Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Massachusetts Adopting 'Open Format' Software

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the file-formats-rule-the-world dept.

XopherMV writes "A Massachusetts state senator who had complained about the state government's effort to promote open-source software at the expense of proprietary software has hailed the state's effort to reach a compromise over future software purchases by the state. The latest iteration of the state's policy emphasizes 'Open Formats' such as TXT, RTF, HTM, PDF, and XML." And if file formats for state use must be in truly open and free formats, then it matters much less what OS or application is used to create or open them. (On the other hand, XML and other TLAs don't always mean free or open formats.)

11 of 273 comments (clear)

  1. True, but... by professorhojo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >On the other hand, XML and other TLAs don't
    >always mean free or open formats.

    This is true, but XML documents themselves are also considerably more open than their binary counterparts. Anyone can parse a well-formed XML document, and validate it if a DTD is provided. While companies may still create XML that behaves in a specific way bound to their application, the data in the XML document is available to any application. While developers could create obfuscated DTDs or encrypt their data in a proprietary manner, they would lose most of the benefits of using XML. XML doesn't bar the creation of proprietary formats, but its openness is one of its greatest advantages.

    1. Re:True, but... by SilentChris · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Namely, that they could create obfuscated DTDs and encrypt their data in a proprietary manner while still using it, thus convincing the masses that they're using an open format while not actually using one."

      But they won't. They can't. Microsoft has a history of sticking with the original file format they created along with 1.0 of the application. Today's Word docs have a lot "tacked on", but they still have the basic structure openable by the original Word.

      WordML (Microsoft's XML structure for Word docs) is fairly clear-cut. They can "obfuscate", but they won't, because people'll will want those original files openable in 10-15 years. Backwards compatibility is a huge goal at MS.

    2. Re:True, but... by fireboy1919 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Today's Word docs have a lot "tacked on", but they still have the basic structure openable by the original Word.

      Word documents are not backward compatible, except in a few lucky cases, despite the fact that most of the functionality is the same. Have you even tried this? Word XP documents don't work in Word 97; 97 don't work in 95, and I would assume it goes back even farther.

      I think a better claim would be "backwards compatibilty is a huge thing to avoid at MS" considering that almost no new functionality has been added to word in the past 10 years and yet the document format has changed.

      --
      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine!
  2. Ploy On Price Negotiation? by Manip · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is not the first time we at /. have seen states and countries go this route but they almost always end up back with Microsoft but with a discount on their licence.

    I don't know about you guys but I won't believe it until I see office workers using it, before then it is just a negotiation ploy to save some money with Microsoft (Why else announce it early?)..

  3. PDF by DeepDarkSky · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Adobe certain has done its job in making PDF so common place that it's become an "open" format, hasn't it?
    I think that for specific purposes proprietary formats are ok, but for interchanging and for storage purposes, the open formats are important.

  4. if they are serious about it, that's enough by idlake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If they are serious about enforcing open document formats, that's good: open source can compete and win if formats are open. The big concern is that companies like Microsoft will try to portray their proprietary formats as "open". For example, the DOC format has been documented by Microsoft, but it isn't truly open because it keeps changing and because it is under Microsoft's control. In particular, XML is not an open format--it isn't a format at all; XML is a standard in which people can define formats, both open and proprietary.

    A format isn't open until it has actually been standardized by an independent body that can guarantee that it is free from patent or other claims, and until it has been demonstrated that it can be implemented independtly by actually doing so.

  5. This is bad news, not good news by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most commenters seem to be missing the fact that this news is unequivocally bad. There were efforts to adopt open source instead of closed source software, but this senator (probably sponsored by Microsoft) managed to talk them into focusing on open formats instead. This coincides nicely with Microsoft's new XML formats for their office products, and lets Massachusetts continue using Microsoft products while paying lip-service to the fans of "open" solutions.

    --
    -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
    1. Re:This is bad news, not good news by OblongPlatypus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To clarify: I'm not saying open formats are bad. But in this case we went from an administration pushing open source products (which incidentally automatically means open formats), to one that's going to stick with Microsoft products. They wanted to change what software they were using, but were deflected into some vacuous statement about "open formats", and in reality no change at all.

      XML does not autmoatically mean "open format", at least not in the way you seem to be thinking. Even if everyone in the Massachusetts administration starts using exclusively WordML for their documents (including converting all old documents), any open-source product would still have the problem of relying on a format defined by the very same monopoly they're trying to compete with. WordML is patent-protected specifically to prevent the equivalent of a "fork" of the format, so anyone using it is completely at the mercy of Microsoft's whim on where to take the format in the future.

