Commons project, which has initiated a debate about various levels of freedom in the field.
Based on their work and the principle of erring on the side of freedom, for the scope of SELF, Free Educational Material and Documentation are defined as follows:
1.
Unlimited use for any purpose
Similar to the first freedom defining Free Software, there must be no limitation on the use of the material. In order to qualify as Free, it must in particular permit use in commercial training activities.
2.
Modification
It must be possible to change the material so it can be translated, improved and kept up-to-date, as well as to enable collaboration and creation of new, combined materials.
3.
Distribution
It must be possible to distribute the materials in original, modified, and combined forms. It must be at the choice of the individual distributor to do this with or without a fee.
This definition should be strong enough as to not exclude SELF from the future Free Educational Material community, regardless of the details and outcome of its constituting definition.
A report suggesting that the Chinese military has hacked into German government computers could have a negative impact on the prospects in Western markets of Chinese equipment vendors Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. and ZTE Corp. (Shenzhen: 000063 - message board; Hong Kong: 0763), believes an analyst at Dresdner Kleinwort .
...
"The ability of Huawei and ZTE to participate in, let alone win, telecom infrastructure tenders in the Western hemisphere may have lessened considerably following last week's shock report," writes Lindberg in a research note issued Monday. "It could trigger a return to national security clearance when it comes to procurement of telecom networks," he adds.
OK, so this may be pure paranoia, not least because it's not clear that the alleged Chinese spyware has anything to do with the Chinese telecom equipment.
But there's a more general principle: if it ain't open, you don't know what's going on, so all this kind of stuff could be going on, unbeknownst to you. Of course, it also applies to Chinese procurement as well, which is one reason why I think open source is bound to win out there, as elsewhere.
After all, if you are a (paranoid) government flunky, do you really want to risk national security (and your post) on that black box? No, I thought not. (Via GigaOm.)
I've been pretty critical of many aspects of the BBC's online activities, not least its dratted Windows-only, DRM'd iPlayer. But in the interests of fairness I think I should point out this very good interview with the man responsible, Ashley Highfield, in the new UK version of PaidContent.
I still don't agree with the man, but he gives reasonable answers to the main questions, which are hard but fair. Kudos, too, to PaidContent for making both the interview recording and transcript available, and releasing the latter under a CC licence. This shows that it, at least, understands the new dynamics of the online content world. Good luck with the launch.
Not hot, but definitely cool. (Via Eddie Bleasdale and his interesting new Trusted Computing Project - no, not that one....)
The need for open access and open data in science seems obvious enough - even enough some persist in denying it. But as science becomes increasingly digital, with ever-greater dependence on computers and software, there is another aspect, as Nature Methods has recognised (but some months back - I've only just caught this):The minimum level of disclosure that Nature Methods requires depends on how central the software is to the paper. If a software program is the focus of the report, we expect the programming code to be made available. Without the code, the software—and thus the paper—would become a black box of little use to the scientific community. In many papers, however, the software is only an ancillary part of the method, and the focus is on the methodological approach or an insight gained from it.
In these cases, releasing the code may not be a requirement for publication, but such custom-developed software will often be as important for the replication of the procedure as plasmids or mutant cell lines. We therefore insist that software or algorithms be made available to readers in a usable form. The guiding principle is that enough information must be provided so that users can reproduce the procedure and use the method in their own research at reasonable cost—both monetary and in terms of labor.
However, the editorial rightly points out that releasing the code as open source has huge advantages:Some authors who favor the highest degree of transparency and sharing for their software elect to develop their programs in an open-source environment. By doing so, the authors not only provide accessibility and transparency, they also allow the community to build upon their own developments and make continuous improvements to the tool. Open-source software has become extremely popular in various fields. In microscopy, for example, image analysis software tends to be modular, and users benefit from the flexibility of being able to replace some modules with others in an open-source framework. Despite the tremendous added value of open source, other authors prefer to release a compiled version of their program, so as to protect commercial interests tied to sophisticated custom-designed software. This option is not optimal because it turns the program into a black box, but it may be acceptable if the operations performed by the software are sufficiently clear.
Although it is probably appropriate that Nature Methods, given its focus, should be the first to articulate this issue, it is important to appreciate that its logic applies to all scientific publishing where computers are involved. Without open source, there can be no open science - the only kind that is worthy of the name. (Belatedly via Flags and Lollipops.)
