Open Malaysia

When Patrick Durusau wrote that Microsoft had no opposition to ODF, he was indefensibly and gloriously wrong. Those of us involved in national standards bodies and on government policy panels have had the dubious honor of having to defend against Microsoft's desperate attempts to kill any possible introduction of ODF as a voluntary standard. Perhaps even worse was having to witness first hand Microsoft making loud complaints against any internal government policies of the usage of ODF and any software which uses ODF (OpenOffice.org being the most prominent). And, of course, many of us have faced the intense lobbying campaign carried out by Microsoft against open source governmental policies.

So when Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, made the famous statement that "It's not about choosing, but about having a choice" with reference to ODF and OOXML, we assumed this was a new chapter in Microsoft history.

Then came along a recent blogpost by Harisfazillah Jamel, "Apabila Membuat Pilihan Dipersoalkan / When Choices are Questioned", on the right of government agencies to make choices. It's written in Malay, but it has been translated by Yoon Kit for the benefit of our international readers. It makes for extremely interesting reading on the pressure Microsoft Malaysia is placing on a government agency because of their choice to use OpenOffice.org/ODF over Microsoft Office:

Apabila Membuat Pilihan Dipersoalkan (When Our Choices Are Questioned)

Ada yang sebuah syarikat ICT yang kononnya mempunyai satu lagi standard bagi satu perkara adalah satu pilihan kepada pengguna. Sedangkan pengguna, mana-mana pengguna juga faham, standard, mempunyai standard bermaksud kita telah membuat pilihan, membuat satu pilihan daripada pelbagai pilihan yang terbaik untuk pengguna.

There is an ICT company which has one more standard for one more application for one more choice for consumers. While consumers, many users understand standards, having standards means we have made a choice, a choice which  is the best for users from many options.

Wakil mereka di Malaysia dalam satu muka surat sebuah akhbar menyatakan, kejayaan mereka mendapatkan iktiraf standard bagi satu format adalah satu pilihan kepada pengguna. Teruskan membaca, apabila membuat pilihan bukan kehendak mereka, adalah bukan pilihan mereka.

Their Malaysian representative, in a page of a newspaper stated that their success of having the standard as a format is yet another choice for users. Read it, if we make a choice not to their liking, it is not their choice.

Lalu sebuah agensi dalam kerajaan Malaysia telah membuat pilihan. Membuat pilihan bukan dalam kehendak syarikat ICT tersebut. Pilihan setelah panjang membuat penilaian. Pilihan atas dasar untuk memberi sokongan dan pilihan kepada agensi-agensi lain. Pilihan yang dibuat atas kehendak sendiri tanpa  tekanan mana-mana pihak. Pilihan yang dipesetujui diperingkat pengurusan tertinggi hinggalah keperingkat bawahan.

An agency in the government of Malaysia had already made a choice. The choice was not the choice of the said ICT company. The choice was made after a long study. The choice was based on principles to bring support and choice to other agencies The choice was made on its own needs without any pressures from any party. The choice was agreed by the highest level of management to the lowest level.

Sekarang timbul isu, syarikat ICT itu tidak senang dengan pilihan yang dibuat oleh agensi itu. Mereka merasakan agensi ini mahu menentukan dasar yang keras terhadap pilihan yang telah dibuat. Oh ya betul, mereka tidak senang dengan pilihan yang dibuat oleh sebuah agensi kerajaan Malaysia dan mula menjalankan kerja-kerja melobi untuk memaksa agensi ini, menurunkan maksud polisi penggunaan standard yang telah dibuat oleh agensi ini.

Now this issue has surfaced. The ICT company is not happy with the choice that was made by the agency. They felt that the agency wants to set a policy which is incompatible with the choice that they prefer. Oh that is true, they are not happy with the choice that was made by an agency of the Malaysian Government and have started work lobbying to force this agency to dampen the meaning of the policy of using standards that was announced by this agency.

Polisi yang telah disusun, dibincang dengan panjang lebar dan diluluskan dalam pengurusan tertinggi agensi ini mahu diubah oleh syarikat ICT tersebut kerana ia tidak menepati pilihan yang kehendak mereka. Bahawa diingatkan polisi ini adalah khusus hanya untuk agensi ini supaya memudahkan pelaksanaan atas satu standard. Itu maksud tujuan standard, memudahkan pelaksanaan kepada satu pilihan.

