Australia abstains on OOXML

Australia's NO vote was pivotal, so in effect the abstain is likely to win the day for OOXML.
It does seem a lot of work to go to in order to have no opinion.

As I understand it many committee members were quietly hopeful of a No vote. Australia is not the only nation where people have invested a lot of time and expressed their perspectives thoroughly and carefully through this process only to find that the final vote bears no connection to their work.

There have certainly been no shortage of concerns, published openly, expressed to Standards Australia, or to ISO directly.

Sadly given the other irregularities in the process I am not surprised about Australia's abstension. It has been an amazing process to watch.

So the abstension is likely to mean a win. That brings Australia a pre-stamped commitment to a format which:
* needs yet to be completely written and implemented,
* in its current and intended state conflicts with other standards and
* is only drafted in terms of its relationship with closed Microsoft formats
* is not considered legally safe for interoperability work.

Quoting Jan Wildeboer Red Hat EMEA Evangelist Open Source Affairs

"OOXML was created solely for use in Microsoft applications. It is not currently suitable as an international standard, because it cannot be completely implemented by anyone without access to inside information. Although it is more than 6,000 pages long, it contains various references to things that are defined only in Microsoft's software, not in the specification itself."

============================

Needless to say the ISO stamp does not change any of the realities described below, and so the inability to express the fact that the proposal is broken through the ISO process will likely result in a change in what the ISO brand means rather than resulting in an acceptance of the proposal as something which can be relied upon as a useful tool in making interoperable data.
It will be interesting to see where nations will look to in the future in order to find whether a format can effectively serve a public function without causing vendor lockin and anti-trust concerns.

From: Peter Drummond in an Open Letter to ISO.
To: ua.gro.sdradnats|tcestni#ua.gro.sdradnats|tcestni
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 08:47:55 +1000
Subject: OOXML ISO proposal

Dear ISO Standards Committee -

As Australia's IUPAP representative for computational physics, and Fellow of the Australian Academy of Science, I would like to make the strongest possible objection to the proposal that the OOXML specification be adopted by the ISO. Australia should vote to reject this proposal.

This proposal is along the lines that ‘We wish to propose an alternative standard for measurement called the Microsoft metre, which equals 3.14159 standard metres, except on leap years, when it equals 2.71828 standard metres’. Such a ridiculous proposal is unacceptable.

The simple point here is that there is an existing international standard called the ODF, just as we have an existing international standard for length (the meter), time (the second) and weight (the kilogram). The entire point of having a standard is the uniqueness of the standard!

To have two completely incompatible standards is not necessary, and would lead to the destruction of the standardization process. In the long run, this is less efficient, increases costs, and greatly reduces the chances of archival documents being readable in the distant future.

If a corporation or individual wishes to make technical improvements to a standard like ODF, there are channels and procedures for this. It is totally counterproductive and foolish to try and create a second incompatible standard, purely to afford competitive advantages to one company.

Finally, I haven't even mentioned the numerous technical problems to the OOXML proposal. This is so complex and poorly specified that there appears to be no fully compliant implementation in existence now, nor any means to verify compliance. To avoid embarrassment, please vote NO.

Yours sincerely,

Peter D Drummond, FAA,
Professor of Theoretical Physics,
University of Queensland.

Happy document freedom day

Today is Document Freedom Day: Roughly 200 teams from more than 60 countries worldwide are organising local activities to raise awareness for Document Freedom and Open Standards. To support the initiatives surrounding the first day to celebrate document liberation, DFD starter packs containing a DFD flag, t-shirts and leaflets have been sent to the first 100 registered teams over the past weeks.
http://www.documentfreedom.org/
http://wiki.apc.org.au/index.php?title=Document_Freedom_Day_2008

Open Document Format (ODF) is the first and only *Open* Standard standardised in ISO. It is supported by many applications, some of them proprietary, some of them Free Software. If you are currently using any of the applications below, your software already supports Open Document Format:

* AbiWord
* Google Docs
* IBM Lotus Symphony
* KOffice
* NeoOffice
* OpenOffice.org
* StarOffice

If you are not already using any of these applications, the following applications are Free Software and available for public download. Try ODF today:

* AbiWord
* KOffice
* NeoOffice
* OpenOffice.org

Wikipedia on OpenDocument

OOXML
Microsoft's promise covers only fully-compliant implementations.
But Microsoft Office isn't fully compliant with the OOXML (OfficeOpen XML) specification, therefore those who seek interoperability with Microsoft's software won't be covered by its promise.

