OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
Posted on 04/05/2006 4:58:29 PM PDT by steve-b
I received an email yesterday pointing me to a bill, introduced on March 27, that would require all Executive branch agencies in the state of Minnesota to "use open standards in situations where the other requirements of a project do not make it technically impossible to do this." The text of the bill is focused specifically on "open data formats," and would amend the existing statute that establishes the authority of the Office of Enterprise Technology (OET), and the duties of the states Chief Information Officer. While the amendment does not refer to open source software, the definition of "open standards" that it contains would be conducive to open source implementations of open standards. The text of the affected sections of Minnesota Statutes Chapter 16E, showing the amendments proposed, can be found here.
The fact that such a bill has been introduced is significant in a number of respects. First, the debate over open formats will now be ongoing in two U.S. states rather than one. Second, if the bill is successful, the Minnesota CIO will be required to enforce a law requiring the use of open formats, rather than be forced to justify his or her authority to do so. Third, the size of the market share that can be won (or lost) depending upon a vendor's compliance with open standards will increase. And finally, if two states successfully adopt and implement open data format policies, other states will be more inclined to follow....
(Excerpt) Read more at consortiuminfo.org ...
Governments are in BUSINESS to fleece taxpayers.
Which alternative universe are you from?
Governments don't want some monopoly vendor to fleece the taxpayers. They hate competition.
LOL! I'll buy that.
I'm strongly in favor of open document formats for public documents. Use of public documents shouldn't require one to do business with any particular company.
It'll be interesting to see what the legal definition of an 'open document' is though. I find it hard to believe that any governmental body could do that with any degree of precision.
I've taken a close look at the open document format as implemented by OpenOffice.org, StarOffice, and koffice. I like it a lot because it is very easy to understand and manupulate. One thing I'm kind of disappointed in though is that there doesn't appear to be any built-in method for implementing pgp/gpg digital signatures in documents. Given the way the data is formatted in an ODF document, it would have been incredibly easy to have implemented detached signatures of the data and formatting information.
I actually implemented a variation of this with an ODF document via of a script that could open and validate the integrity of the file data on the fly. Pretty cool, and really simple too.
IBTGE ping.
I'm not surprised that Minnesota politicians can't even spell "XML". ;)
OSS PING
If you are interested in the OSS ping list please mail me
I can imagine the outrage on this forum if the law was changed forcing them to use only Microsoft.
I've argued for years that requiring commercial products to view public documents is a violation of the freedom of information act.
Micro$oft is a member of the w3c, and has been giving lip service to the concept for a while. Now that it's here, watch them tap dance.
It is about choice: the ability of the public to view documents that the public owns without having to choose ONE commercial product to do so.
And whether Microsoft will choose to support an open format or walk away from this market based on the fact that doing so would jeopardize their monopoly.
That's not the same at all. Microsoft can add ODF to its software if it chooses...it's an Open Format.
But guessing the workings of the .DOC or .XLS formats is a haphazard affair, even for Microsoft itself.
SWC,
They are forcing a standard *not* a software package. If MS supported ODF as Start Office does, and I believe Corel is releasing MS would be just fine..
Really witty. Thanks for giving me a laugh with the java (the liquid kind) this a.m.
The simplest open source format would be for them to use a pencil and piece of paper. Or how about a typewriter and a piece of paper.
Then you could hear if these folks are working or surfing.
Personally, I think it should be open to the department to choose what to use.
That makes perfect sense... if you assume that the government is the boss.
If you assume that they work for us, then, no, they don't get to restrict our choices by using proprietary formats (unless it legitimately can't be helped).
This sounds like some lawmaker got their nose out of joint about Microsoft. They probably demanded some kickback from Microsoft and MS told them no. And the lawmaker says, I show you.
This is about internal administrative standards not consumer choices. Why would an agency not want to takes steps to avoid becoming dependent on a single vendor?
Er... who do you think foots the bill when those "internal administrative standards" generate extra costs (e.g. when a locked-in monopoly vendor starts squeezing)?
SWC, they are not forcing the use of open source they are forcing open standards. If they forced law firms who do business with the state to use Linux or openoffice I would be upset but publishing all government papaers in an open format is a good thing..
I actually implemented a variation of this with an ODF document via of a script that could open and validate the integrity of the file data on the fly. Pretty cool, and really simple too.
Well, that's the beauty of the ODF/XML format. While the software support for digital sigs may not be there now, it would be easy to impliment in the future as you have demonstrated.
Who is claiming they can't read or write using the defacto Microsoft standards now? You guys are always boasting you can do that with your free software anyway, so what supposedly is your problem now?
Nobody is claiming that there is a technology barrier in implimenting the MS XML Spec but you have to sign a license which gives MS the right to yank your right to use is if you sue MS or an associate for violating any of your IP.
"Microsoft reserves the right to terminate this license grant if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas. This license is perpetual subject to this reservation."
Thats very different from the license from ODF...
Making a lot of assumptions with absolutley no proof aren't ya?
And how to you know that some entity supporty open format didn't do a little "palm-greasing"? Oh that's right ONLY evil MS can do that.
I love when people throw around unjustified accusations, but only for one side.
SWC,
But if they did say that they would be saying that its wrong to store government information in a format that anyone has the right to use the *should* piss off conservatives. How do we hold the government accountable if the *can* hide basic information from you.