The policy that was prepared, was discussed widely and in detail, was approved by the highest level management of this agency, is to be modified by the said ICT company because it is not inline with their needs. Whereas it is reminded that this policy is specifically for this agency such that it  can easily implement one standard. That is the meaning and purpose of a standard, the ease of implementing one choice.

Yang buat saya marah, adalah teknik yang saya panggil, kilas tangan dengan kasar memaksa agensi ini tukarkan polisi agensi ini. Ya memaksa, walau apa pun cara yang digunakan, bagi saya ia masih panggil ia memaksa, agensi ini tukarkan polisi dari segi pelaksanaan.

What makes me angry is  what I call their heavy handed technique of forcing the said agency to change its policies. Yes force, by any means possible. I still call it force, to get the agency to change its policies on implementation.

Bagi saya, campur tangan dalam urusan sebuah agensi kerajaan Malaysia terutama melibatkan polisi, dan nyata sekali polisi ini adalah untuk penggunaan agensi tersebut oleh sebuah syarikat luar negara merupa satu campur tangan asing... Sebuah bentuk penjajahan ...

For me, their intervention in the business of an agency of the Government of Malaysia especially when it involves policies, and especially when this policy is stated for the use of this agency, by a foreign company represents ... a form of colonisation ...

Siapa mereka untuk tentukan dasar dan pentadbiran sebuah negara.  Saya sebagai rakyat Malaysia cukup marah dengan campur tangan sebegini. Perkara ini telah lama diperhatikan sejak daripada melobi penerimaan standard yang kononnya adalah satu pilihan.

Who are they to define the policies and the running of a sovereign country. I, as a Malaysian citizen, have enough with their interference of this nature. This behaviour has long been witnessed ever since the lobbying efforts of the standards which is claimed to be yet another "choice".

Saya tidak akan duduk diam dengan bentuk penjajahan cara baru ini. Saya tidak akan berhenti menulis dan berkempen untuk mendedahkan apa jua yang dilakukan oleh syarikat ICT ini untuk terus memaksa penggunaan produk mereka.

I am not going to sit quiet with this new form of colonisation tactic. I am not going to stop writing and campaigning and resist any action by this ICT company which forces the use of their products.

Banyak sudah duit rakyat, duit rakyat mengalir keluar daripada Malaysia, hanya untuk pembayaran lesen. Pembayaran hanya atas kertas, tiada hasil kepada kita rakyat Malaysia, hanya menjadikan syarikat luar negara atau individu luar negara lagi kaya.

Too much of our citizens money, money of the people has flowed out from Malaysia, only to purchase licenses. The payment is only for paper, without any value to us Malaysian citizens, only to make a foreign company or individual foreigners rich.

Sedangkan duit yang berjuta-juta itu boleh dialirkan kepada industri ICT negara kita dalam bentuk pelaksanaan sistem sokongan, penyelidikan dan pelaksanaan kepada aplikasi sumber terbuka atau Open Source Software.

If only the multi-millions of riggit could flow to our ICT industry in the form of system support, research and implementations in Open Source Software.

Mengapa perlu kayakan orang lain sedangkan rakyat ini yang membayar cukai tersebut perlu lihat sahaja duit itu keluarkan. Sedang sudah ada pilihan, pilihan yang setelah dikaji, boleh mendatangkan faedah yang banyak kepada rakyat Malaysia.

Why must we make other people wealthy while citizens have to pay the tax. Just see the expenditure. While there is already a choice, a choice that has been evaluated which can bring much benefits to the citizens of Malaysia.

Polisi dan dasar sudah ada. Mengapa tidak sokong? Soalan yang hendak tanya kepada ahli-ahli politik negara kita ...

The Policies are already defined. Why is there no support? These are the questions which need only be asked to the politicians of our country ...

Apa yang saya tulis ini adalah pendapat peribadi, akan tetapi saya mahu ia dipandang  serius oleh banyak pihak. Lama mana kita mahu dijajah ... ???

What I have written is just my personal opinion, but I want this viewed seriously by many. How long do we ever want to be colonised ... ???

I really must commend Patrick Durusau's innate capability of writing the most inflammatory and outrageous publications, publications that are so divorced from reality that one cannot help but think that the dude must be hoarding some seriously good weed to be able to live so completely within his own defined existence. His latest publication, "Not With a Bang, but With a Whimper", has been receiving flak from the collective open standards community for exactly that reason and rightly so.

Patrick writes that:

Signs the document standards war was entirely fictitious have been around for quite some time. Where was the Microsoft opposition to OpenDocument in standards bodies such as OASIS and ISO? Perhaps they forgot? Didn't get the memo?

