[Press Release] OSoft Partners with OpenReader
Press release located at: http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/051026/265702.html?.v=1 Here's the text version: ********************************************************************** OSoft Partners with OpenReader Wednesday, October 26, 2005 Taking the "Fright" Out of e-books -- With Open Standards TACOMA, Wash.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Oct. 26, 2005 -- Buying e-books can be Halloween-scary. They come in many electronic formats -- everything from Microsoft Reader to obscure ones cooked up by hobbyists. You can buy 'em online, only to discover you've paid for the wrong format. Have you ever tried to return an e-book? But what if you could download an e-book and know the format was right for your PDA, cell phone, tablet or desktop computer system? Suppose an orange logo on the box reassured you: "OpenReader compatible"? And what if you saw a similar logo at an online retailer, so you could confidently buy the book? "That's our vision for OpenReader -- to help e-publications be as compatible and easy to buy and use as music CDs," says Mark Carey, president of OSoft.com. "We're modifying our existing ThoutReader(TM) technology to adopt XML, an international e-document standard that no one owns and everyone can use." The new format will come from the OpenReader Consortium (openreader.org), headed by e-book standards expert Jon Noring. Among the consortium's cofounders are XML expert Michael Day in Australia and Rick Barry, former information services chief for the World Bank, an archives-and-records specialist. Meanwhile OSoft will turn its XML-based ThoutReader(TM) into OpenReader by next May. "Anyone can build OpenReader-compatible software," says Noring, a veteran of years of standards efforts within the e-book industry. "But OSoft is the first to act. Microsoft and Adobe promote their proprietary formats, and Google and Yahoo are more focused on scanning images of books than promoting a standard format that can be customized and will look great on the screen." Victor McCrary, who initiated e-book standards efforts while at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, has endorsed OpenReader. So have leading e-bookstores like eBooks.com and Fictionwise.com. "Whether it's Google or a small online store, we're eager to help everyone adopt open standards," says co-founder David Rothman, OpenReader's strategy and external relations director. "We'll raze the tower of eBabel so e-books can be reliably read 500 years from now. Reading software may change over time but the basic electronic format can remain the same." Contact: OSoft Mark Carey, 253-284-0475 mcarey@osoft.com or OpenReader Jon Noring, 801-253-4037 info@openreader.org
jnoring@netbeam.net wrote:
The new format will come from the OpenReader Consortium (openreader.org), headed by e-book standards expert Jon Noring.
Ebook standards are great! There are sooo many to choose from. And now we get another one! I feel all warm and fuzzy inside. What we *really* need is a GPLed reader software that groks any open standard and runs *today* on PalmOS, PocketPC, Symbian, etc. not an announced proprietary software that will run on PocketPC in version 1.0 and on PalmOS in version 3.0 in the year 2525. To get even the 1.0 features at http://openreader.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=80 into a commercially distributable application you'll need 5 skilled programmers and 2 years time (if you start with the gecko renderer). Show me these resources. (You can contract me but my fees are pretty steep if I have to develop on Windows. :-) -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
Marcello Perathoner wrote:
What we *really* need is a GPLed reader software that groks any open standard and runs *today* on PalmOS, PocketPC, Symbian, etc. not an announced proprietary software that will run on PocketPC in version 1.0 and on PalmOS in version 3.0 in the year 2525.
What would be even better would be a free, open-source, cross-platform User Agent which is _not_ encumbered by the GPL.
To get even the 1.0 features at
http://openreader.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=73&Itemid=80
into a commercially distributable application you'll need 5 skilled programmers and 2 years time (if you start with the gecko renderer).
Of course, nowhere does OpenReader propose a commercial application (although it does not forclose the possibility), so any mention of a commercial app here is a bit of a red herring. I have no idea where you might find a commercial organization that might be willing to hire you, but if you want to participate for free in an open-source project for free, you're welcome to join us at OpenReader.
Lee Passey wrote:
What would be even better would be a free, open-source, cross-platform User Agent which is _not_ encumbered by the GPL.
I like it better "encumbered" so nobody can take the source, add some proprietary tags and take over the standard.
Of course, nowhere does OpenReader propose a commercial application (although it does not forclose the possibility), so any mention of a commercial app here is a bit of a red herring.
Proposing a standard without proof of implementability is a red herring. Wanting to see at least one implementation before adopting a standard is just common sense. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Lee Passey wrote:
What would be even better would be a free, open-source, cross-platform User Agent which is _not_ encumbered by the GPL.
I like it better "encumbered" so nobody can take the source, add some proprietary tags and take over the standard.
I understand. There are some people who just can't stand the thought of giving up control. GPLed software is free in the sense of free beer, but not free in the sense of free speech. I need not pay anyone to acquire it, but I can't use it freely; specifically, I cannot combine it with non-free software and charge for the non-free portions. Usually when I point this out, the response is "nobody is _requiring_ you to use GPL code. If you don't like the restrictions, don't use the code." This statement is true enough, and is what I do (when looking for source code I first look at the license, and if it is GPL I move on without considering it further; and while I contribute to several open-source projects I do _not_ contribute to GPLed projects) -- but again it is a red herring. It is a distraction from the central issue, which is that GPLed software is _not_ freely usable, whatever its proponents may claim. And the success of such non-GPLed open source projects such as Apache and Mozilla indicates that the GPL probably isn't even necessary to accomplish the FSF's goals.
