UK Gov't Says Open Standards Must Be Royalty Free

[Glen Newton]

[Originally from /.]

"Procurement Policy Note – Use of Open Standards when specifying ICT
requirements." -
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/PPN%203_11%20Open%20Standards.pdf

>From the document:
"4. Government assets should be interoperable and open for re-use in
order to maximise return on investment, avoid technological lock-in,
reduce operational risk in ICT projects and provide responsive
services for citizens and businesses.
5. For this reason, Government departments should ensure that they
include open standards in their ICT procurement specifications unless
there are clear business reasons why this is inappropriate.
6. Government defines “open standards” as standards which:
 • result from and are maintained through an open, independent process;
 • are approved by a recognised specification or standardisation
organisation, for example W3C or ISO or equivalent. (N.B. The
specification/standardisation must be compliant with Regulation 9 of
the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. This regulation makes it clear
that technical specifications/standards cannot simply be national
standards but must also include/recognise European standards);
 • are thoroughly documented and publicly available at zero or low cost;
 • have intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty
free basis; and
 • as a whole can be implemented and shared under different
development approaches and on a number of platforms."

"Royalty-free"[1] or RF in contrast to "Reasonable and
non-discriminatory"[2] or RAND (or FRAND in Europe; F == 'Fair'). When
I was the W3C rep for the NRC in the early 2000s there was a huge
battle at the W3C about RF vs RAND with respect to W3C patent
policy[3]. Microsoft and other players were pushing RAND. Fortunately
- after long and raucous 'debate' - we prevailed and RF was adopted:
"In contrast to the situation for GSM, the World Wide Web Consortium
considered standardising on RAND principles, but, after considerable
resistance from many different sources, abandoned this strategy in
order to aim for royalty free licensing." -- from [1]

Wow! This is incredible news. This should be propagated throughout GoC
IT policy circles. And hopefully the UK will also push this up to the
EU level, which would make it difficult for Canadian policy makers to
ignore ("best practices" anyone?). And such a simple and plain
speaking policy document (2 pages) too!

from slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/27/0218241/UK-Govt-Says-Open-Standards-Must-Be-Royalty-Free
An anonymous reader writes "The H reports on an interesting
development in the United Kingdom's procurement policy. From the
article: 'New procurement guidance from the UK government has defined
open standards as having "intellectual property made irrevocably
available on a royalty free basis." The document, which has been
published by the Cabinet Office, applies to all government departments
and says that, when purchasing software, technology infrastructure,
security or other goods and services, departments should "wherever
possible deploy open standards."'"

from h-online: http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/UK-Government-defines-open-standards-as-royalty-free-1197607.html
"The guidance goes on to further define open standards as ones which
result from an open, independent process and that are approved by a
recognised standardisation organisation (the W3C and ISO are given as
examples). The standards themselves must be thoroughly documented and
publicly available at zero or low cost and have intellectual property
"made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis". It is also
required that they can be shared and implemented across a number of
platforms and using different development approaches."

See also:  Pat Treacy & Sophie Lawrance. 2008. 'FRANDly fire: are
industry standards doing more harm than good?'   Journal of
Intellectual Property Law & Practice  3:1:22-29.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpm212

-Glen

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty-free
[2]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
[3]http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/
--

-

[Glen Newton]

OK, reality has returned.  :-)

"Lobbyists Attack UK Open Standards Policy"
http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/222204/Lobbyists-Attack-UK-Open-Standards-Policy

"The Business Software Alliance, a lobbying organisation representing
the likes of Microsoft, Adobe and Apple, has laid into the UK's
recently-adopted policy of mandating the use of open standards
wherever possible in government IT systems.The policy describes open
standards as being "publicly available at zero or low cost" and having
"intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty-free
basis" The BSA said this would "inadvertently reduce choice [and]
hinder innovation", and even went so far as to claim open standards
would lead to higher e-government costs, but open-source advocates say
the policy reflects how much the European Interoperability Framework
is weighted in favour of the proprietary software companies."

-Glen

On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Joseph Potvin <[hidden email]> wrote:

