On Saturday 24 Mar 2012 21:04:39 Mark Elkins wrote:
> From what I can make out - the pressure for further consultation on Open
> Standards actually originated in part from BIS (Vince Cable's Dept) if this
> is correct:
>
> http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/public-sector/2012/01/microsoft-hustled-
> uk-retreat-o.html
I was aware of the Microsoft intervention from reading Glynn Moody's blog on
the subject, but I hadn't seen this item.
>From the article:
'Microsoft said it supported the aims of UK open standards policy -
specifically that government systems should be interoperable, that it should
be possible for government to re-use purchased software components, and that
government should not be "locked-in" to using particular technologies.'
How they have the bare-faced gall to use lock-in as a reason to *avoid* Open
Standards I'll never know.
I've now got a bit further through the Consultation Document and there is no
doubt that whoever was responsible for producing it 'got it'. Open Source
Software is specifically mentioned as a good reason for FRAND licensing terms
and 'Royalty Free' is also covered in the context of the payment of Royalties
being a show stopper for FLOSS tools.
However, someone in BIS 'drank the Kool Aid' as the Yanks would say and
believed all this guff, which is why the original Policy was overturned.
Whether it was believed due to ignorance or payola is open to question.
Previously I would have said the former with a healthy dose of party funding,
but after this morning's revelations about Tory funding methods, I would
reverse that and think maybe that someone was paid to be ignorant. (Yes I am
aware that Vince Cable isn't a Tory, but he is a politician.)
--
Terry Coles
64 bit computing with Kubuntu Linux
--
Next meeting: Bournemouth, Tuesday 2012-04-03 20:00
Meets, Mailing list, IRC, LinkedIn, ... http://dorset.lug.org.uk/
New thread on mailing list: mailto:[email protected]
How to Report Bugs Effectively: http://goo.gl/4Xue
