[cad-linux] Re: OT: Open data formats (continuation of previous thread)

> So where does something like Autodesk's DWF format fit in=20
> this discussion of data retirement/availability?

I think it's the same as PDF; whereas it's a OPENLY DISCUSSED standard, =
but NOT an OPEN STANDARD.

What I mean by this is that fact that everything you say that DWF can =
do, so can PDF, and both formats are 'open' in as much as the fact that =
they are well-documented and the companies that created and own the =
formats are willing (for now) to share them.

However it's still not IMHO an 'open' format. Since it's owned and =
managed by a private company it's not really open for anyone to use. For =
example, a Russian company developed a tool that allowed you to take an =
encrypted PDF and turn it into raw text so that a disabled person could =
use it; i.e. feed it into a Braille or text-to-speech software. The side =
product of this was that no 'secure' PDF that had been 'locked' by it's =
creator was really secure; you could take a E-book and with this =
software 'break' it so that anyone could read it, not just the person =
that bought it. In Russia, this tool is completely legal, but in America =
it violates the DMCA.

So when one of the people who made this tool traveled to America to give =
a talk about how they were easily able to break the weak encryption of =
PDF's, he was arrested by the feds, who had been notified by Adobe, and =
thrown in jail. Eventually he was released months later.

Now moral and legal issues with this aside; If I was a writer, and I was =
relying on the E-Book technology to sell my books, I would also like to =
know how weak the encryption is and here what this guy had to say about =
it. Instead, Adobe gets him thrown in jail for stepping on their toes =
and produces spin and PR that the PDF format is 'secure' and that these =
Russian 'Hackers' are 'Bad'.

Or, let's put forward another scenario; let's say that I'm a software =
developer. I make a CAD package that is the cat's pajamas, and lots of =
people start using it. It can talk to DWG, DXF, DWF, I-Drop, 3DS, and =
any other AutoDesk-created or supported format you can think of. Now, =
let's say that this CAD package becomes so huge that it starts to take =
market share away from AutoDesk, and AutoDesk starts to loose money. How =
long do you think it would take for this 'open' DWF format to be changed =
by AutoDesk to break my CAD package's ability to talk with it? OR =
require me to buy a license to be able to use AutoDesk's formats, which =
wouldn't happen if I was an open source developer?

If a 'standard open format' is still owned by one private company it's =
not really a standard, for it can be changed at any time for arbitrary =
marketing reasons, it's not really open or not every piece of it is =
published (in the case of PDF's and their locking), it's really just =
another format.

A GOOD example of a true 'open' format would be something more like the =
IFC effort, or some of the various programming and markup languages like =
HTML and C. These are well documented formats that are not owned by one =
private company and are managed by non-profit or volunteers.

It IS all about access to my Data. There is a real short-sightedness to =
software vendor's arbitrary changes of file formats and tools that are =
made for the benefit of their own marketing dictions and have nothing to =
do with user's real needs. And I, for one, don't want to trust all my =
important data and work to the decisions of just one company, no matter =
who they are.

A last example. I have a lot of MP3's on my computer at home. All =
perfectly legal, everyone, copied from CD's I own. I listen to them in =
my MP3 player and at home, and use it like a giant jukebox. One of my =
favorite applications of modern computers. Anyways, this wasn't the =
wisest thing for me to do, for the MP3 format isn't open, and the =
company that owns it can make any changes they want to. They used to =
just charge the people that make the encoders a licensing fee; now they =
want to charge the players too. In the future they may want to change it =
so that I will have to buy a player software rather than downloading one =
for free. They could change things so that I can't play MP3's on my =
computer without paying them. I doubt they will, but the point is that =
they CAN make changes to manipulate the market to their benefit rather =
than mine, and most large companies WILL if they can get away with it. =
Additionally, with DRM and Palladium right around the corner, if I was =
to 'upgrade' to a Palladium OS my 15 gigs worth of MP3's might not work =
at all!

When I buy a toaster, or a table saw, a textbook, or a chair I am free =
to do whatever I want with these things; I could use them as they were =
intended, I could use them in ways not intended, I can turn them into =
art. The toaster company isn't trying to make their toasters only toast =
a certain-sized proprietary bread that you can only buy from them and =
that I would get arrested for sharing the recipe of. The textbook =
doesn't decide that it's license has 'expired' and isn't going to =
function anymore. The chair doesn't require me to agree to a user =
license prior to use, and sign away my rights with a dubious legal =
agreement that's pages long and which has never been tested in a court =
of law.

What I'm starting to see is that, desire the arguments to the contrary, =
that computers and software are NOT a completely different area =
requiring completely different laws and ways of working and should be if =
not the same then at least similar to the other things in my life. So =
that's why I'm researching open software; it behaves like the other =
things in my life do.=20

Jeffrey McGrew=20

Other related posts: