diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | eut.raw | 34 |
1 files changed, 17 insertions, 17 deletions
@@ -345,9 +345,9 @@ It should be noted that in March 2012, the Swedish Competition Authority closed We submit that transparency should be measured having regard to not only the average person "without impairments", so to speak, but also with those who are for instance visually or hearing impaired. In other words, transparency also should take "accessibility" into account. -For web content a standard has been developed by W3C, which is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)<ref>{{cite web|title=Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)|url=http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag|accessdate=16 October 2014}}</ref>. +For web content a standard has been developed by W3C, which is the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG)<ref>{{cite web|title=Web Content Accessibility Guidelines ({WCAG})|url=http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/wcag|accessdate=16 October 2014}}</ref>. -European Commission (EC) Mandate M 376 required the three main European standardisation bodies CEN, CENELEC and ETSI to harmonise and facilitate the public procurement of accessible information and communication technologies (ICT) products and services within Europe.<ref>{{cite web|title=European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement of Products and Services in the ICT Domain (European Commission Standardization Mandate M 376, Phase 2)|url=http://www.mandate376.eu/|accessdate=16 October 2014}}</ref> +European Commission (EC) Mandate M 376 required the three main European standardisation bodies CEN, CENELEC and ETSI to harmonise and facilitate the public procurement of accessible information and communication technologies (ICT) products and services within Europe.<ref>{{cite web|title=European Accessibility Requirements for Public Procurement of Products and Services in the {ICT} Domain (European Commission Standardization Mandate M 376, Phase 2)|url=http://www.mandate376.eu/|accessdate=16 October 2014}}</ref> Both of the mentioned standardisation rules have been mandated by some Member States<ref>Some information on the adoption of accessibility standards, a recent book is {{cite book|last1=Buie|first1=Elizabeth|last2=Murray|first2=Diane|title=Usability in Government Systems: User Experience Design for Citizens and Public Servants|date=2012|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=978-0-12-391063-9|url=http://books.google.it/books?id=U3P4tdoETiwC&dq|accessdate=16 October 2014}}</ref> @@ -361,7 +361,7 @@ If "transparency" here means "directly open, transparent and accessible to all t In an interconnected world this goal can be efficiently achieved by means of technology, in particular through telecommunication technology. This seems a sufficiently self-evident and commonly accepted concept that does not deserve further discussion and evidence. -Telecommunication technology cannot exist without standards. This is also quite easily understood and common ground.<ref name="ITU in brief">"Standards are critical to the interoperability of ICTs and whether we exchange voice, video or data messages, standards enable global communications by ensuring that countries' ICT networks and devices are speaking the same language." From {{cite web|title=ITU in Brief|url=http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/about/Pages/default.aspx|accessdate=25 July 2014|ref=ITU}}</ref> +Telecommunication technology cannot exist without standards. This is also quite easily understood and common ground.<ref name="{ITU} in brief">"Standards are critical to the interoperability of ICTs and whether we exchange voice, video or data messages, standards enable global communications by ensuring that countries' ICT networks and devices are speaking the same language." From {{cite web|title={ITU} in Brief|url=http://www.itu.int/en/ITU-T/about/Pages/default.aspx|accessdate=25 July 2014|ref=ITU}}</ref> Therefore "openness" shall mean that the external communication channels, of all sort, must use standards, which (or the many possible) standard(s) remaining yet to be assessed. @@ -395,7 +395,7 @@ The debate around the European Interoperability Framework in its two incarnation === The European Interoperability Framework V.1 === -The European Interoperability Framework was conceived in 2003 and defined as "[an] overarching set of policies, standards and guidelines which describe the way in which organisations have agreed, or should agree, to do business with each other." <ref name=IDABC>{{cite web|title=EIF -- European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment services|url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/2319/5644.html|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> In essence, it is an effort put in place to have one reference for public administrations as well as private entities within Europe to seamlessly share services and data with each other, by means of agreed practices and standards, as an action from eEurope 2005 Action Plan. +The European Interoperability Framework was conceived in 2003 and defined as "[an] overarching set of policies, standards and guidelines which describe the way in which organisations have agreed, or should agree, to do business with each other." <ref name=IDABC>{{cite web|title={EIF} -- European Interoperability Framework for pan-European {eGovernment} services|url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/2319/5644.html|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> In essence, it is an effort put in place to have one reference for public administrations as well as private entities within Europe to seamlessly share services and data with each other, by means of agreed practices and standards, as an action from eEurope 2005 Action Plan. One of the tasks of the project was indeed to find some common ground as to what "standard" means and what an "open standard" also means: @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ To attain interoperability in the context of pan-European eGovernment services, * The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.). * The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee. * The intellectual property -- i.e. patents possibly present -- of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis. -* There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.