Given that we at OpenMalaysiaBlog, as open standards supporters, have been at the forefront of receiving the brunt of their vicious (and often personal) attacks on ODF, I find Patrick's assertions as ridiculous and cockeyed at best, and deliberately offensive at worst.

Microsoft has been running an anti-ODF campaign in favour of OOXML for a long long time now. In Malaysia, their campaign started with opposition to Malaysia's proposed adoption of ODF ISO26300:2006 as a voluntary standard by invoking Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt on the ODF standard. The campaign continued on by personally attacking members of the technical committee who were in favour of ODF, by casting undue aspersions on their characters, in particular, insinuating that we were subversive agents of IBM intent on the destruction of Microsoft (apparently, anybody who supports truly open standards is a biased IBM agent).

In fact, during a technical standards meeting on ODF, senior management of Microsoft Malaysia printed out an unrelated and personal blog post from Yoon Kit (in which he was slightly critical of a Malaysian government agency whose representative was also present during the meeting), passed it around to all members present in the meeting and demanded for proper ethical conduct from members. That's right, folks - he printed out a non-technical blog post and attempted to cast a false and misleading charge on the character of a member of the technical meeting.

To the credit of the representative of the government agency in question and the chairman of the meeting, the meeting was quickly brought to order. The representative of the government agency did not have a problem with Yoon Kit's blog post but Microsoft Malaysia did. Note that this is not hearsay, I witnessed this first hand and was thoroughly shocked at the extent Microsoft would go to destroy any perceived threat to their Microsoft Office cash cow. The Microsoft Malaysia representative in question also distributed printed blog posts from OpenMalaysia and circled the name of a member of this blog who also happens to be an IBM employee, insinuating to all that members of OpenMalaysia are influenced by IBM in pushing for a pro-ODF stand. This happened during a meeting to discuss the technical aspects on ODF!

That particular meeting was followed by an anonymous smear campaign against one of the TC members. A letter was faxed to the organization of the TC member in question, accusing the TC member in question of helping politicize the issue (which is, of course, untrue). I too had the dubious pleasure of hearing first hand how Microsoft attempted to remove me from the TC (they did not succeed, thanks to integrity and cojones of the organization I am affiliated with).

If this unethical behaviour by Microsoft was not sufficiently despicable, they did the unthinkable by involving politics in what should have been a technical evaluation of the standard by writing to the head of the Malaysian standards organization and getting its business partners to engage in a negative letter writing campaign to indicate lack of support of ODF in the Malaysian market. Every single negative letter on ODF received by the Malaysian standards organization was written either by Microsoft, or a Microsoft business partner or a Microsoft affiliated organization (Initiative for Software Choice and IASA).

That's right, Patrick, every single negative letter on ODF can be traced back to Microsoft. And you ask where was Microsoft's opposition to ODF? Here is a letter by Yasmin Mahmood, Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director to the head of the Malaysian standards organization, opposing ODF as a voluntary standard (note that I have digital copies of all the letters in questions, if you wish to read them):

Patrick, you write that:

Need more? Watch the reaction to this announcement by Microsoft. Remember the cry has been that Microsoft should adopt OpenDocument. Microsoft has now adopted OpenDocument and it will be devoting resources to its development. For those unfamiliar with the concept, that means Microsoft will be making a positive contribution to the ODF development effort.

My recommendation is that everyone put up their noise makers and welcome Microsoft to the OpenDocument community and prepare to work with them to advance its development

Patrick, you make the assumption that those who are opposing OOXML are doing it solely because we oppose Microsoft. You couldn't be more wrong and I think it's high time you recognize the most excellent effort by many parties in helping improve the OOXML specification.

Yoon Kit and myself have spent countless weekends and many, many, many man hours finding ways of improving the proposed standard. My report to the TC, based on the reading made of the proposed standard, have always been on a solely technical basis, and Patrick, you of all people, should accede to the fact that there are/were severe technical deficiencies in the proposed standard and that input from members of National Bodies helped improve the specification.

The campaign against Open XML was at its start, in the middle and at the end an anti-Microsoft campaign. The merits or demerits of Open XML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft.

Making the dangerous argument that "the merits or demerits of OOXML were simply a convenient launching point for criticisms of Microsoft" works to undermine the important constructive value of  criticism, which is to improve the proposed standard in question. The logic you have employed, that any attempt to criticize the technical deficiencies in OOXML is equated to criticism of Microsoft, is superfluous. By any measure, our criticism and feedback has helped improve the proposed standard immeasurably and you simply must recognize that, if intellectual honesty carries still carries weight with you.