If MS does indeed put ODF support into office 12 (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20051027115159254) then we will see if people were more upset about office being closed source or that information is open to the public..
Simple, OpenSource users and developers are hemp wearing hippies in their basement they dont have the money to grease palms /sarcasm ;)
My thinking is that they are saying they CANNOT use current MS technology and therefore are eliminating about 80% of the people who will be using the information who can't open ODF. And since when is using excel, word, etc HIDING information? How many offices do you know that run ONLY linux and not MS?
Er, the same people who would foot the cost associated with being captive to a single vender?
There are standards and requirements involved with just about all government purchases, btw.
You and I might be in agreement. Whe I read this I took the part "the concept that government has a responsibility to protect the taxpayers" as sarcasm. Really.
Your beloved freeware opens Microsoft documents right now without you agreeing to a Microsoft license so why should you have to agree to it now? Or were you not telling the truth when you said your freeware could in fact read them?
"Making a lot of assumptions with absolutley no proof aren't ya?"
Hey we're talking politicians here. Personally I think most politicians are doing something illegal.
I'm glad you showed up to smear MS from the other side.
I don't have any love for MS, but they you can imagine that they are out there strong arming.
And BTW, I wasn't making accusations, I was only offering a thought.
This is not forcing private offices to do anything this is saying the storage of government communications must be in a format that any american has the right to impliment.
There are already programs out there which will allow a private office to continue to use word and the convert any docs they want to send off to the government (http://opendocument4all.com/content/view/103/49/)
The .DOC/.XLS/.PDF are not protected from implementation by the use of licensing the same way the the MS XML's are. They are being published *DESPITE* the fact they are closed because people back engineered them which with the new XML is not legally possible.
With MS themselves moving away from the *.DOCS and pushing the XML in office 12 the question muse be asked if now they cant be implemented by law whats to assure that other vendors will be able to safely create a product which will open the new format (allowing competition) and yet not give up the right to protect *any* of their IP in the event MS or an affiliate breaks some other aspect of their document filtering technology?
Just because it reads them doesn't mean MS document formats are open. Nothing stops them from changing the format, requiring the people at OO to again figure out how to read them.
That won't happen with .odt.
%s/They are being published *DESPITE*/They are being used *DESPITE*/g
And I did this ... how?
I am looking for a job and need to send out 20 resumes. I will send out 10 in word format and 10 in open source format via email.
I can guarantee that there will be no problem with the 10 I sent in word, but 100% of the 10 I sent in ODF will be returned saying "please send in doc format".
I think that storing important data in ODF only is boxing themselves into a corner. They will be able to access the data, but 99% of the people outside their office will not.
I think ODF has a great future and is a good idea. But to store info in ONLY that format, at this time, is shortsighted and foolish.
I usually send out PDF but ok lets go with yours..
I can guarantee that there will be no problem with the 10 I sent in word, but 100% of the 10 I sent in ODF will be returned saying "please send in doc format".
Is your resume a government communication?
I think that storing important data in ODF only is boxing themselves into a corner. They will be able to access the data, but 99% of the people outside their office will not.
By that logic we should all still be using word perfects document formats you leave no position for standards growth unless the standard is 100% backward compatible with all old standards. Here is exactly what will happen
(a) MS will build ODF support into office 12 or
(b) Someone will write a nice filter for office 12 that imports ODF and that will become a standard office tool like acrobat reader.
But to store info in ONLY that format, at this time, is shortsighted and foolish.
(1) The article did not say only, it said when possible. (2) Are you saying a CIO does not have the right to impose document format standards for an organization? are you saying the CIO of a state does not have that responsibility?
I retired in 2001 after designing and building some of the largest data architectures, databases and data warehouses in the world (NASA, Space Station Program, US Army Readiness and Sustainability and many others of that scale).
I can absolutely guarantee that this initiative will fail and it has nothing to do with standards.
Organizational, cultural and personal agendas will guarantee the standard will never be physically implemented, no matter how many laws, rules, standards or whatever these geniuses produce.
Add to that the influence of Minnesota's vendors. They don't give a hoot about your standards. They'll find 42,000 reasons to ignore them. They're pushing product and that takes place on the golf course, not the conference room.
And you can take that to the bank.
Of course he does. Reeks of facism, but who am I to judge?
are you saying the CIO of a state does not have that responsibility
To me, the actual wording would be "irresponsibility". It's shortsighted and limitting and, to me, sounds like someone is pushing his own personal agenda on others instead of doing what's best for the organization.
I usually send out PDF but ok lets go with yours
Been there. And about half would return them. This may surprise the MS haters but not everyone has PDF or ODF capabilities.
Is your resume a government communication?
No, but you could apply the scenario to pretty much any situation where the document must leave the sacred Linux environment and travel out into the real world.
I believe in Open Format Documents and hope that MS adapts it. It's a very good idea. What I don't like is the way others are applauding the foolish and irresponsible decision to use only open format. We ALL know that if the situation were changed and they were told to only use MS, these same people would be screaming mad and calling MS some very choice names, with hints of monopoly and bribery on MS's part thrown in.
Sorry, I was having a moment of idealism. ;-)
:-)
What does ODF have to do with Linux?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.