<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Freedom of Information Act: Microsoft Rules O.K.</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/07/10/freedom-of-information-act-microsoft-rules-ok/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/07/10/freedom-of-information-act-microsoft-rules-ok/</link>
	<description>The Magic of Open Source</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:35:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Alan Lord</title>
		<link>http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/07/10/freedom-of-information-act-microsoft-rules-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-8325</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Lord</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 14:17:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=282#comment-8325</guid>
		<description>It does seem like a bit of a dog&#039;s dinner doesn&#039;t it. 

On the surface the announcement is good. Sourceforge, Source Code etc all to be published etc. And yet, as you say, there is no &quot;open development&quot;. It all seems to be happening behind RM&#039;s [closed] door.

I do find it amazing how, especially public bodies, just don&#039;t *get* what Open Source is really about. How on earth do they expect to come up with a specification and a product in a closed environment and just release it to the community when it is finished? They just don&#039;t get it do they?

I would argue that as the development of the spec is happening in a closed environment, you would have a serious case against BECTA and the other parties involved of anti-competitive practice. As they will surely have had access to the format and development time way in advance of anyone else thus giving the &quot;club&quot; a significant first-mover advantage. Also, seeing as this is almost certainly being funded out of taxpayers&#039; money, creating it in secret when the goal is an open standard also seems to be dubious to say the least... Perhaps a rather public message to this effect might &quot;open&quot; the process a little? 

Anyway, for the record, here is the end of BECTA&#039;s press release with the relevant details dated 26/11/07:

&quot;... Phase one started on 19 November and it is anticipated that the final file specification and documentation will be produced at the end of June 2008 when Phase two will start. The source code of the viewer, library, all documentation and installer will be published on the SourceForge website by the end of June 2009 followed by the roll out of a support programme for publishers.

RM will carry out the development work in close liaison with Becta, Besa, whiteboard developers, publishers and other stakeholders. Invitations for others within the industry to participate in the development will be made on both the Becta and BESA websites.

If you wish to participate in the consultation phase of the development of the file format please register your interest by sending an email to CommonInteractiveWhiteboardFormat@becta.org.uk.&quot;

Al</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It does seem like a bit of a dog&#8217;s dinner doesn&#8217;t it. </p>
<p>On the surface the announcement is good. Sourceforge, Source Code etc all to be published etc. And yet, as you say, there is no &#8220;open development&#8221;. It all seems to be happening behind RM&#8217;s [closed] door.</p>
<p>I do find it amazing how, especially public bodies, just don&#8217;t *get* what Open Source is really about. How on earth do they expect to come up with a specification and a product in a closed environment and just release it to the community when it is finished? They just don&#8217;t get it do they?</p>
<p>I would argue that as the development of the spec is happening in a closed environment, you would have a serious case against BECTA and the other parties involved of anti-competitive practice. As they will surely have had access to the format and development time way in advance of anyone else thus giving the &#8220;club&#8221; a significant first-mover advantage. Also, seeing as this is almost certainly being funded out of taxpayers&#8217; money, creating it in secret when the goal is an open standard also seems to be dubious to say the least&#8230; Perhaps a rather public message to this effect might &#8220;open&#8221; the process a little? </p>
<p>Anyway, for the record, here is the end of BECTA&#8217;s press release with the relevant details dated 26/11/07:</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8230; Phase one started on 19 November and it is anticipated that the final file specification and documentation will be produced at the end of June 2008 when Phase two will start. The source code of the viewer, library, all documentation and installer will be published on the SourceForge website by the end of June 2009 followed by the roll out of a support programme for publishers.</p>
<p>RM will carry out the development work in close liaison with Becta, Besa, whiteboard developers, publishers and other stakeholders. Invitations for others within the industry to participate in the development will be made on both the Becta and BESA websites.</p>
<p>If you wish to participate in the consultation phase of the development of the file format please register your interest by sending an email to <a href="mailto:CommonInteractiveWhiteboardFormat@becta.org.uk">CommonInteractiveWhiteboardFormat@becta.org.uk</a>.&#8221;</p>
<p>Al</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Hall</title>
		<link>http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/07/10/freedom-of-information-act-microsoft-rules-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-8324</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Hall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 13:53:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=282#comment-8324</guid>
		<description>Becta talks &quot;open&quot; but acts &quot;closed&quot;: 
http://industry.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=35000

Becta gave the common file format project to RM plc. So far there is:
- no publication of feedback on the file format 
- no publication of code   
- no forum on the Becta website or any other website. 
- virtually no emails to companies who have signed up on the email list.

