EU definition of 'open standards' is drastically relaxed

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.