Patrick, to further claim that we are solely "noise makers" does irreparable damage to value of the work we have put into improving the proposed standard. In fact, some of the decent folk at Microsoft (yes, they actually exist) helped arrange a conference call to Brian Jones, whose input helped clarify some the issues I was attempting to understand. I subsequently revised my technical contribution to the TC based on the clarification by Brian Jones. Your assertion that we are doing this so as to criticize Microsoft is an unfair charge and only serves to undermine your already dwindling reputation among the open standards community.

Now, when I was first told about Microsoft Office support for ODF by a Microsoft employee, my reaction was: "Awesome!". Then I puzzled for a minute over why they didn't do this two years ago and avoid opposing the passage of ODF as a Malaysian standard. In any case, the following day, I relayed this message to Yasmin Mahmood, the Microsoft Malaysia Managing Director, with an invitation for OpenMalaysia Blog to interview her on this positive and constructive development. I've not heard back from Yasmin on my invitation, but let me publicly assure the lady that the invitation is still open and we are committed to publishing the interview verbatim (word for word). Yoon Kit and I also offered to publicize the good work Microsoft is doing on ODF by running an interview with them. Brian and Doug, that invitation is still open if you choose to accept it by answering the questions we sent to you 11 days ago.

So all in all, Patrick, you owe us an apology for your thoughtless remarks, your unfair insinuations and biased connotations on our character.

This post was actually meant to be a response to a journalist who asked what I thought about the February 2008 announcement by Microsoft on their "Strategic Changes in Technology and Business Practices to Expand Interoperability". To put into context, this was released on Feb 21st, the weekend before the BRM, so it was not particularly on my mind at that time.

In March, I got a call from the journalist to comment on this issue because they were going to feature it as Microsoft Malaysia was going to make a big re-announcement or something. I gave my thoughts, but never saw the light of day of my input, so I guess its now safe to post my comment.

Groklaw has an extensive list of quotes from far more qualified industry experts, but very few posts as end users from a developing country.

To recap, the announcement is Microsoft's promise in:

1. Ensuring open connections to Microsoft’s high-volume products.
2. Documenting how Microsoft supports industry standards and extensions.
3. Enhancing Office 2007 to provide greater flexibility of document formats.
4. Launching the Open Source Interoperability Initiative.
5. Expanding industry outreach and dialogue.

I have personally experienced #5, however we have yet to see progress with #1, #2 and #3. #4 however is the most interesting for me. I mean "Open Source Interoperability Initiative". That sounds great! Does this mean that Microsoft is opening up to the Open Source was of doing things? I hope so!

Unfortunately its not the case. The transcript of the Press Conference on this announcement reveals the rather major pitfalls (my emphasis):

BRAD SMITH: On the other hand, with respect to companies that are engaged in commercial distribution, or use internally, there is a need to obtain a patent license where there are applicable patent rights, and we're committing to make these patent licenses readily available. Novell already has an agreement with us that covers all of these patent rights. Some other companies, such as Xandros and others, also have a patent license. So they've already addressed all of that, and their users are already addressed. With respect to other distributors, and users, the clear message is that patent licenses will be freely available.

STEVE BALLMER:  Patents will be, not freely, will be available.

BRAD SMITH:  Readily available.

STEVE BALLMER: Readily available for the right fee. The basic economic analysis that you should go through sort of goes like this. We have valuable intellectual property in our patents, we will continue to view that as valuable intellectual property in all forms, and we will monetize from all users of that, not all developers, but for all users of that patented technology, all commercial developers, and all commercial users of that patented technology.

We also have trade secret information, which we will continue to protect, with the exception of some important trade secret information in the interoperability realm, which we will still value, but we will make available free of charge, so that people can do appropriate interoperability. So from an economic perspective you could say, in some senses, we're opening up. Yet, at the same time, we retain valuable intellectual property assets.

On reading the official announcement properly, this is clearly stated:

Microsoft is providing a covenant not to sue open source developers for development or non-commercial distribution of implementations of these protocols. These developers will be able to use the documentation for free to develop products. Companies that engage in commercial distribution of these protocol implementations will be able to obtain a patent license from Microsoft, as will enterprises that obtain these implementations from a distributor that does not have such a patent license.

In a nutshell, they are saying that they will not sue "hobbyist FOSS users and developers" but they will sue FOSS distributors and enterprise end-users who fail to obtain a patent license from Microsoft. This is no bogey man. Its quite clear in the announcement, and the BSA is pretty active in Malaysia, not hesitating in sueing end user companies.

