DOCSLIB.ORG

Open Standards, Open Formats, and Open Source

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Open Standards, Open Formats, and Open Source Open Standards, Open Formats, and Open Source Version 5.0 January 2007 Final Draft Davide Cerri and Alfonso Fuggetta CEFRIEL - Politecnico di Milano Open Standards, Open Formats, and Open Source Open Standards, Open Formats, and Open Source Davide Cerri and Alfonso Fuggetta CEFRIEL - Politecnico di Milano January 2007 Abstract The paper proposes some comments and reflections on the notion of “openness” and on how it relates to three important topics: open standards, open formats, and open source. Often, these terms are considered equivalent and/or mutually implicated: “open source is the only way to enforce and exploit open standards”. This position is misleading, as it increases the confusion about this complex and extremely critical topic. The paper clarifies the basic terms and concepts. This is instrumental to suggest a number of actions and practices aiming at promoting and defending openness in modern ICT products and services. Keywords: open source, open standard, open format, software development process, software procurement, interoperability. 1. A Critical Problem The impressive development of Information & Communication Technology (ICT) is posing new challenges to governments, users, and industries. The pervasiveness of computers, digital devices, and networks is radically changing our society. Nowadays, every business is heavily based on computers, networks, and sophisticated information systems. Every student, professional, or individual in general has become a user of digital technologies: computers, digital cellular phones and PDAs, MP3 players, and the Internet are part of our daily routine. The ICT revolution is changing our life and the way we work, study, enjoy life. This revolution is going to have permanent and radical effects on the way society is shaped and evolves. Basically, all the modern forms of knowledge and information are managed through digital devices and information.Therefore, there are increasing concerns about the risks and challenges that can derive from an inappropriate handling of emerging issues and problems such as management of intellectual property, control of shared resources (e.g., the spectrum and the telecommunication network infrastructure), software and network standards [5]. In particular, there are three concepts that are considered extremely important in this respect: open standards, open formats, and open source. Open standards define standard interfaces (in general, requirements) of ICT systems and services. Open standards make it possible to have a variety of interchangeable and interoperable products developed by different companies. They are instrumental to increase competition and, in the end, customer satisfaction. Typical examples of open standards are ANSI C and TCP/IP, two cornerstones of modern ICT technology. Unfortunately, the definition of open standard is not “standard”. There are different interpretations of the term and, more important, there are alternative visions about the strategy that should be followed to define and update these standards. Open formats are open standards to store and transmit documents, information, and in general knowledge. Examples of open formats are HTML and XML. It may be sufficient to discuss just “standards” in general, as standard formats are just a particular form of standard. However, since formats play a very important role, it is worthwhile to consider them explicitly in the rest of the discussion. © Davide Cerri and Alfonso Fuggetta, 2007 1 Open Standards, Open Formats, and Open Source Document formats are often defined by the producers of the software packages that generate them: for instance, a major source of discussion has been the approach used in the past by Microsoft to define and evolve the formats of Office documents. In general, if a document has been produced using a specific package (and is therefore stored using a specific format), users who want to access that document are forced to buy and use the package that has generated it. In general, the notion of open format is subject to discussion and needs some detailed discussion and clarification. Open source is an approach to manage the development and distribution of software. Open source means that the user of a software program is able (free) to access the source code of the program, study it, change it, and redistribute it. This can be achieved using particular software licenses that grant the user these rights. Indeed, there are different open source licensing models. The most popular one is the General Public License (GPL), which defines the notion of copyleft as a means to guarantee the free and open diffusion of software. Open source is considered somewhat equivalent to free software. Indeed, even if most practical effects are similar, the motivations