So the so called open project is definitely closed to all but a few companies and Becta. There&#039;s a promise to publish code in June 2009, but by then it will be too late - everything will be fixed.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Becta talks &#8220;open&#8221; but acts &#8220;closed&#8221;:<br />
<a href="http://industry.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=35000" rel="nofollow">http://industry.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=35000</a></p>
<p>Becta gave the common file format project to RM plc. So far there is:<br />
- no publication of feedback on the file format<br />
- no publication of code<br />
- no forum on the Becta website or any other website.<br />
- virtually no emails to companies who have signed up on the email list.</p>
<p>So the so called open project is definitely closed to all but a few companies and Becta. There&#8217;s a promise to publish code in June 2009, but by then it will be too late &#8211; everything will be fixed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 451 CAOS Theory &#187; How not to negotiate a software contract</title>
		<link>http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/07/10/freedom-of-information-act-microsoft-rules-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-8322</link>
		<dc:creator>451 CAOS Theory &#187; How not to negotiate a software contract</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:57:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=282#comment-8322</guid>
		<description>[...] greater were the signing of a new MOU not all-but guaranteed. Additionally, as The Open Sourcerer asks, as UK tax payers, are we not entitled to know what those discounts are and how much is being [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] greater were the signing of a new MOU not all-but guaranteed. Additionally, as The Open Sourcerer asks, as UK tax payers, are we not entitled to know what those discounts are and how much is being [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan Lord</title>
		<link>http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/07/10/freedom-of-information-act-microsoft-rules-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-8320</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan Lord</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:16:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=282#comment-8320</guid>
		<description>Thanks for commenting Andrew.

It really does suck when you have public funds being spent secretly and even more so when they are sent abroad.

Your last comment is quite worrying - do you have any good on-line references to this issue?

Thanks again

Alan</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for commenting Andrew.</p>
<p>It really does suck when you have public funds being spent secretly and even more so when they are sent abroad.</p>
<p>Your last comment is quite worrying &#8211; do you have any good on-line references to this issue?</p>
<p>Thanks again</p>
<p>Alan</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Hall</title>
		<link>http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/07/10/freedom-of-information-act-microsoft-rules-ok/comment-page-1/#comment-8319</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Hall</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 10 Jul 2008 11:06:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=282#comment-8319</guid>
		<description>Government &amp; its agencies should never agree to confidential clauses in contracts when purchasing off-the shelf products or services (where the nature of the product is well known to all). 

Civil servants like commercial confidentiality clauses simply because it stops the public from scrutinising them. A bulk buyer of any product is in a strong negotiating position. It is bad for schools and therefore school children that Becta deals are secret. There are many countries including Spain, where open source software is promoted by government.

Becta is also attempting to close off the interactive whiteboard market to open source software &amp; other innovative software by creating their own file format in an entirely closed manner, using a small group of whiteboard manufacturers. Companies not complying with this closed format will be at a disadvantage compared those in the inner Becta circle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Government &amp; its agencies should never agree to confidential clauses in contracts when purchasing off-the shelf products or services (where the nature of the product is well known to all). </p>
<p>Civil servants like commercial confidentiality clauses simply because it stops the public from scrutinising them. A bulk buyer of any product is in a strong negotiating position. It is bad for schools and therefore school children that Becta deals are secret. There are many countries including Spain, where open source software is promoted by government.</p>
<p>Becta is also attempting to close off the interactive whiteboard market to open source software &amp; other innovative software by creating their own file format in an entirely closed manner, using a small group of whiteboard manufacturers. Companies not complying with this closed format will be at a disadvantage compared those in the inner Becta circle.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