So here is my response as an IT Manager of a local manufacturing company:

As an Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) user in both work and play, I am happy that Microsoft has yet again reiterated their intention to move towards a more interoperable world. According to this initiative, they only provide covenants to FOSS developers for "non-commercial" distribution of implementations of these protocols. For customers of FOSS services, their local enterprise level support may require licensing issues, and this may hinder the local ICT growth of the FOSS ecosystem.

Will each reseller have to 'license' from Microsoft Malaysia? Additionally, this threat to sue in Malaysia may be moot, as software patents registered in the United States is not recognised here in Malaysia. There is therefore no case of infringing any 'Intellectual Property' of this type in countries outside of the US (except for Singapore, Japan, Australia and other countries who have signed on to the US-FTA agreements). Software Patents are vastly different to Copyrights.

As such, this is much of the same rhetoric we have heard from Microsoft since 2003, and I hope that they will show true initiatives of interoperability by adopting more open standards like CSS/HTML, which they recently have in  IE8, and hopefully also the ISO 26300 standard in OpenDocument Format in their office productivity suites.

What is sad about the Microsoft situation is that they seem to want to open up, but their reasons for opening up are not for the right reasons. This halfhearted approach shows in these 'so-called' initiatives. It is also evident that the reluctance to open up is not from upper management at all. Notice how Ballmer corrects Brad Smith. It appears that the vision of the CEO is not shared with the rest of the organisation. One side really needs to correct the other and re-align to better reflect the trends of today.

Here was a golden chance for Microsoft to gain some precious goodwill with the Open Source Community. Instead they botched it up just like they did before, again and again, cementing their reputation as the biggest and baddest anti-FOSS company in existence today.

How many other companies out there have such a anti-FOSS policies? Which company can be so unfriendly to their end users who prefer more choice? Why threaten when you should coax?

Anyway, that was my 2sen 3 months on. Every year Microsoft announces a new initiative for Interoperability. Hopefully next year they take genuine steps towards this goal and not just bandy about this rather overused term.

[Update: 1:20pm May 21st.
Here were Ditesh's quotes,  as an Open Source Developer, on this matter.

"Microsoft's Interoperability Initiative is geared to ensure that software (open source or otherwise) run well on Microsoft platforms. It is important to view this in its correct perspective: there has been very little effort from Microsoft to ensure its own software runs well on competing platforms. In other words, this initiative locks down users to Microsoft platforms instead of offering true interoperability which puts users and customers in charge by offering them choice and flexibility.

Interoperability must always been seen as a two way street, and history has taught us that true interoperability only works to the benefit of all members of the software industry when it is based on existing industry accepted open standards. Unfortunately, Microsoft has decided not to pursue this with their initiative and has chosen a very restrictive approach that does not benefit the overall software industry.

My second observation is that Microsoft's initiative seeks to bar open source developers from participating freely and openly in their program, as Microsoft is insisting on its protocol patents and that open source developers cannot engage in commercial development.

Firstly, no interoperability program should ever mandate that developers desist from developing and distributing commercial programs. Such a mandate would be a death-knell to the software industry and it clearly only benefits Microsoft. Any attempt to stop competition in the market by insisting on non-commercial development, as Microsoft's initiative seeks to achieve, will have extremely harmful and lasting effect on the industry as a whole.

Secondly, software patents have been rejected soundly in many countries (most stunningly in the European Union) due to the chilling effects it would have on the software industry. In fact, there has been studies showing evidence of the harm of software patents to the industry. As such, any initiative that insists on software patents will simply fail over the long term as the industry will reject initiatives that result in monopolies that hurt overall industry growth prospects."

]

yk.

May 17, 2008 is Open Malaysia blog's 2nd. birthday!
HAPPY BIRTHDAY!

The first post 2 years ago declared, "This is a blog
about openness, saying that the changing times call for innovation through open collaboration." Open innovation, ODF, open standards and open source were what we championed then and what we still champion today.

Malaysia had voted Approval of ODF as an ISO standard just before this blog started 2 years ago. OOXML came into the picture since then, but in the last one year, Malaysia cannot be considered to have officially accepted OOXML -- the Malaysian National Body committees  (TC4, then ISC G) voted Disapproval of OOXML, and the Malaysia final vote of Abstention decided by the Minister is at best non-committal to OOXML.