<ref name=EIFv1>{{cite book|title=European Interoperability Framework For Pan-European eGovernment Services|isbn=92-894-8389-X|page=9|url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Docd552.pdf?id=19529|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> +* There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard.<ref name=EIFv1>{{cite book|title=European Interoperability Framework For Pan-European {eGovernment} Services|isbn=92-894-8389-X|page=9|url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/servlets/Docd552.pdf?id=19529|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> </blockquote> Note that the recommendation did not prescribe the use of only open standards, but only advised to "focus" on open standards. There was also no ethical or ideological implication in the recommendation, which came from an objective and functional analysis. @@ -413,7 +413,7 @@ To our knowledge, that was the first attempt to define open standards in an offi === The European Interoperability Framework V.2 === -In 2006, the European Commission has started the revision of the European Interoperability Framework<ref>{{cite web|title=Revision of the EIF and AG|url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7728.html|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref>. The effort was completed with the communication of Version 2 in December 2010.<ref name=EIFv2>{{cite web|title=Annex 2 to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions 'Towards interoperability for European public services' COM(2010) 744 final|url=http://ec.europa.eu/isa/documents/isa_annex_ii_eif_en.pdf|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> +In 2006, the European Commission has started the revision of the European Interoperability Framework<ref>{{cite web|title=Revision of the {EIF} and {AG}|url=http://ec.europa.eu/idabc/en/document/7728.html|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref>. The effort was completed with the communication of Version 2 in December 2010.<ref name=EIFv2>{{cite web|title=Annex 2 to the Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions 'Towards interoperability for European public services' COM(2010) 744 final|url=http://ec.europa.eu/isa/documents/isa_annex_ii_eif_en.pdf|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> Reportedly due to intense lobbying by industry representatives,<ref>{{cite web|title=European Commission Betrays Open Standards|url=http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/open-enterprise/2010/05/european-commission-betrays-open-standards/index.htm|website=ComputerWorld UK -- Blog|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> <ref>{{cite web|title=European Interoperability Framework supports openness|url=http://opensource.com/government/10/12/european-interoperability-framework-supports-openness|website=Opensource.com|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> notably in the new document there is no reference to standards at all, let alone to open standards, but more vaguely to "open specifications".<ref>EIFv2 , page 26</ref> @@ -432,9 +432,9 @@ If the openness principle is applied in full: * Intellectual property rights related to the specification are licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software. </blockquote> -"FRAND" is an acronym of "Free, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory" conditions, and is a term of the trade in the standardisation world, and beyond. However, it is not clear what it really means <ref>Most telling the EU-commissioned study for the European Commission -- Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry {{cite web|title=Patents and Standards -- A modern framework for IPR-based standardization|url=http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/4843/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf|accessdate=14 October 2014}}, cfr pag. 130.</ref>, as for instance it can be argued that imposing a per copy royalty is discriminatory against Free Software or software with (other) strong ''"copyleft"'' licensing conditions. Therefore it is open to question whether FRAND conditions that do not allow "implementation in both proprietary and open source software" are indeed FRAND as per the very definition of open specifications. +"FRAND" is an acronym of "Free, Reasonable And Non Discriminatory" conditions, and is a term of the trade in the standardisation world, and beyond. However, it is not clear what it really means <ref>Most telling the EU-commissioned study for the European Commission -- Directorate-General for Enterprise and Industry {{cite web|title=Patents and Standards -- A modern framework for {IPR}-based standardization|url=http://ec.europa.eu/DocsRoom/documents/4843/attachments/1/translations/en/renditions/pdf|accessdate=14 October 2014}}, cfr pag. 130.</ref>, as for instance it can be argued that imposing a per copy royalty is discriminatory against Free Software or software with (other) strong ''"copyleft"'' licensing conditions. Therefore it is open to question whether FRAND conditions that do not allow "implementation in both proprietary and open source software" are indeed FRAND as per the very definition of open specifications. -This is not the place to resolve the issue, but it is indicative of how there is a tension between those who oppose extending the definition of Open Standards to something that is not as open as it can be (mainly, some of the biggest patent holders, yet not all of them), and those who advocate a stricter definition to include only something that is really open to be adopted, without the need to take affirmative steps to obtain a license, even from a patent pool.