Of course, nowhere does OpenReader propose a commercial application (although it does not forclose the possibility), so any mention of a commercial app here is a bit of a red herring.
Proposing a standard without proof of implementability is a red herring.
From The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition (2000): RED HERRING: noun: 1. A smoked herring having a reddish color. 2. Something that draws attention away from the central issue. ETYMOLOGY: From its use to distract hunting dogs from the trail. STANDARD: noun: ... 5. Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence... PROPOSE: transitive verb: 1. To put forward for consideration, discussion, or adoption; suggest: So... The original post announced that at least one commercial organization is committed to adopting the proposed OpenReader standard. That announcement did nothing to minimize OpenReader's own commitment to fostering development of a truly free, open-source, cross-platform User Agent which would also support the OpenReader format. Perceptions as to what may be required for a commercial company to create an OpenReader-compatible User Agent may be interesting (at least _I_ find it interesting) but in the context of the press release it _is_ a bit of a red herring. On the other hand, proposing a standard a standard without first proving that it implementable (and I suppose the best proof of implementability [sic] is an actual implementation), whatever else it may be, is _not_ a red herring, because proposing a standard is not a distraction from the central issue, at least not without having a context so we know what the central issue is.
Wanting to see at least one implementation before adopting a standard is just common sense.
What you are suggesting here is a recipe for inaction. The OpenReader format can hardly be called a standard, as widespread recognition, adoption, and employment is still a way off, but _proposals_ must always precede adoption. If no one adopts a proposal until someone else does it first, no proposal will _ever_ be adopted. OpenReader has created a specification, and proposed that it should become a standard. The exact parameters of that specification are not yet decided, and are being discussed even now on the OpenReader-Format mailing list (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/openreader-format/). If companies and organizations adopt the specification (as OSoft has done) it may well become a standard. As there are no implementations, it would certainly be a misuse of the language to claim that the OpenReader format already _is_ a standard, but it is certainly not a misuse of the language to state that it is a _proposed_ standard even without implementations. The question as to whether or not the OpenReader format will ever become a standard is a judgment based on a number of factors; waiting for wide spread adoption is a slam-dunk way of making that judgment (essentially agreeing with what has become common knowledge), but it is not the only way, and is not even the most common-sensical approach. The question as to whether or not the OpenReader format _should_ become a standard is a more interesting question, and for those who have concluded that it should, what can be done to _help_ it become a standard is even more interesting.
Lee Passey wrote:
I understand. There are some people who just can't stand the thought of giving up control. GPLed software is free in the sense of free beer, but not free in the sense of free speech. I need not pay anyone to acquire it, but I can't use it freely; specifically, I cannot combine it with non-free software and charge for the non-free portions.
Wrong. You can sell GPLed software. Red Hat does it. Novell does it. You can too! All the GPL requires is that you GPL your changes too. You take something from the community, you give something back to the community. That's only fair. Taking the community's work freely whilst sitting on your changes is not fair.
What you are suggesting here is a recipe for inaction. The OpenReader format can hardly be called a standard, as widespread recognition, adoption, and employment is still a way off, but _proposals_ must always precede adoption. If no one adopts a proposal until someone else does it first, no proposal will _ever_ be adopted.
Standard, test-suite and reference implementations should be developed in parallel. W3C is starting to require a complete test-suite and at least 2 working implementations for any standard to exit Candidate stage. This is why there always is (and always was) a working PGTEI installation that implements new features before those features get publicly announced in The Guide (which is reference and test-suite at the same time). The OpenReader "proposal" is nothing more than a Calvinesque x-mas wish list (Part 1: from "Atom Bomb" to "Grenade Launcher"). Of course, openreader.org admits the "proposal" are just the jotted down results of a brainstorm. But the press release is a Bowerbirdesque mis-representation of the state of development. It says: "Meanwhile OSoft will turn its XML-based ThoutReader(TM) into OpenReader by next May." The facts are: - there isn't even an OpenReader standard yet. To build that alone will take much longer than May. - ThoutReader(tm) today needs Java and 256 MB RAM. Not what I'd call an ebook reader. -- Marcello Perathoner webmaster@gutenberg.org
On 10/27/05, Lee Passey <lee@novomail.net> wrote:
Marcello Perathoner wrote:
Lee Passey wrote:
What would be even better would be a free, open-source, cross-platform User Agent which is _not_ encumbered by the GPL.
I like it better "encumbered" so nobody can take the source, add some proprietary tags and take over the standard.
I understand. There are some people who just can't stand the thought of giving up control. GPLed software is free in the sense of free beer, but not free in the sense of free speech.[...]
Please, people. This is obviously off-topic and does not need to be argued out here.
participants (4)
-
David Starner -
jnoringļ¼ netbeam.net -
Lee Passey -
Marcello Perathoner