of the two movements are different. For the sake of simplicity, in the remainder of the paper the two terms will be considered equivalent. Open source is considered a winning approach for a variety of reasons: technical, economical, and ethical. This paper will concentrate on some of the issues and claims associated with open source.1 In particular, it will discuss the relationship among open source, open standards, open formats, and, in general, the protection of customers’ rights. Indeed, many consider open source as the most appropriate (or maybe the only) way to define and enforce open standards and open formats. This view is simplistic and misleading, as the remainder of the paper will try to demonstrate. For these reasons, the ultimate goal of the paper is to provide a coherent, even if preliminary, framework of concepts and proposals to promote the development of the market and to address customers’ needs and requests. The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 provides some examples of the different meanings that can be associated with the expression “open standard”. Section 3 identifies and illustrates different levels of openness in standards. Section 4 deals with the relationship between open standards and open source software, and Section 5 discusses why and how “openness” is important for the protection of customers’ rights. Finally, Section 6 proposes some concrete actions and practices aiming at promoting openness and defending customers’ rights in the ICT market. 2. What do we mean by “open”? Terms such as “open standards” and “open formats” are certainly quite popular, but their meaning is far from being unanimously shared. Let’s consider for example some of the definitions and interpretations of the term “open standard” that can be found on the Internet. Wikipedia proposes the following definition: Open standards are publicly available specifications for achieving a specific task. By allowing anyone to use the standard, they increase compatibility between various hardware and software components since anyone with the technical know-how and the necessary equipment to implement solutions can build something that works together with those of other vendors.2 A more restrictive definition of open standard is included in the European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services: The following are the minimal characteristics that a specification and its attendant documents must have in order to be considered an open standard: 1 The reader is invited to consider additional sources for a detailed discussion of other aspects of the problem (see ,for instance, [1] and [2]). 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_standard © Davide Cerri and Alfonso Fuggetta, 2007 2 Open Standards, Open Formats, and Open Source The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organization, 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.3 This definition goes well beyond the one proposed by Wikipedia, as it considers also the process according to which the standard is defined and maintained. It also requires that the standard can be implemented without having to pay any royalty fee. Bruce Perens on his web site proposes an even more articulated definition: An Open Standard is more than just a specification. The principles behind the standard, and the practice of offering and operating the standard, are what make the standard Open.4 Perens proposes a number of principles and practices. In particular, he stresses the fact that the standard should be “free”, based on a “free” reference implementation, and should be articulated in such a way to make predatory practice impossible, i.e., it must include “license terms that protect against subversion of the standard by embrace-and-extend tactics”. On the Internet, it is possible to find also additional references to the notion of standard. For instance, this is taken from the Microsoft MSDN website: In August, 2000, Microsoft, Hewlett-Packard and Intel co-sponsored the submission of specifications for the Common Language Infrastructure (CLI) and C# programming language to the international standardization organization ECMA. As a result, ECMA formed two task groups (TG3 and TG2, respectively) within TC39, its technical committee responsible for programming languages and application development. During the next year, the co-sponsor companies, in conjunction with other ECMA members and guests (including IBM, Fujitsu Software, Plum Hall, Monash University and ISE), refined these specifications into standards. In December, 2001, the ECMA General Assembly ratified the 1st edition of the C# and CLI standards as ECMA-334 and ECMA-335, respectively. A technical report on the CLI, ECMA TR84, was also ratified. In late December, 2001, ECMA submitted the standards and TR to ISO/IEC JTC 1 via the latter's Fast-Track process. In April, 2003, ISO ratified the standards as ISO/IEC 23270 (C#), ISO/IEC 23271 (CLI) and ISO/IEC 23272 (CLI TR).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee
    Hastings Business Law Journal Volume 13 Article 2 Number 2 Winter 2017 Winter 2017 Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_business_law_journal Part of the Business Organizations Law Commons Recommended Citation Jyh-An Lee, Licensing Open Government Data, 13 Hastings Bus. L.J. 207 (2017). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_business_law_journal/vol13/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Business Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 2 - LEE MACROED.DOCX (DO NOT DELETE) 5/5/2017 11:09 AM Licensing Open Government Data Jyh-An Lee* Governments around the world create and collect an enormous amount of data that covers important environmental, educational, geographical, meteorological, scientific, demographic, transport, tourism, health insurance, crime, occupational safety, product safety, and many other types of information.1 This data is generated as part of a government’s daily functions.2 Given government data’s exceptional social and economic value, former U.S. President Barack Obama described it as a “national asset.”3 For various policy reasons, open government data (“OGD”) has become a popular governmental practice and international * Assistant Professor at the Faculty of Law in the Chinese University
    [Show full text]
  • (A/V Codecs) REDCODE RAW (.R3D) ARRIRAW
    What is a Codec? Codec is a portmanteau of either "Compressor-Decompressor" or "Coder-Decoder," which describes a device or program capable of performing transformations on a data stream or signal. Codecs encode a stream or signal for transmission, storage or encryption and decode it for viewing or editing. Codecs are often used in videoconferencing and streaming media solutions. A video codec converts analog video signals from a video camera into digital signals for transmission. It then converts the digital signals back to analog for display. An audio codec converts analog audio signals from a microphone into digital signals for transmission. It then converts the digital signals back to analog for playing. The raw encoded form of audio and video data is often called essence, to distinguish it from the metadata information that together make up the information content of the stream and any "wrapper" data that is then added to aid access to or improve the robustness of the stream. Most codecs are lossy, in order to get a reasonably small file size. There are lossless codecs as well, but for most purposes the almost imperceptible increase in quality is not worth the considerable increase in data size. The main exception is if the data will undergo more processing in the future, in which case the repeated lossy encoding would damage the eventual quality too much. Many multimedia data streams need to contain both audio and video data, and often some form of metadata that permits synchronization of the audio and video. Each of these three streams may be handled by different programs, processes, or hardware; but for the multimedia data stream to be useful in stored or transmitted form, they must be encapsulated together in a container format.
    [Show full text]
  • The Principles of Open Standards
    11/13/13 World Standards Day 1998 A newer version of this paper was published in The International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research, Vol. 4 No. 1, January - June 2006. This paper is the property of Standards Engineering Society. It was submitted to the World Standards Day paper competition for 1998, and won second place. It was published in Standards Engineering, Vol. 50, No. 6, November/December 1998, p. 1- 6. It is reprinted here with permission. The Principles of Open Standards by Ken Krechmer Communications Standards Review 757 Greer Road Palo Alto, CA USA 94303-3024 +1 650 856-8836 http://www.csrstds.com [email protected] "Who ever knew Truth put to the worse, in a free and open encounter?" 1 The values underlying Open Standards are impressive. In the USA the Open Standards concept has been applied to technical standards 2 since 1918 by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) 3 as the administrator and coordinator of the United States private sector voluntary standardization system. A major goal of ANSI is to ensure that its guiding principles of openness, consensus and due process - the cornerstones of Open Standards - are followed. The personal computer revolution and the following Internet explosion have resulted in a large influx of new technical standards stakeholders.4 These new stakeholders are making new demands on the Open Standards processes. Today, considering the rapid changes in technology and the expanding importance of technical standards, ANSI and its Standards Development Organizations (SDOs) need to reexamine what constitutes the "free and open encounter" that Open Standards strive to achieve.