<ref>For a dissertation of the topic in general, please see {{cite journal|last1=Dolmans|first1=Maurits|last2=Piana|first2=Carlo|title=A Tale of Two Tragedies -- A plea for open standards, and some comments on the RAND report|journal=International Free and Open Source Software Law Review|date=2010|volume=2|issue=2|pages=115-138|doi=10.5033/ifosslr.v2i2.46|url=http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/46|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> <ref>Also with useful analyses on openness of standards a more dated article: {{cite journal|last1=Krechmer|first1=Ken|title=Open Standards Requirements|journal=The International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research|date=7 February 2005|volume=4|issue=1|url=http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.pdf|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> +This is not the place to resolve the issue, but it is indicative of how there is a tension between those who oppose extending the definition of Open Standards to something that is not as open as it can be (mainly, some of the biggest patent holders, yet not all of them), and those who advocate a stricter definition to include only something that is really open to be adopted, without the need to take affirmative steps to obtain a license, even from a patent pool.<ref>For a dissertation of the topic in general, please see {{cite journal|last1=Dolmans|first1=Maurits|last2=Piana|first2=Carlo|title=A Tale of Two Tragedies -- A plea for open standards, and some comments on the {RAND} report|journal=International Free and Open Source Software Law Review|date=2010|volume=2|issue=2|pages=115-138|doi=10.5033/ifosslr.v2i2.46|url=http://www.ifosslr.org/ifosslr/article/view/46|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> <ref>Also with useful analyses on openness of standards a more dated article: {{cite journal|last1=Krechmer|first1=Ken|title=Open Standards Requirements|journal=The International Journal of {IT} Standards and Standardization Research|date=7 February 2005|volume=4|issue=1|url=http://www.csrstds.com/openstds.pdf|accessdate=7 August 2014}}</ref> === The UK definition === @@ -464,7 +464,7 @@ Rights -- rights essential to implementation of the standard, and for interfacin Another very strict definition is the one for India's Government: <blockquote> -Mandatory Characteristics<ref name="Policy in India">{{cite web|last1=Government of India|title=Policy on Open Standards for e-Governance|url=https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published_Policy_Framework_Document/Policy%20on%20Open%20Standards%20for%20e-Governance.pdf|accessdate=25 July 2014|ref=india}}</ref> +Mandatory Characteristics<ref name="Policy in India">{{cite web|last1=Government of India|title=Policy on Open Standards for {e-Governance}|url=https://egovstandards.gov.in/sites/default/files/Published_Policy_Framework_Document/Policy%20on%20Open%20Standards%20for%20e-Governance.pdf|accessdate=25 July 2014|ref=india}}</ref> An Identified Standard will qualify as an "Open Standard", if it meets the following criteria: <ol> @@ -487,9 +487,9 @@ These are just samples to show how strong the debate on Open Standards is and wh RFCs are akin to formal standards, because an authoritative and documented source of normative and explanatory text exists. They have been adopted since the times of the ARPANET project ("Advanced Research Projects Agency Network" the initial network from which Internet originated) <ref>{{cite news | last=Crocker | first=Stephen D. | title=How the Internet Got Its Rules | newspaper=The New York Times | publisher=nytimes.com | date=6 April 2009 | url=http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/07/opinion/07crocker.html | accessdate=2014-07-25}}</ref> and evolved over the times. RFCs are now a body of standards collected and organised by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force)<ref>IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) http://www.ietf.org/</ref> and by the less famous Internet Society<ref>Internet Society http://www.internetsociety.org/</ref>. -They should not be underestimated, as they are at the foundation of some of the most important and widely used protocols, such as the protocols that make the Internet email system <ref>e.g., the IMAP Protocols, see among them {{cite web|title=IMAP protcol, RFC1064|url=http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1064|accessdate=25 July 2014}}</ref> +They should not be underestimated, as they are at the foundation of some of the most important and widely used protocols, such as the protocols that make the Internet email system <ref>e.g., the IMAP Protocols, see among them {{cite web|title={IMAP} protcol, RFC1064|url=http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1064|accessdate=25 July 2014}}</ref> -IETF's RFCs are generally considered Open Standards, and are commonly understood as "Royalty Free" Open Standards, although the "IPR policies" (the rules according to which technologies can be introduced into the RFCs depending on the "Intellectual Property Rights" -- mostly patents rights -- are claimed by the contributing party) allow for royalty-bearing licensing of the included technologies.