-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Interoperability vs Homogeneity
,----[ Quote ]
| The leaked updated document of the European
| Interoperability Framework (EIF) is
| generating a lot of noise and for good
| reason. It is taking back what could be
| considered one of the most advanced
| features of the previous document: its
| insistence on the use of open standards.
|
| In particular, the new document contains
| the following puzzling piece instead:
|
| interoperability can also be obtained
| without openness, for example via
| homogeneity of the ICT systems, which
| implies that all partners use, or agree
| to use, the same solution to implement
| a European Public Service.
|
| I donât know about you but, to me this
| statement simply makes no sense. And I
| wonder to whom it could truly make sense.
|
| Indeed, interoperability is defined in
| wikipedia as âa property referring to the
| ability of diverse systems and
| organizations to work togetherâ. That
| seems about right to me.
|
| So, how could âhomogeneityâ possibly
| qualify has a way of obtaining
| âinteroperabilityâ? Arenât âhomogeneityâ
| and âdiverseâ opposing each other?
`----
http://lehors.wordpress.com/2009/11/10/interoperability-vs-homogeneity/
IBM's Bob Sutor
,----[ Quote ]
| In particular, OFE objects to the
| diminished role stated for open standards
| for interoperability. If you are European,
| I recommend you make your voice heard, one
| way or the other.
`----
http://www.sutor.com/newsite/blog-open/?p=4639
Microsoft pulls Windows 7 tool after GPL violation claims
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/11/microsoft-pulls-windows-7-tool-after-gpl-violation-claims.ars?utm_source=microblogging&utm_medium=arstch&utm_term=Main%20Account&utm_campaign=microblogging
Recent:
Protests against proposed redefinition of open standards within the EU
,----[ Quote ]
| An open letter from Free Software
| Foundation Europe (FSFE) president Karsten
| Gerloff to the EU member states complains
| that, "In its current form, the text is a
| threat to the interoperability of European
| eGovernment services, and a recipe to
| maintain and even increase vendor lock-in".
| He continues by stating that the "clear
| definition" of open standards from the
| first version of the EIF has been abandoned
| and that the term openness is being twisted
| to include "proprietary positions". He adds
| that this runs contrary to statements by EU
| competition commissioner Neelie Kroes that
| Brussels "should not rely on one software
| vendor and must not accept closed
| standards," and that anything else would
| damage the European software industry.
`----
http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Protests-against-proposed-redefinition-of-open-standards-within-the-EU-854651.html
IFv2: EC breaks interop, then bows to public protest?
,----[ Quote ]
| This week, Dutch journalist Brenno de
| Winter published a leaked draft for a new
| version of the European Interoperability
| Framework (EIF).
|
| [...]
|
| The reaction to the draft has been very
| strong. FSFE has sent a letter (below) to
| the people in member states of the EU who
| are in charge of eGovernment, telling them
| that this draft is unacceptable, that it
| will hurt the public sector (along with
| European citizens), and discredit the
| European institutions. The FFII has joined
| in with 10 recommendations to improve the
| draft.
|
| [...]
|
| The current text is not a viable successor
| to version 1 of the EIF. Instead of leading
| Europe forward into an interoperable
| future, it will promote vendor lock-in,
| block interoperability of eGovernment
| services, and damage the European software
| economy. If adopted, it will be a testament
| to the power which is exerted outside
| democratic and transparent processes, and
| will give rise to Euro-scepticism.
|
| FSFE appeals to you to urge the European
| Commission to withdraw the current draft,
| in order to avoid replacing the sound and
| and widely accepted EIF version 1 with an
| extremely weak text prepared in an
| intransparent process. At stake are both
| interoperability in the public sector and
| the credibility of European institutions.
`----
http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/?p=285
FFII files Ten Recommendations on leaked EIF 2.0 draft
,----[ Quote ]
| "Microsoft and other larger companies went
| to lobby the European Commission and DG
| Enterprise in order to ask for the removal
| of the open standards definition, in order
| to exclude Free Software with patent
| royalties", explains FFII President
| Benjamin Henrion, who followed the lobby
| debates in Brussels. While some lobbyists
| want to water the European Interoperability
| Framework down, others aim for better
| interoperability enforcement and full
| support for open standards with public ICT
| services.
`----
https://action.ffii.org/eif
EIFv2: EC breaks interop, then bows to public protest?
,----[ Quote ]
| This week, Dutch journalist Brenno de
| Winter published a leaked draft for a new
| version of the European Interoperability
| Framework (EIF).
|
| [...]
|
| The reaction to the draft has been very
| strong. FSFE has sent a letter (below) to
| the people in member states of the EU who
| are in charge of eGovernment, telling them
| that this draft is unacceptable, that it
| will hurt the public sector (along with
| European citizens), and discredit the
| European institutions. The FFII has joined
| in with 10 recommendations to improve the
| draft.
|
| [...]
|
| The current text is not a viable successor
| to version 1 of the EIF. Instead of leading
| Europe forward into an interoperable
| future, it will promote vendor lock-in,
| block interoperability of eGovernment
| services, and damage the European software
| economy. If adopted, it will be a testament
| to the power which is exerted outside
| democratic and transparent processes, and
| will give rise to Euro-scepticism.
|
| FSFE appeals to you to urge the European
| Commission to withdraw the current draft,
| in order to avoid replacing the sound and
| and widely accepted EIF version 1 with an
| extremely weak text prepared in an
| intransparent process. At stake are both
| interoperability in the public sector and
| the credibility of European institutions.
`----
http://blogs.fsfe.org/gerloff/?p=285
FFII files Ten Recommendations on leaked EIF 2.0 draft
,----[ Quote ]
| "Microsoft and other larger companies went
| to lobby the European Commission and DG
| Enterprise in order to ask for the removal
| of the open standards definition, in order
| to exclude Free Software with patent
| royalties", explains FFII President
| Benjamin Henrion, who followed the lobby
| debates in Brussels. While some lobbyists
| want to water the European Interoperability
| Framework down, others aim for better
| interoperability enforcement and full
| support for open standards with public ICT
| services.
`----
https://action.ffii.org/eif
If Not EIF 2.0, Then What?
http://www.computerworlduk.com/community/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2629&blogid=14
EU Wants to Re-define âClosedâ as âNearly Openâ
,----[ Quote ]
| Version 1 came out in 2004, and since then
| battles have raged over how Version 2 would
| address the issue of âopennessâ. 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.
|
| [...]
|
| Got that? âClosedâ 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.
`----
http://www.computerworlduk.com/toolbox/open-source/blogs/index.cfm?entryid=2620&blogid=14
Revision of the EIF and AG
,----[ Quote ]
| In 2006, the European Commission has started the revision of the European
| Interoperability Framework (EIF) and the Architecture Guidelines (AG).
`----
http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7728
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
iEYEARECAAYFAkr7Gg0ACgkQU4xAY3RXLo7T7ACeIn3HQ/GRrZzZLY823vO2p/RZ
7nwAoIJCSkD66jXo1p6LZO/1x/YPGS01
=TBzz
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
|
|