On the blog's 1st. birthday on May 17, 2007, there were 194 posts and 163 comments. In the one year after that, we added 111 posts but the number of comments tripled to 512 comments within the same one year! The worldwide dialog created by this blog was awesome.

In the 1st. year, we had 32,000 visits (by Sitemeter). In the 2nd. year, the month of March 2008 alone had 32,000 visits, with a total of 100,000 visits in the whole of this 2nd. year. The most popular post was definitely The Last Lap on the OOXML results which attracted thousands of visits every day.

Yes, the times they are a-changing. I leave it to you to recount the changes you have seen in "openness" in Malaysia and elsewhere over the last year -- do write your comments below.

The Prime Minister's Office of the Government of Iceland has released their policy on Free and Open Source Software. Reading it shows that the policy is well thought through. In the introduction itself, the policy states that:

"Free and open-source software is expanding rapidly all over the world, having already earned recognition as a realistic option when selecting information technology solutions. Such software has brought competition to a market previously dominated by a relatively small number of suppliers. Rather than hindering this trend, it is important for governmental authorities to support it and allow for its continued development, since the use of free and open-source software can reduce the ties of businesses, the authorities and the public to individual suppliers or service providers, thereby cultivating greater choice.

There are numerous factors, particularly the expense of proprietary software, which call for noting the possibilities involved in using free and open-source software. These possibilities add weight to recommendations stemming from cooperative projects and international organisations, such as the European Union and Nordic Council, that free competition be promoted in these matters. Public bodies are at the same time encouraged to utilise the power of their size to push for the use of free and open-source software. In fact, most of Iceland's neighbouring countries have already formed policies on such software."

The policy itself consists of five simple yet effective action items:

Point 1: When purchasing new software, free and open-source software and proprietary software are to be considered on an equal footing, with the object of always selecting the most favourable purchase.

Observation: The Malaysian MAMPU open source policy was similar in nature except that it was sensible in the sense  that it required preference to be given to open source software when all other considerations were of equal merit. This policy was under intense lobbying to be overturned from Microsoft Malaysia and its various fronts (such as CompTIA and IASA) in the interest of technology neutrality, which was a silly argument considering that technology neutrality benefited the proprietary Microsoft stack status quo and did not benefit the entire industry as a whole.

Point 2: Every endeavour shall be made to choose software based on open standards, regardless of whether the software in question is standard or bespoke (custom-designed). Generally, software which is free for anyone to use is also typified by open standards.

Observation: The focus on open standards is timely and wise. Open standards increase choice for users and vendors alike so it works to the benefit of all. However, a reference to a definition of open standards would prove useful as certain vendors have been known to fudge the definition of open standards and confuse the debate.

Point 3: Public bodies shall endeavour to avoid any undue dependence on particular software manufacturers or service providers. The utilisation of free and open-source software is one means of this.

Point 4: One goal for bespoke (custom-designed) software financed by public bodies, including software for research and development projects, should be its reusability. Keeping the software free and open-source is one way to achieve reusability. Strategies shall be devised at the outset of such projects for ensuring reuse of the software.

Point 5: Students in Icelandic educational institutions shall be given the opportunity of learning about and using free and open-source software on a par with proprietary software.

Observation: I love point no 5. Day in and day out, I encounter fresh university graduates who have been trained on proprietary software platforms and know very little about the fundamentals of computer science. They are really point-and-click developers (think Visual Basic) who are just denied from learning about the fundamentals thanks to the opaque interface provided by the proprietary platforms. By comparison, every single graduate with an open source background shines primarily because he/she has been able to grok and plumb the software stack to their hearts content. Being able to learn through open source software is a big big win and will reap benefits for the Iceland ICT industry for years to come.

All in all, good stuff from the Icelandic government. Let's hope more European governments follow suit!

The Malaysian Administrative Modernization and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) has announced that the agency will be migrating to OpenOffice.org office suite as well as adopt the OpenDocument Format (ODF). In addition, Microsoft Office is to be phased out by end of 2008. The press release follows:

Putrajaya, 19th March 2008 - The Malaysian Administrative Modernisation and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU), today officially adopts a policy to migrate to the OpenOffice.org open source productivity suite. This is in line with the Malaysian Public Sector Open Source Master Plan, which calls for government agencies to reduce costs, increase freedom of choice and interoperability.

From April 1st, MAMPU will start adopting the OpenDocument Format (ODF), standard for all new documents created. ODF the ISO open standard for electronic documents is also the default format for OpenOffice.org. The agency will also uninstall all copies of Microsoft Office by the end of 2008.