<ref>See IETF RFC 3979{{cite web|title=IETF, RFC 3979,|url=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3979/?include_text=1|accessdate=25 July 2014}}</ref> +IETF's RFCs are generally considered Open Standards, and are commonly understood as "Royalty Free" Open Standards, although the "IPR policies" (the rules according to which technologies can be introduced into the RFCs depending on the "Intellectual Property Rights" -- mostly patents rights -- are claimed by the contributing party) allow for royalty-bearing licensing of the included technologies.<ref>See IETF RFC 3979{{cite web|title={IETF}, {RFC} 3979,|url=https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc3979/?include_text=1|accessdate=25 July 2014}}</ref> == Free and Open Source Software (FOSS) == @@ -546,15 +546,15 @@ Lock-in is a phenomenon where previous choices reduce the freedom to make future Locked-in solutions might not allow achievement of the goal of transparency, because budgetary and time constraints work against it. -The Commission has analysed this phenomenon with a lot of care, although sometimes it proved itself unwilling to take the medicine it prescribed to others,<ref>{{cite web|title=European Commission renews controversial Microsoft contract|url=http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280095047/European-Commission-renews-controversial-Microsoft-contract|accessdate=9 December 2014}}</reF> within Action 23 of the Digital Agenda.<ref>{{cite web|title=Action 23: Provide guidance on ICT standardisation and public procurement|url=http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/content/action-23-provide-guidance-ict-standardisation-and-public-procurement|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> The Commission identified lock-in as an important problem that can only be cured with the adoption of open standards -- although, as we have seen before, it failed to define properly what an open standard is and it showed a weak spine in taking the concept of openness where others took it. +The Commission has analysed this phenomenon with a lot of care, although sometimes it proved itself unwilling to take the medicine it prescribed to others,<ref>{{cite web|title=European Commission renews controversial Microsoft contract|url=http://www.computerweekly.com/news/1280095047/European-Commission-renews-controversial-Microsoft-contract|accessdate=9 December 2014}}</reF> within Action 23 of the Digital Agenda.<ref>{{cite web|title=Action 23: Provide guidance on {ICT} standardisation and public procurement|url=http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/content/action-23-provide-guidance-ict-standardisation-and-public-procurement|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> The Commission identified lock-in as an important problem that can only be cured with the adoption of open standards -- although, as we have seen before, it failed to define properly what an open standard is and it showed a weak spine in taking the concept of openness where others took it. <blockquote> The Digital Agenda for Europe identified ''"lock-in"'' as a problem. Building open ICT systems by making better use of standards in public procurement will improve and prevent the lock-in issue.<ref>{{cite web|title=Open Standards|url=http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/en/open-standards|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> </blockquote> Therefore standards are a way to avoid lock-in. The Commission carefully avoids using the wording "open standards", but many indications and references make it clear that it points to that when it refers to "standard based procurement". The two main working documents describing how public procurement should be done to avoid lock-in are in: -* A Communication titled "Against lock-in: building open ICT systems by making better use of standards in public" <ref>{{cite web|title=Against lock-in: building open ICT systems by making better use of standards in public|url=http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news/against-lock-building-open-ict-systems-making-better-use-standards-public|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> -* A staff working document "Guide for the procurement of standards-based ICT -- Elements of Good Practice" <ref>{{cite web|title=Guide for the procurement of standards-based ICT -- Elements of Good Practice|url=http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news/guide-procurement-standards-based-ict-%E2%80%94-elements-good-practice|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> +* A Communication titled "Against lock-in: building open ICT systems by making better use of standards in public" <ref>{{cite web|title=Against lock-in: building open {ICT} systems by making better use of standards in public|url=http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news/against-lock-building-open-ict-systems-making-better-use-standards-public|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> +* A staff working document "Guide for the procurement of standards-based ICT -- Elements of Good Practice" <ref>{{cite web|title=Guide for the procurement of standards-based {ICT} -- Elements of Good Practice|url=http://ec.europa.eu/digital-agenda/news/guide-procurement-standards-based-ict-%E2%80%94-elements-good-practice|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> Proceeding from the above, we can safely take a few conclusions: * in order be free to adopt the best tools available, now and in a medium to long term, the Parliament has a special burden to avoid lock-in. @@ -562,9 +562,9 @@ Proceeding from the above, we can safely take a few conclusions: * Not only transparency mandates the use of open standards for the outward channel, but transparency leans heavily towards the use of standard-based decisions and modular, vendor independent, lock-in averted solutions. The cited documents take no stance towards (or against, for that matter) '''Free Software''' in the lock-in avoidance context. However it seems that one cannot take any conclusions from this omission, only that the lock-in avoidance shall be taken into consideration with all kind of licensing regimes or development environment or technology. At the same time there seems to be no contradiction in the principle we have introduced that Free Software enhances the anti-lock-in power of the user (so much that even the user has the permission to be developer). And we reiterate the fundamental concepts: -* Truly Free Software solutions are outside the control of the vendor. The vendor can have a temporary control or even have a stronghold over one solution, but examples exist that when this control is too tight and against the interests of the Community, the ability to "fork" is an essential tool that exerts a constraint on any dictatorial vendor.