4 ms·

Keep it simple. All protocols for communication and data formats for storage must be published as open source or public domain. This is to prevent or reduce loc

Keep it simple. All protocols for communication and data formats for storage must be published as open source or public domain. This is to prevent or reduce lockin, walled gardens, etc. No other change. They can still compete in numerous other ways.

joshuata 10y ago
Although this is an appealing idea, I don't think it is realistic. Lobbying would destroy any legislation almost immediately, and there would still be the issue of competing standards. I think a more achievable version would be that any online service which maintains user data must provide a method for a user to retrieve that data in an open-source format. Some companies would deliberately obfuscate formats, such as calendar appointments as JSON rather than iCAL or another existing standard, but I think it would give users more control than they currently have.
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "Lobbying would destroy any legislation almost immediately, and there would still be the issue of competing standards." Oh, I agree. You're describing the effect of a corrupt government allowed to prevent or eliminate laws meant to protect its voters. I was talking about what law would be necessary if voters cared enough to push one.
icebraining 10y ago
And the result is OOXML, which is well known for being a trainwreck and which nobody - including Microsoft - has been able to implement properly, despite being an "open standard".
- nickpsecurity 10y ago
  "And the result is OOXML" The result of open-sourcing all data formats and protocols would obviously be all the data formats and protocols released as open-source. OOXML is not the only one in existence.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    My point is that companies forced to do this would create abstruse formats, and then even misimplement them, to thwart those trying to interoperate.
    - nickpsecurity 10y ago
      Oh yeah. They'll probably try that. That will either be defeated with tons of sweat as it largely was in products like OpenOffice or the legal recommendation modified to attempt to deal with it. It might also be handled in the courts if the law includes language that specifically instructs to attempt simple, readable protocols to "facilitate interoperability." Obfuscations could be argued as the opposite of that in court.
      - icebraining 10y ago
        That will either be defeated with tons of sweat as it largely was in products like OpenOffice Then why do you need open standards? Every major proprietary IM protocol has been re-implemented by open source software, including Hangouts: https://bitbucket.org/EionRobb/purple-hangouts https://bitbucket.org/EionRobb/purple-hangouts It might also be handled in the courts if the law includes language that specifically instructs to attempt simple, readable protocols to "facilitate interoperability. XMPP, the thing Google is being roasted for dropping support for, is often decried as being very complex and hard to implement correctly. If genuinely open protocols often end up like this, how can you possibly punish companies for writing complex, hard to implement protocols?
        nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Then why do you need open standards?" "This is to prevent or reduce lockin, walled gardens, etc." What I said. I'll add that it's hard to copyright API's to sue over compatibility when the API's and their implementation are released as open-source software. "If genuinely open protocols often end up like this" What are you talking about? There's all kinds of results from protocol design. You chose one of the worst ones. I was a PSYC fan over that if I had to choose an IRC replacement or open chat standard. A test for new ones might be trying to run it through LANGSEC's Nail, Cap n Proto or ZeroMQ to see if they handle it easily. Anyway, it's easier to do compatible implementations if you have source and can't be sued/imprisoned for imitating it.

joshuata 10y ago

Although this is an appealing idea, I don't think it is realistic. Lobbying would destroy any legislation almost immediately, and there would still be the issue of competing standards. I think a more achievable version would be that any online service which maintains user data must provide a method for a user to retrieve that data in an open-source format. Some companies would deliberately obfuscate formats, such as calendar appointments as JSON rather than iCAL or another existing standard, but I think it would give users more control than they currently have.

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"Lobbying would destroy any legislation almost immediately, and there would still be the issue of competing standards." Oh, I agree. You're describing the effect of a corrupt government allowed to prevent or eliminate laws meant to protect its voters. I was talking about what law would be necessary if voters cared enough to push one.

icebraining 10y ago

And the result is OOXML, which is well known for being a trainwreck and which nobody - including Microsoft - has been able to implement properly, despite being an "open standard".

nickpsecurity 10y ago
"And the result is OOXML" The result of open-sourcing all data formats and protocols would obviously be all the data formats and protocols released as open-source. OOXML is not the only one in existence.
- icebraining 10y ago
  My point is that companies forced to do this would create abstruse formats, and then even misimplement them, to thwart those trying to interoperate.
  - nickpsecurity 10y ago
    Oh yeah. They'll probably try that. That will either be defeated with tons of sweat as it largely was in products like OpenOffice or the legal recommendation modified to attempt to deal with it. It might also be handled in the courts if the law includes language that specifically instructs to attempt simple, readable protocols to "facilitate interoperability." Obfuscations could be argued as the opposite of that in court.
    - icebraining 10y ago
      That will either be defeated with tons of sweat as it largely was in products like OpenOffice Then why do you need open standards? Every major proprietary IM protocol has been re-implemented by open source software, including Hangouts: https://bitbucket.org/EionRobb/purple-hangouts https://bitbucket.org/EionRobb/purple-hangouts It might also be handled in the courts if the law includes language that specifically instructs to attempt simple, readable protocols to "facilitate interoperability. XMPP, the thing Google is being roasted for dropping support for, is often decried as being very complex and hard to implement correctly. If genuinely open protocols often end up like this, how can you possibly punish companies for writing complex, hard to implement protocols?
      - nickpsecurity 10y ago
        "Then why do you need open standards?" "This is to prevent or reduce lockin, walled gardens, etc." What I said. I'll add that it's hard to copyright API's to sue over compatibility when the API's and their implementation are released as open-source software. "If genuinely open protocols often end up like this" What are you talking about? There's all kinds of results from protocol design. You chose one of the worst ones. I was a PSYC fan over that if I had to choose an IRC replacement or open chat standard. A test for new ones might be trying to run it through LANGSEC's Nail, Cap n Proto or ZeroMQ to see if they handle it easily. Anyway, it's easier to do compatible implementations if you have source and can't be sued/imprisoned for imitating it.