> RE: "Wow! This is incredible news. This should be propagated throughout GoC
> IT policy circles. "
>
> Glen, Policy ≠ Practice  The UK government might simply have said:
>
> "The Government reiterates the existing WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers
> to Trade, and the existing WTO Agreement on Government Procurement."
>
> Their "new" policy has already been the law for a long time.
> http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jco0111l.jpg
>
> I don't want to be a party pooper, so perhaps we could organize to celebrate
> the 17th Anniversary of the ratification of these legal protections in 1995,
> considering that 17 is the least random number according to
> http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/is_17_the_most_random_number.php
>
> joseph
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> [Originally from /.]
>>
>> "Procurement Policy Note – Use of Open Standards when specifying ICT
>> requirements." -
>>
>> http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/PPN%203_11%20Open%20Standards.pdf
>>
>> From the document:
>> "4. Government assets should be interoperable and open for re-use in
>> order to maximise return on investment, avoid technological lock-in,
>> reduce operational risk in ICT projects and provide responsive
>> services for citizens and businesses.
>> 5. For this reason, Government departments should ensure that they
>> include open standards in their ICT procurement specifications unless
>> there are clear business reasons why this is inappropriate.
>> 6. Government defines “open standards” as standards which:
>>  • result from and are maintained through an open, independent process;
>>  • are approved by a recognised specification or standardisation
>> organisation, for example W3C or ISO or equivalent. (N.B. The
>> specification/standardisation must be compliant with Regulation 9 of
>> the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. This regulation makes it clear
>> that technical specifications/standards cannot simply be national
>> standards but must also include/recognise European standards);
>>  • are thoroughly documented and publicly available at zero or low cost;
>>  • have intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty
>> free basis; and
>>  • as a whole can be implemented and shared under different
>> development approaches and on a number of platforms."
>>
>> "Royalty-free"[1] or RF in contrast to "Reasonable and
>> non-discriminatory"[2] or RAND (or FRAND in Europe; F == 'Fair'). When
>> I was the W3C rep for the NRC in the early 2000s there was a huge
>> battle at the W3C about RF vs RAND with respect to W3C patent
>> policy[3]. Microsoft and other players were pushing RAND. Fortunately
>> - after long and raucous 'debate' - we prevailed and RF was adopted:
>> "In contrast to the situation for GSM, the World Wide Web Consortium
>> considered standardising on RAND principles, but, after considerable
>> resistance from many different sources, abandoned this strategy in
>> order to aim for royalty free licensing." -- from [1]
>>
>> Wow! This is incredible news. This should be propagated throughout GoC
>> IT policy circles. And hopefully the UK will also push this up to the
>> EU level, which would make it difficult for Canadian policy makers to
>> ignore ("best practices" anyone?). And such a simple and plain
>> speaking policy document (2 pages) too!
>>
>> from slashdot:
>> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/27/0218241/UK-Govt-Says-Open-Standards-Must-Be-Royalty-Free
>> An anonymous reader writes "The H reports on an interesting
>> development in the United Kingdom's procurement policy. From the
>> article: 'New procurement guidance from the UK government has defined
>> open standards as having "intellectual property made irrevocably
>> available on a royalty free basis." The document, which has been
>> published by the Cabinet Office, applies to all government departments
>> and says that, when purchasing software, technology infrastructure,
>> security or other goods and services, departments should "wherever
>> possible deploy open standards."'"
>>
>> from h-online:
>> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/UK-Government-defines-open-standards-as-royalty-free-1197607.html
>> "The guidance goes on to further define open standards as ones which
>> result from an open, independent process and that are approved by a
>> recognised standardisation organisation (the W3C and ISO are given as
>> examples). The standards themselves must be thoroughly documented and
>> publicly available at zero or low cost and have intellectual property
>> "made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis". It is also
>> required that they can be shared and implemented across a number of
>> platforms and using different development approaches."
>>
>> See also:  Pat Treacy & Sophie Lawrance. 2008. 'FRANDly fire: are
>> industry standards doing more harm than good?'   Journal of
>> Intellectual Property Law & Practice  3:1:22-29.
>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpm212
>>
>> -Glen
>>
>> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty-free
>>
>> [2]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
>> [3]http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/
>> --
>>
>> -
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Ottawa-gosling mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> http://list.goslingcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/ottawa-gosling
>
>

--

-

[James McKinney]

BSA! BSA! Some fairly mild criticism of the organization on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Software_Alliance

On Tue, Mar 1, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote:

