[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] (none) [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive][an error occurred while processing this directive]
 
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]
Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group - http://www.sslug.dk Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Forum   Calendar   Search
MhonArc Date: [Date Prev] [Date Index] [Date Next]   Thread: [Date Prev] [Thread Index] [Date Next]   MhonArc
 

Re: [ITPOLITIK] åbne standarder (was:Høringen i går



Erik Lange <sslug@sslug> writes:

> Bruce Perrens har også gjort sig nogle tanker om standarder:
> http://perens.com/OpenStandards/Definition.html

(vs. Keld/DKUUGs definition <http://std.dkuug.dk/dkuug/standarder.html>)

Det er jo en ældre diskussion, men det skal ikke være nogen
hemmelighed at jeg absolut foretrækker Perrens' definition. 'No
Royality' er absolut en vigtig ting, men efter min mening er det ikke
det centrale stridspunkt.

Kelds definition er meget processorienteret. Standardiseringen skal
foregå i en fast defineret ramme ved en åben process. Efter min mening
er dette unødvendigt, det er brugen af den færdige standard der er
værd at fokuserer på.

Jeg finder det ærgeligt at Kelds definition ikke giver mulighed for at
gøre en de facto-standard åben. Jeg ville elske hvis Microsoft tog
nogle af deres teknologier og præsenterede en gennemdokumenteret
standard og en referenceimplementation af dem og gjorde det frit
tilgængeligt. Det ville spare en masse unødigt arbejde med at
genopfinde hjulet.

Analogt ville det svare til ikke at anerkende Mozilla og OpenOffice
som open source-programmer på grund af deres historie. Jeg mener at
Kelds definition er udtryk for Not Invented Here-syndromet.


Jeg har et umidelbart problem med Perrens' definition. I No
Discrimination-klausulen står der følgende:

  [...] Certification organizations must provide a path for low and
  zero-cost implementations to be validated, but may also provide
  enhanced certification services.

Jeg er ikke sikker på at jeg bryder mig om dette krav om muligheden
for low-cost validering.

-- 
 Peter Makholm     |     Sit back and watch the messages. This is actually
 sslug@sslug |     more important than one might think as there is a
 http://hacking.dk |      bug in GNU Mach whereby hitting a key during the
                   |               boot process causes the kernel to panic
                   |                        -- GNU Hurd Installation Guide


 
Home   Subscribe   Mail Archive   Index   Calendar   Search

 
 
Questions about the web-pages to <www_admin>. Last modified 2005-08-10, 20:21 CEST [an error occurred while processing this directive]
This page is maintained by [an error occurred while processing this directive]MHonArc [an error occurred while processing this directive] # [an error occurred while processing this directive] *