An open technical standard is usually defined as a set of
technical specifications viewable by anyone which is used by
industry to ensure that all technologies conforming to that
standard can work together.
It is adherence to technical standards that enable, for example,
all GSM mobile phones and networks to work together or PCs to work
with servers over the internet.
The Directorate-general for Informatics European eGovernment
Services (IDABC) produces the European Interoperability Framework
(EIF), which it says "defines a set of recommendations and
guidelines for eGovernment services so that public administrations,
enterprises and citizens can interact across borders, in a
pan-European context".
The framework, IDABC said, was an essential prerequisite if
national governments were going to be able to integrate services
and co-ordinate action on an EU level. It said that open standards
were essential to that process.
The first version of that framework, published in 2004,
contained rigorous requirements for any standard that claimed to be
'open'.
"The following are the minimal characteristics that a
specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be
considered an open standard," it said. "The standard is adopted and
will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its
ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making
procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or
majority decision etc.)."
"The standard has been published and the standard specification
document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must
be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or
at a nominal fee," said the first framework. "The intellectual
property – i.e. patents possibly present – of (parts of) the
standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty free
basis."
A second version of the framework that has been leaked in draft
form has a much looser definition of open standards that even
includes proprietary software, the licensing model which open
source software and open standards were set up in opposition
to.
"Within the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of
persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest
to share knowledge and to stimulate debate within that community of
interest, having as ultimate goal the advancement of knowledge and
the use thereof to solve relevant problems," said the new
version.
IDABC Head of Unit Karel De Vriendt confirmed to OUT-LAW.COM
that the leaked draft was genuine.
"There are varying degrees of openness," said the new framework.
"Specifications, software and software development methods that
promote collaboration and the results of which can freely be
accessed, reused and shared are considered open and lie at one end
of the spectrum while non-documented, proprietary specifications,
proprietary software and the reluctance or resistance to reuse
solutions, i.e. the 'not invented here' syndrome, lie at the other
end."
"The spectrum of approaches that lies between these two extremes
can be called the openness continuum. European public
administrations need to decide where they wish to position
themselves on this continuum with respect to the issues discussed
in the EIF," it said.
The new framework has even suggested that avoiding using more
than one technology is an example of interoperability.
"While there is a correlation between openness and
interoperability, it is also true that interoperability can 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," it said. It
is unlikely that many interoperability advocates would accept that
the use of a single system is an example of interoperability
between systems.
Whereas one of the first framework's recommendations said that
the use of open standards was a general principle that countries
should adhere to, the second framework's recommendation is not
nearly so prescriptive.
"Public administrations should favour openness when working
together to establish European Public Service while taking into
account their priorities and constraints," it says.
"As this is only a draft and as such may still be subject to
change before being finalized, you will understand that it is
impossible for us to answer your questions at this very moment,"
said De Vriendt. "Of course, once the document is finalised, the
Commission will be in a position to do so."
The European Commission itself has fought legal battles to
promote and defend interoperability. It fined Microsoft €497
million in 2004 because the company would not give rivals the
information they needed to make their software interoperable with
its market-dominating systems.
Earlier this year criticised Microsoft again for the
interoperability of its systems. It has said that it is satisfied
with commitments on interoperability that the company has since
made.
Disclaimer: We hope you find OUT-LAW’s content useful. It’s prepared by the lawyers at Pinsent Masons. Please remember, though, that it’s intended as general information only. It’s not legal advice. If that’s what you’re seeking, please
contact us. See also: our
full disclaimer