To ensure a smooth migration, presently over 80 agency staff have been trained by the Open Source Competency Centre (OSCC). Additional staff will then be trained internally by the IT department, which will also provide support for OpenOffice.org.

[Update by Hasan, 1:32 PM, 19 March 2008: Below are my translations of the MAMPU 2-page policy statements on the move to OpenOffice.org and ODF]

--- Page 1, originally Polisi Penggunaan OpenOffice.org MAMPU (in Malay) ---

The case for open source software has been made with general acceptance of its promise of better quality, higher reliability, more flexibility and lower cost. Now is the time to hasten execution.

Y.Bhg. Tan Sri Sidek Hassan
Chief Secretary to the Government of Malaysia
December 2007

OPENOFFICE.ORG USAGE POLICY

1. Document distribution

a) Internal within MAMPU, in the basic OpenOffice.org format

b) Going outside of MAMPU, in PDF format if not necessary to be edited and in OpenOffice.org or MS Office if to be edited

2. All preparation of documents need to use standard fonts that have been stipulated.

3. Mandatory for every PC or Notebook to have OpenOffice.org that has been stipulated.

4. Every MAMPU citizen need to own OpenOffice.org to support prevalent usage of OpenOffice.org.

5. Before 1 April 2008, every user need to complete back-up of MS Office documents.

6. From 1 April 2008, new documents need to be produced using OpenOffice.org and templates that have been stipulated.

7. From 1 July 2008, MS Office software will be uninstalled from every PC and notebook.

Released on 19 March 2008

--- End of Page 1 ---

--- Page 2, originally Mengapa Bertukar Kepada OpenOffice.org (in Malay) ---

Increased Interoperability, reduced costs and vendor lock-in, and increased growth of knowledge-based society are among the compelling reasons for moving in this direction.

Dato' Normah Binti Md yusuof
Director General MAMPU
Prime Minister's Department
December 2007

WHY CHANGE TO
OPEN OFFICE.ORG?

1. Saves software licensing cost

2. Prevents supplier lock-in situations

2. Increases compatibility and interoperability

4. Stimulates growth of local ICT industry

5. Aligned with Malaysian Public Sector OSS Master Plan

--- End of Page 2 ---

Marc O'Brien of Projity sent this email:

Hello everyone,

I just read your latest ODF newsletter.... Projity has come to the open source party with our announcement at LinuxWorld.  We announced OpenProj, a complete free and open source replacement of Microsoft Project.  Project is part of the Office family of solutions and has been a key strategic solution for Microsoft without any alternatives...... OpenProj has been downloaded an average of every 23 seconds around the clock since we launched and are already in the Top 10 applications in Sourceforge.  We are hitting 100,000 downloads in our first full month... on our way to 7-11 million users :-)

OpenProj is free and open source software that is a complete replacement for Microsoft Project. OpenProj has equivalent functionality, opens native Microsoft Project files and is available on Linux, Unix, Mac or Windows.  Microsoft Project resides on 7% of all Office desktops and is part of the Office family of solutions (retail is $1,000 or to be precise $999.99).   However, Project is not included in any Office Suites so it is not pre-installed on any computers which means even Windows users need to purchase very expensive software for their project needs.  OpenProj is free and also cross platform.  It is interesting that Microsoft's market far exceeds $1billion a year and drives their other business software solutions as it is by far their most popular business program.

The leaders in the marketplace have clearly identified the problem without an alternative to Project.  This is now resolved with the OpenProj release which is why this is so important.  We are already eating into their business and expect 100,000 downloads at some point in September.  In addition, there are roughly 100 million OpenOffice users worldwide and an enormous additional market worldwide. We expect the 7% ratio to actually increase since there are no budgetary constraints.  This puts OpenProj usage in a very large pool of users.......    I have pasted a couple of articles below.  We have English, French and Spanish versions and will have additional languages shortly.  You can see the French screenshot in the attached photo.  If you want to download OpenProj feel free (download here).   

All best and hopefully we can get some coverage in your markets,

Marc

Here is a nice article out last week that really speaks to the impact Projity is having on Microsoft.  The link is here ... here is an excerpt.

"It’s not often I get to review a product that seems to have no downside. I sometimes feel I should say something negative just to show I’m neutral and balanced. But honestly, with OpenProj, I’m struggling to say anything bad about it. What Projity has done is astonishing. Well done guys."

Hasan's comment: I haven't downloaded and used OpenProj yet -- those who have, please let us know what you think.