    [Show full text]
  • Applying Library Values to Emerging Technology Decision-Making in the Age of Open Access, Maker Spaces, and the Ever-Changing Library
    ACRL Publications in Librarianship No. 72 Applying Library Values to Emerging Technology Decision-Making in the Age of Open Access, Maker Spaces, and the Ever-Changing Library Editors Peter D. Fernandez and Kelly Tilton Association of College and Research Libraries A division of the American Library Association Chicago, Illinois 2018 The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of Ameri- can National Standard for Information Sciences–Permanence of Paper for Print- ed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. ∞ Cataloging-in-Publication data is on file with the Library of Congress. Copyright ©2018 by the Association of College and Research Libraries. All rights reserved except those which may be granted by Sections 107 and 108 of the Copyright Revision Act of 1976. Printed in the United States of America. 22 21 20 19 18 5 4 3 2 1 Contents Contents Introduction .......................................................................................................ix Peter Fernandez, Head, LRE Liaison Programs, University of Tennessee Libraries Kelly Tilton, Information Literacy Instruction Librarian, University of Tennessee Libraries Part I Contemplating Library Values Chapter 1. ..........................................................................................................1 The New Technocracy: Positioning Librarianship’s Core Values in Relationship to Technology Is a Much Taller Order Than We Think John Buschman, Dean of University Libraries, Seton Hall University Chapter 2. ........................................................................................................27
    [Show full text]
  • Why Openness in Education? David Wiley and Cable Green
    GAME CHANGERS EDUCATION and INFORMATION TeCHNOLOGIES Edited by DIANA G. OBLINGER Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies © 2012 EDUCAUSE This book is released under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/). Authors retain the copyright to their individual contributions, which are released under the same Creative Commons license except as noted. For more information or for permission requests, please visit educause.edu/copyright. This book is available in its entirety on the EDUCAUSE website, at educause.edu/books. ISBN 978-1-933046-00-6 FROM THE EDITOR I would like to thank the many people who made this book possible, particularly Gregory Dobbin for managing the project and Karen Mateer for her research. —Diana G. Oblinger EDUCAUSE is a nonprofit association and the foremost community of IT leaders and professionals committed to advancing higher education. EDUCAUSE programs and ser- vices are focused on analysis, advocacy, community building, professional development, and knowledge creation because IT plays a transformative role in higher education. EDUCAUSE supports those who lead, manage, and use information technology through a comprehensive range of resources and activities. educause.edu Game Changers: Education and Information Technologies is published by EDUCAUSE, with generous support from Ellucian. Cover and interior design by Michael Brady Design (michaelbradydesign.com). 6 Why Openness in Education? David Wiley and Cable Green IN THIS chapter, we explore a number of ways openness affects the practices of teaching and learning and the motivations behind supporters of these emer- gent practices. We discuss the three principal influences of openness on educa- tion: open educational resources, open access, and open teaching.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Courseware and Developing Countries: Building a Community
    Open Courseware and Developing Countries: Building a Community This is the report of The Forum on the Impact of Open Courseware for Higher Education in Developing Countries, convened in Paris by UNESCO 1-3 July 2002, with the support of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and organizational assistance from the Western Cooperative for Educational Telecommunications, WCET. Participants mapped a collaborative course, involving colleges and universities from around the world, for the productive and creative use of openly shared educational resources. In advance comments, summarized in an appendix to this report, they provided insights on the potentials and complex issues involved. This report was prepared by John Witherspoon. Contents The Forum Report Introduction: Open Resources 3 Defining the Concept 3 Prospects and Issues 3 Open Educational Resources: Turning a Concept into Reality 5 Design of an Index/Database 5 Creating a Globally Viable Infrastructure 6 2003: From Concept to Operation 6 Appendix A: Overview of the MIT OpenCourseWare Initiative 7 Appendix B: Summary of Forum Participants’ Preliminary Papers 11 Appendix C: Participants and Organizational Representatives 15 2 Introduction: Open Resources In spring 2001 the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that over a half- dozen years the substance of virtually all its courses would be posted on the Web, available for use by faculty members and students around the world, at no charge.1 Just over a year later – before material from its first course was online – MIT’s OpenCourseWare concept became the focus of a new international community. This emerging consortium was organized to evaluate, adapt, use, and develop open resources for its members’ many cultures and diverse languages.
    [Show full text]
  • FOSS Philosophy 6 the FOSS Development Method 7
    1 Published by the United Nations Development Programme’s Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme (UNDP-APDIP) Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia www.apdip.net Email: [email protected] © UNDP-APDIP 2004 The material in this book may be reproduced, republished and incorporated into further works provided acknowledgement is given to UNDP-APDIP. For full details on the license governing this publication, please see the relevant Annex. ISBN: 983-3094-00-7 Design, layout and cover illustrations by: Rezonanze www.rezonanze.com PREFACE 6 INTRODUCTION 6 What is Free/Open Source Software? 6 The FOSS philosophy 6 The FOSS development method 7 What is the history of FOSS? 8 A Brief History of Free/Open Source Software Movement 8 WHY FOSS? 10 Is FOSS free? 10 How large are the savings from FOSS? 10 Direct Cost Savings - An Example 11 What are the benefits of using FOSS? 12 Security 13 Reliability/Stability 14 Open standards and vendor independence 14 Reduced reliance on imports 15 Developing local software capacity 15 Piracy, IPR, and the WTO 16 Localization 16 What are the shortcomings of FOSS? 17 Lack of business applications 17 Interoperability with proprietary systems 17 Documentation and “polish” 18 FOSS SUCCESS STORIES 19 What are governments doing with FOSS? 19 Europe 19 Americas 20 Brazil 21 Asia Pacific 22 Other Regions 24 What are some successful FOSS projects? 25 BIND (DNS Server) 25 Apache (Web Server) 25 Sendmail (Email Server) 25 OpenSSH (Secure Network Administration Tool) 26 Open Office (Office Productivity Suite) 26 LINUX 27 What is Linux?