> OK, reality has returned.  :-)
>
> "Lobbyists Attack UK Open Standards Policy"
> http://apple.slashdot.org/story/11/03/01/222204/Lobbyists-Attack-UK-Open-Standards-Policy
>
> "The Business Software Alliance, a lobbying organisation representing
> the likes of Microsoft, Adobe and Apple, has laid into the UK's
> recently-adopted policy of mandating the use of open standards
> wherever possible in government IT systems.The policy describes open
> standards as being "publicly available at zero or low cost" and having
> "intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty-free
> basis" The BSA said this would "inadvertently reduce choice [and]
> hinder innovation", and even went so far as to claim open standards
> would lead to higher e-government costs, but open-source advocates say
> the policy reflects how much the European Interoperability Framework
> is weighted in favour of the proprietary software companies."
>
> -Glen
>
> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 1:43 PM, Joseph Potvin <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> RE: "Wow! This is incredible news. This should be propagated throughout GoC
>> IT policy circles. "
>>
>> Glen, Policy ≠ Practice  The UK government might simply have said:
>>
>> "The Government reiterates the existing WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers
>> to Trade, and the existing WTO Agreement on Government Procurement."
>>
>> Their "new" policy has already been the law for a long time.
>> http://www.cartoonstock.com/lowres/jco0111l.jpg
>>
>> I don't want to be a party pooper, so perhaps we could organize to celebrate
>> the 17th Anniversary of the ratification of these legal protections in 1995,
>> considering that 17 is the least random number according to
>> http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2007/02/is_17_the_most_random_number.php
>>
>> joseph
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2011 at 10:52 AM, Glen Newton <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>>
>>> [Originally from /.]
>>>
>>> "Procurement Policy Note – Use of Open Standards when specifying ICT
>>> requirements." -
>>>
>>> http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/sites/default/files/resources/PPN%203_11%20Open%20Standards.pdf
>>>
>>> From the document:
>>> "4. Government assets should be interoperable and open for re-use in
>>> order to maximise return on investment, avoid technological lock-in,
>>> reduce operational risk in ICT projects and provide responsive
>>> services for citizens and businesses.
>>> 5. For this reason, Government departments should ensure that they
>>> include open standards in their ICT procurement specifications unless
>>> there are clear business reasons why this is inappropriate.
>>> 6. Government defines “open standards” as standards which:
>>>  • result from and are maintained through an open, independent process;
>>>  • are approved by a recognised specification or standardisation
>>> organisation, for example W3C or ISO or equivalent. (N.B. The
>>> specification/standardisation must be compliant with Regulation 9 of
>>> the Public Contracts Regulations 2006. This regulation makes it clear
>>> that technical specifications/standards cannot simply be national
>>> standards but must also include/recognise European standards);
>>>  • are thoroughly documented and publicly available at zero or low cost;
>>>  • have intellectual property made irrevocably available on a royalty
>>> free basis; and
>>>  • as a whole can be implemented and shared under different
>>> development approaches and on a number of platforms."
>>>
>>> "Royalty-free"[1] or RF in contrast to "Reasonable and
>>> non-discriminatory"[2] or RAND (or FRAND in Europe; F == 'Fair'). When
>>> I was the W3C rep for the NRC in the early 2000s there was a huge
>>> battle at the W3C about RF vs RAND with respect to W3C patent
>>> policy[3]. Microsoft and other players were pushing RAND. Fortunately
>>> - after long and raucous 'debate' - we prevailed and RF was adopted:
>>> "In contrast to the situation for GSM, the World Wide Web Consortium
>>> considered standardising on RAND principles, but, after considerable
>>> resistance from many different sources, abandoned this strategy in
>>> order to aim for royalty free licensing." -- from [1]
>>>
>>> Wow! This is incredible news. This should be propagated throughout GoC
>>> IT policy circles. And hopefully the UK will also push this up to the
>>> EU level, which would make it difficult for Canadian policy makers to
>>> ignore ("best practices" anyone?). And such a simple and plain
>>> speaking policy document (2 pages) too!
>>>
>>> from slashdot:
>>> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/02/27/0218241/UK-Govt-Says-Open-Standards-Must-Be-Royalty-Free
>>> An anonymous reader writes "The H reports on an interesting
>>> development in the United Kingdom's procurement policy. From the
>>> article: 'New procurement guidance from the UK government has defined
>>> open standards as having "intellectual property made irrevocably
>>> available on a royalty free basis." The document, which has been
>>> published by the Cabinet Office, applies to all government departments
>>> and says that, when purchasing software, technology infrastructure,
>>> security or other goods and services, departments should "wherever
>>> possible deploy open standards."'"
>>>
>>> from h-online:
>>> http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/UK-Government-defines-open-standards-as-royalty-free-1197607.html
>>> "The guidance goes on to further define open standards as ones which
>>> result from an open, independent process and that are approved by a
>>> recognised standardisation organisation (the W3C and ISO are given as
>>> examples). The standards themselves must be thoroughly documented and
>>> publicly available at zero or low cost and have intellectual property
>>> "made irrevocably available on a royalty free basis". It is also
>>> required that they can be shared and implemented across a number of
>>> platforms and using different development approaches."
>>>
>>> See also:  Pat Treacy & Sophie Lawrance. 2008. 'FRANDly fire: are
>>> industry standards doing more harm than good?'   Journal of
>>> Intellectual Property Law & Practice  3:1:22-29.
>>> http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpm212
>>>
>>> -Glen
>>>
>>> [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royalty-free
>>>
>>> [2]https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing
>>> [3]http://www.w3.org/2004/pp/
>>> --
>>>
>>> -
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Ottawa-gosling mailing list
>>> [hidden email]
>>> http://list.goslingcommunity.org/mailman/listinfo/ottawa-gosling
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> -
> _______________________________________________
> CivicAccess-discuss mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://lists.pwd.ca/mailman/listinfo/civicaccess-discuss