Correction: It also doesn't cover the optional or not fully detailed parts of the specification. Almost everything is optional and far from complete in the specification.
http://www.fsfla.org/svnwiki/stdlib/offdoc/mision

OOXML is not legally safe for FLOSS

SFLC recommends against the establishment of OOXML as an international standard and cautions GPL implementers not to rely on the OSP.

http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/osp-gpl.html

Groklaw commentary:
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080312151954507

EDRI's Statement at WIPO SCCR on limitations and exceptions

European Digital Rights, EDRI, represents 28 privacy and civil rights organisations from 17 different countries in Europe. As this is the first time EDRI takes the floor, we’d like to congratulate you and your vice chairs on your election.

Not surprisingly, we are strongly in favour of starting the work that would hopefully lead to new international instrument on limitations and exceptions of copyright. EDRI therefore warmly supports the proposal presented by honourable delegate of Chile.

However, EDRI firmly believes that any new instrument should have also a strong focus – for example as a part of best practices - on the rights of totally ordinary citizens --- in addition to the professional or institutional users that traditionally occupy the center stage during these discussions of limitations and exceptions.

One of the key reason for this is that value of all kinds of consumer goods is based nowadays increasingly on the software and content and not so much on hardware. As a concequence copyright has to learn to live with consumer protection regulation. From our perspective, it would make
most sense to address this challenge inside the copyright system at the international level. In practice this means that the proposed research should also seek to answer questions like “is it ok to hack your iPhone even if that requires making a derivate copy of the software ” and “is it legal to create tools that help consumer to transfer maps from his old navigator to a new one even if the license agreements forbid it”. As far as we know, answers to this kind of questions are not yet firmly established at any jurisdictions and therefore task at hand would be forward-looking global harmonization..

Finally, EDRI would like to see very much such limitations and exceptions those aim is to protect free speech – for example parody and satire, quotations for criticism, usage of works in news - included extensively to the process. Copyright has a dark history for being a tool for censorship and oppression of controversial opinions – hopefully the possible new instrument could be a tool for redeeming this black past.

Proposal by Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua and Uruguay for Work Related to Exceptions and Limitations

Proposal by Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua and Uruguay for Work Related to Exceptions and Limitations.

WIPO copyright review. Perhaps a chance for Australia to pull back some basic rights to access information and to participate in technology innovation in DRM multivendor environments?

KEI Statement at WIPO SCCR on agenda item on limitations and exceptions

KEI supports the proposal by Brazil, Chile, Nicaragua and Uruguay for a strong substantive work program in the area of limitations and exceptions, and urges the SCCR members to give this topic the time, attention and care that it deserves. These are very important and challenging tasks. They go to the very core concerns of consumers, and they are highly relevant to the WIPO development agenda.

We welcome the constructive comments by the United States and other countries, and agree that work on norm setting should be informed by evidence, careful analysis, and that there is a tension with the need for national discretion in implementing treaty flexibilities.

We note that Chile indicated that the SCCR work on exceptions and limitations could proceed within the framework of existing copyright treaties, and that it would be fruitful to address specific problems.

Among the (many) questions the SCCR might consider, are the following:

1. Has the Internet created a compelling need to develop global norms for limitations and exceptions, in order to foster cross border publishing and sharing of information?

2. Do distance education services need minimum exceptions to truly develop as a platform, and to provide the type of services that are important for development?

3. Is the Appendix to the Berne Convention working? Does it need an "update" for the digital age?

4. How do DRM/TPM technologies work with consumer rights? Do we have the right models for state practice in implementing the 1996 WIPO digital treaties, as it relates to L&E?

5. Do countries have the flexibility in the TRIPS to deal with the orphan works problem? Is a cross border solution important?

6. How can countries implement the flexibilities in TRIPS Articles 40, on the control of anti-competitive practices, and Article 44, concerning alternatives to injunctions.

http://www.keionline.org/