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended File Formats for Long-Term Archiving and for Web Dissemination in Phaidra
    Recommended file formats for long-term archiving and for web dissemination in Phaidra Edited by Gianluca Drago May 2019 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Premise This document is intended to provide an overview of the file formats to be used depending on two possible destinations of the digital document: long-term archiving uploading to Phaidra and subsequent web dissemination When the document uploaded to Phaidra is also the only saved file, the two destinations end up coinciding, but in general one will probably want to produce two different files, in two different formats, so as to meet the differences in requirements and use in the final destinations. In the following tables, the recommendations for long-term archiving are distinct from those for dissemination in Phaidra. There are no absolute criteria for choosing the file format. The choice is always dependent on different evaluations that the person who is carrying out the archiving will have to make on a case by case basis and will often result in a compromise between the best achievable quality and the limits imposed by the costs of production, processing and storage of files, as well as, for the preceding, by the opportunity of a conversion to a new format. 1 This choice is particularly significant from the perspective of long-term archiving, for which a quality that respects the authenticity and integrity of the original document and a format that guarantees long-term access to data are desirable. This document should be seen more as an aid to the reasoned choice of the person carrying out the archiving than as a list of guidelines to be followed to the letter.
    [Show full text]
  • From Openness to Permeability: Reframing Open Education in Terms of Positive Liberty in the Enactment of Academic Practices Oliver, M
    From openness to permeability: reframing open education in terms of positive liberty in the enactment of academic practices Oliver, M. Learning, Media and Technology, 40(3):365-384. 03 Jul 2015. DOI:10.1080/17439884.2015.1029940 Abstract This paper explores the idea of open education, focusing specifically on the concept of openness. Previous discussions of open education are reviewed, using Knox’s discussion of “unfreedoms” as a critical lens. Contrasts are then drawn with the concept of ‘flexibility’, to illustrate ways in which openness could be developed. This leads to consideration of ideas from sociomaterial theory, focusing on networks and boundaries. A case study is then used to illustrate how these new developments play out empirically. The discussion then elaborates this in terms of ideas about mobility and fluidity. The paper concludes by arguing that the simplistic binary implied by ‘openness’ is largely irrelevant to the academic practices of teachers and learners. It is proposed that, instead, it should be replaced by a version that recognises the way individuals use infrastructures in pursuit of positive liberty. Such an alternative would help account for the various ways in which Universities are permeated by the personal, and vice versa. Introduction The concept of ‘open education’ has grown in importance and visibility, but the concept of openness is, arguably, under-developed within the field of learning technology. In this paper, the concept of open education will be reviewed; compared to wider discussions about flexibility in Higher Education; and illustrated using data from a study exploring contemporary academic practice. Closing education Although the concept and practice of ‘open education’ have grown in prominence over the last decade, debates continue to over-simplify ideas of openness in several important ways.