Edwin Yapp from ZDNet interviewed us at openmalaysiablog a few weeks ago. His article entitled "Open source gathers steam in Malaysia" describes accurately the environment here in Malaysia as of today.

"Ditesh cited a recent Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) World survey of Malaysia, which stated employers in the country generally value OSS skills, and noted that this is particularly evident during job interviews. "This indicates a strong preference for OSS by Malaysian companies," he said."

It a good day for Malaysia at ZDNet with regards to the growing momentum of FOSS in this country. Just yesterday, Lynn Tan reported "Malaysia formally embraces Open Document Format" which is the starting point of the slow but steady migration exercise of leveraging the OpenDocument Format in the government.

This trend justifies the decision made by Malaysia to support FOSS products back in 2002.

"Malaysia stands out in FOSS, mainly because there's a fairly well-organized FOSS movement, the media is FOSS-aware, and there is support from the government for FOSS usage," said C.P. Loo, country sales director, Sun Microsystems Malaysia.

And although a certain vendor and its lobbyists would declare the removal of the "preference" back in December 2006 as a victory, its not clear that a simple editorial job will not dampen the rise and rise of FOSS usage. Rather, the term "Technology Neutrality" leads a bright light towards a certain path towards Open Standards where, FOSS provides the best choices for consumers in both the private and public sectors.

"...  we can surmise that organizations in emerging countries such as Malaysia, would leverage OSS from the beginning to avoid vendor lock-in," said Prianka Srinivasan, Asia Pacific market analyst at IDC's software research group, "... OSS is now used in almost all verticals and in different software stacks as there is sufficient support from OSS vendors."

Despite FOSS being childishly name-called "cancerous", educated developers too can easily reap the rewards without the fear of viral infection:

"And as an independent software vendor (ISV), our ability to develop and improve our core application framework engine is enhanced with the usage of some OSS components. This is a huge plus point for us," [KeshMahinder Singh, CEO of Profitera]

Thanks for reporting, ZDNet.

yk.

[Update 15th August 2007 12:15pm : The title of the ZDNet article has now changed from "Malaysia embraces open docs format" to the more accurate title of "Malaysia embraces Open Document Format". It is still grammatically in error, and not entirely accurate, as it should read "Malaysia embraces the OpenDocument Format", but ah well, we take what we get]

What is Free Culture?

My understanding of Free Culture is:

The empowerment of the individual through the collaboration of the many through the free sharing of knowledge.

Wow, what a mouthful!

But then you would have to argue: What is the definition of "free sharing of knowledge"?

When I mean "free", I don't mean in terms of cost.  But in terms of the restrictions applied on the knowledge itself.

Think free speech, not free teh tarik.

Then, how does one define knowledge to be free, and unrestrictive?  What set of guidelines do we have to measure knowledge, whether it is free or not?

Free Cultural Works Definition
Using the Free Software Definition as a base, the team behind the Free Cultural Works Definition have come together and have defined it as such:

• the freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it
• the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it
• the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression
• the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works

Free Software is only a Subset of Free Culture
For starters, Free Software is a subset of Free Culture.  This is because Free Culture embodies all forms of knowledge.

artworks, scientific and educational materials, software, articles - in short: anything that can be represented in digital form.

Free Culture Has Happened Before

Ditesh brought to me a good point in that Free Culture has happened before, wherein I analyzed a 21st century perspective on how Free Software, Free Content, and Open Standards work together as a catalyst for one another towards the creation of Free Culture.

The Scientific Method of peer review, brought forth unparalleled innovation into the world.  Becoming the basis of scientific research, the scientific method would be considered inseparable from the history of science.

The Reemergence of Free Culture
Free Culture is rising again, though Free Software, Free Content, and brought together through Open Standards.  Various organizations have been established, and discussions are taking place all around the world on how to advance Free Culture.

For all you know, it may just come naturally as kids grow up remixing songs, pictures, movies, software, novels, anything.  But it is our job to ensure that we can give them the ability to do that.

Free Culture is Not About the Destruction of Intellectual Property Rights
One misconception is that Free Culture is about the destruction of Intellectual Property Rights, about the destruction of an established set of incentives to reward the creator.

No.

Free Culture is not that.  It's about finding a balance between the ever tightening grasp on knowledge, and the ability to access, create, modify, publish and distribute those same works.

- aizat

Other Resources

• Wikipedia - Free Culture movement
• Free Culture By Lawrence Lessig (Available for Free as in cost and freedom)