There seems to be some magic about free software: whenever a certain class of (intelligent) lawyer comes into contact with it, it redeems them, and turns them into enlightened benefactors. Eben Moglen is the paradigmatic case, but here's another: Mark Radcliffe. You don't have to take my word - this is what Matt has to say:If it has to do with open source and it affects your rights therein, Mark was probably at the fulcrum.
I predict we will get plenty more like this:The Swedish Institute of Standards (SIS) has invalidated the vote that controversially approved the OOXML standard at a meeting this week.
The organisation issued a statement saying that it had seen evidence suggesting one of the participants in the workgroup had broken the rules and voted with more than one vote. This procedural irregularity, and not any concerns over the merit of the OOMXL proposal, is the only reason behind the decision, the group said.
Nice one.
I've written a lot here and elsewhere about Microsoft's faux-open file format OOXML. I've also noted that there is an unhealthily close relationship between the BBC and Microsoft over the former's iPlayer and its chosen file formats. Now it seems that this kind of chummy lock-in is happening elsewhere, at the UK's National Archives and beyond.
The National Archive story is not new, but dates back to July of this year, when I first noted it. Here's what a Microsoftie said:The announcement we just made with the National Archives is trying to address the issue of digital conservation head-on. With billions of documents in the world wrapped up in proprietary document formats (from Microsoft and many many other vendors) we felt it was important to focus on how we can help the body in the UK which has the biggest headache and do what we can to assist them in:
* Migrating documents to the latest Office format (Open XML) via our document conversion tools to ensure they can be accessed by the public in the future
Since then, people have started taking notice, to the extent that there is now an e-petition all us Brits can sign asking that nice Mr Brown to use ODF instead of OOXML for the National Archives (but don't hold your breath.)
However, I've just noticed that the Microsoftie quoted above mentions this little factette:Well, we've actually been working with The British Library and The National Archive for about 18 months now on digital preservation with some other European organisations as members of an EU project called Planets.
And as far as the latter is concerned:
The Planets consortium brings together the unique experience required to research, develop, deliver and productise practical digital preservation solutions. Coordinated by the British Library
The British Library, you may recall, is also in cahoots with Microsoft when it comes to locking up our digital heritage. Some now we have the prospect of the OOXML cancer spreading to other institutions, and large chunks of European culture being locked up in proprietary formats.
This is getting serious. It's obviously time to call in the heavy mob: the Open Source Consortium....
I hadn't really taken on board this insidious bit of weasel-wordery before, but that's just my negligence:
The new NWZ-A810 and NWZ-S610 series will have a QVGA screen for video playback...more importantly, the players support secure Windows Media Audio (WMA), as well as non-secure AAC and MP3 music formats
What? You mean MP3 isn't secure - that somebody might break into my PC if I foolishly adopt that format? Who would have guessed?
Oh, I see: that's "secure" as in "securely manacled to the wall"; this is not "secure" WMA, it's DRM'd WMA. C'mon Rafat, you can do better than this: PaidContent readers look to you to be told things as they really are in the content world, not to be fed marketing disinformation like this.
A proposal to set up a Pan-African Intellectual Property Organisation (PAIPO) though still in its infancy already faces opposition and concern, including from those who fear that Africa is signing up to stricter IP protection levels than the continent is ready for, sources say.
Africa needs more brutal intellectual monopolies like it needs more malaria - in fact the former would probably increase the latter, as generic drugs become more expensive or are eliminated etc.
One of the things I admire about Richard Stallman is the clarity of his thinking. So I was interested to come across these thoughts on art/non-functional works, and why the imperatives for freedom are different here compared to software, say:If you use something to do jobs in your life, you must be free to change it today, and then distribute your changed version today in case others need what you need.
Art contributes something different to society. You appreciate it. Modifying art can be a further contribution to art, but it is not crucial to be able to do that today. If you had to wait 10 years for the copyright to expire, that would be ok.
Interesting, too, the emphasis on sharing:I don't think that non-functional works must be free. It is enough for them to be sharable.
Posts
All Comments
To the extent possible under law,
glyn moody
has waived all copyright and related or neighbouring rights to
this work.
This work is published from:
United Kingdom.