    [Show full text]
  • Digital Mathematics Library Report of the Technical Standards Working Group
    1 Digital Mathematics Library Report of the Technical Standards Working Group Date May 18, 2003 Thierry Bouche, Ulf Rehmann Cochairs: Thierry Bouche Grenoble [email protected] Ulf Rehmann Bielefeld [email protected] Members: Pierre Berard [email protected] Jon Borwein [email protected] Keith Dennis [email protected] Michael Doob [email protected] Contents 1 Scanning Quality 2 2 Archiving Formats 2 3 File Name and URL Conventions 3 4 Delivery Formats 4 5 Download Units 5 6 Server Techniques 5 7 Further recommendations 6 8 Remarks 8 References 8 This document gives technical recommendations to ensure the integration of digitized mathematical documents in a uniform “Digital Mathematics Library” (DML). Since the digitized documents will be produced by various projects, possibly ap- plying different methods and technologies, these recommendations define general technical standards in order to make the DML as a whole easily accessible, usable, maintainable, and sustainable. A digitization project requires several procedures. The most critical tasks are the scanning and archiving processes, which are substantial for the quality and longevity of the data to be preserved. The scanning part requires most of the work, it cannot easily be repeated and should therefore be performed with greatest care. 2 Thierry Bouche, Ulf Rehmann Other tasks, like enhancing the data by OCR layers1, annotations, metadata, and web links, could be either postponed or possibly redone, if later on more advanced technology becomes available. The actual file formats or implementations mentioned here are presented as ex- amples, which, at the time of this writing, can be used in order to achieve the proposed standards.
    [Show full text]
  • Open Data Policy Purpose Definitions
    Open Data Policy OD-1 V1.0 February 1, 2016 City of Seattle Purpose The City of Seattle is committed to expanding both the data it makes available to the public and tools for understanding this data, and the Seattle Open Data Program has been created to realize these commitments. This Open Data Policy defines the principles governing City of Seattle Open Data and describes the expectations for department participation and governance of the Seattle Open Data Program. Definitions City of Seattle Data All data created, collected and/or maintained by the City of Seattle or by contractors or agencies on the City’s behalf. Open Data Specific datasets that are made available to the public by the City. Machine-Readable Any widely-accepted, nonproprietary, platform-independent, machine- readable method for formatting data (such as JSON, XML, and API’s) which permits automated processing of such data and facilitates search capabilities. Open Standard A technical standard developed and maintained by a voluntary consensus standards body that is available to the public without royalty or fee. Open Data Program dedicated to making City of Seattle data available to the public Program and engaging civic technologists, the research community, and other partners to make use of Open Data in support of the Program’s goals. Open Data Guide defining strategies City departments and offices can implement to Playbook making their data open, encourage public use consistent with the City’s privacy and security policies, and realize benefits for their departments. Open Data Portal Data.seattle.gov, the City’s catalog and primary repository for Open Data, created and maintained by the City for the express purpose of ensuring permanent, lasting open access to public information and Open Data Policy V1.0 February 1, 2016 1 enabling the development of innovative solutions that exemplify the goals of the Open Data Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Audio File Types for Preservation and Access
    AUDIO FILE TYPES FOR PRESERVATION AND ACCESS INTRODUCTION This resource guide identifies and compares audio file formats commonly used for preservation masters and access copies for both born digital and digitized materials. There are a wide range of audio file formats available, each with their own uses, considerations, and best practices. For more information about technical details see the glossary and additional resources linked at the end of this resource guide. For more information about audio files, view related items connected to this resource on the Sustainable Heritage Network in the “Audio Recordings” category. ​ ​ AUDIO FILE FORMATS FOR PRESERVATION MASTERS Lossless files (either uncompressed, or using lossless compression) are best used for preservation masters as they have the highest audio quality and fidelity, however, they produce the largest file sizes. Preservation Masters are generally not edited, or are minimally edited because their purpose is to serve as the most faithful copy of the original recording possible. WAV (Waveform Audio File Format) ● Uncompressed ● Proprietary (IBM), but very widely used ● Accessible on all operating systems and most audio software ● A variant called BWF (Broadcast Wave File Format) allows embedding of additional metadata sustainableheritagenetwork.org | [email protected] ​ Center for Digital Scholarship and Curation | cdsc.libraries.wsu.edu Resource updated 3/14/2018 FLAC (Free Lossless Audio Codec) ​ ● Compressed (lossless) ● Open format ● Accessible on all operating
    [Show full text]