<ref>A useful discussion on what the ability to fork means in terms of relieving competition concerns can be found in {{cite web|title=Commission Decision of 21.01.2010 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the EEA Agreement(Case No COMP/M.5529 -- Oracle/ Sun Microsystems)|url=http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m5529_20100121_20682_en.pdf|accessdate=10 November 2014}}, Section 4.4.3 (pag. 118 onwards).</ref> +* Truly Free Software solutions are outside the control of the vendor. The vendor can have a temporary control or even have a stronghold over one solution, but examples exist that when this control is too tight and against the interests of the Community, the ability to "fork" is an essential tool that exerts a constraint on any dictatorial vendor.<ref>A useful discussion on what the ability to fork means in terms of relieving competition concerns can be found in {{cite web|title=Commission Decision of 21.01.2010 declaring a concentration to be compatible with the common market and the functioning of the {EEA} Agreement(Case No {COMP}/M.5529 -- Oracle/ Sun Microsystems)|url=http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/decisions/m5529_20100121_20682_en.pdf|accessdate=10 November 2014}}, Section 4.4.3 (pag. 118 onwards).</ref> * The availability of source code, and possibly a healthy and diverse development community, is a guarantee that there is no orphan work or constrained upgrade path. Free Software allows the choice to buy or make, or to have made by others unrelated to the copyright holder. -* Proprietary software vendors have incentives and abilities to lock clients in <ref>The most striking example is probably the ''Microsoft'' case {{cite web|title=Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the EC Treaty (Case COMP/C-3/37.792 Microsoft)|url=http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/37792/37792_4177_1.pdf|accessdate=10 November 2014}} </ref>. Free Software vendors have less, or even no incentives toward locking their clients in, because efforts would be largely ineffective or impossible. De facto, most of Free Software project tend to use open standards,and non open standards and format only if network effects make the former non viable. +* Proprietary software vendors have incentives and abilities to lock clients in <ref>The most striking example is probably the ''Microsoft'' case {{cite web|title=Commission Decision of 24.03.2004 relating to a proceeding under Article 82 of the {EC} Treaty (Case {COMP}/C-3/37.792 Microsoft)|url=http://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases/dec_docs/37792/37792_4177_1.pdf|accessdate=10 November 2014}} </ref>. Free Software vendors have less, or even no incentives toward locking their clients in, because efforts would be largely ineffective or impossible. De facto, most of Free Software project tend to use open standards,and non open standards and format only if network effects make the former non viable. * The European Parliament should use IT solutions guaranteed to be independent from IT vendors. Instead of making IT decision based on cost, it should prefer technologies that allow others to work with it. == Free and Open data and content == @@ -620,7 +620,7 @@ Formats for documents available for reuse </ol> </blockquote> -While fully analysing the licensing of data goes beyond the scope of this study, and while the discussion on open standards also covers the ''way'' (or format) in which data are made available for non-intermediated consumption, we suggest that not only for transparency purpose, but in order to generally remove unnecessary confusion, that instead of '''licensing''' data, a '''waiver''' on database right is adopted as default legal release tool.<ref>One of the authors has explained this finding in {{cite web|title=FreeGIS.net Data Licence 1.0|url=https://freegis.net/documents/10157/14646/FreeGIS+data+licence+1?version=1.0}} [ITA], but see also {{cite web|last1=Morando|first1=Federico|title=Legal Interoperability: Making Open (Government) Data Compatible with Businesses and Communities|url=http://leo.cineca.it/index.php/jlis/article/view/5461|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> +While fully analysing the licensing of data goes beyond the scope of this study, and while the discussion on open standards also covers the ''way'' (or format) in which data are made available for non-intermediated consumption, we suggest that not only for transparency purpose, but in order to generally remove unnecessary confusion, that instead of '''licensing''' data, a '''waiver''' on database right is adopted as default legal release tool.<ref>One of the authors has explained this finding in {{cite web|title={FreeGIS.net} Data Licence 1.0|url=https://freegis.net/documents/10157/14646/FreeGIS+data+licence+1?version=1.0}} [ITA], but see also {{cite web|last1=Morando|first1=Federico|title=Legal Interoperability: Making Open (Government) Data Compatible with Businesses and Communities|url=http://leo.cineca.it/index.php/jlis/article/view/5461|accessdate=8 August 2014}}</ref> = Practical applications = |