      --
      -- If no truths are spoken then no lies can hide --
    2. Re:This is bad news, not good news by Tim+C · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You couldn't be more wrong if you tried.

      One of the main complaints about closed source software is that the proprietary, closed file formats keep you locked in to using the product, and that changes to said file formats tend to push you to upgrading because everyone else has, so you have to to be able to read their documents.

      Opening the file formats removes this restriction - now *anyone* can write software to create and edit them flawlessly. You're no longer tied to a single editor. How many .doc editors are there, compared to .html or .xml?

      Mandating open source software, while appearing good, would be a bad thing. Software should be used based on fitness for purpose; if the open source solution is superior, then use it. But don't use an inferior open source app just because it's open source if a superior closed source one is available and affordable. Mandating open file formats increases the likelihood that an appropriate open source solution will become available.

      --
      It's official. Most of you are morons.
    3. Re: This is bad news, not good news by tyen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Policy, Not Mechanism.

      They are very close, but need some additions to nail this right. Everyone freaking out over XML being cited should read the article. Reading the original article, I note that they defined "open format" by policy and not mechanism:

      specifications for data file formats that are based on an underlying open standard, developed by an open community, and affirmed by a standards body; or, de facto format standards controlled by other entities that are fully documented and available for public use under perpetual, royalty-free, and nondiscriminatory terms.

      This means they really don't care about the actual format, they care about the terms of access to the format. Microsoft can't drive a DTD with encrypted blocks through a mechanism-based loophole simply by declaring, "Hey! Look! XML!".

      However.

      It is said that even the largest companies bear the imprint of their founders. Gates was raised by lawyers, and his company operates like one. Unless you adversarially test this legislation before it passes, I guarantee you Microsoft will find a perfectly legal way to protect their crown jewels if it passes. There are other big players who will fight tooth and nail against this legislation, too. Oracle. IBM's DB2 folks.

      It is unfortunate that I could not find on their web site a full explanation of what they meant by "open format". However, going by that small excerpted blurb, if I was thinking of legal and marketing workarounds, here are some things I can come up with off the cuff.

      1. Dilute or pervert one of the definitions of "open standard", "open community", or "standards body". No definition legislated, easy enough to do. Control the standards group, control the standard.
      2. Note that the clauses separated by a semicolon (;) stipulate access terms for the latter but not the former. Sure, place it with a standards group, but make it expensive to obtain the standard "to cover distribution costs". The EIA standard for racks for example, costs over $50 to obtain an electronic copy. Perfectly open, perfectly standard, but certainly not "royalty-free".
      3. Play the Internet Explorer bundle game again, on a different playing field. Make the default format of the application a proprietary format, and allow saving as the standards format as long as the user takes additional steps to configure it or specify the standard format. By default, the vast majority of users will deploy with the default setting, killing any standard format in the crib through sheer inertia.
      4. Sure, there is an open format. It just doesn't support all the features of the application.
      5. Twist the definition of "fully documented" because that term is not nailed down. Yup, it's fully documented. "The 'dynamic_index' field stores dynamic indexes". There. It's fully documented. What? You want to know what a dynamic index is? Oh, but that's a trade secret. Or here is the full format of the dynamic index data structure, "fully documented". Leave out enough adequate description of the semantics, and you can bamboozle nearly everyone, including yourself. Why do you think Microsoft themselves can't get their own Word format consistent across versions? You can take the Microsoft-is-Evil theory that they do this to "entice" their customers to upgrade, but I tend to think it is because the format is ambiguously documented enough that even their own smart programmers trip up on the specifications.
      6. Supply an open standard, but your implementation of the standard is different from the outside world's implementation(s). Hey, bugs happen. No reference implementation that everyone standardizes upon, not a problem to be just barely incompatible enough (without any need for evil conspiracies) to annoy users enough to make them stick with the original application. Coders who hack EDI systems can sympathize with me here; even when everyone agrees upon an implementation standard, a "data format dissonance" tend
  6. I think this is the correct way to go by fitten · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't think that government should mandate open source vs. closed source code purchases. This is unfair. The government should not mandate against valid, legal business models.

    I think the government should mandate that output from any software be an open standard format (XML or whatever) and then they choose, based on a competative bid process like they are supposed to do, the software that will do what they want (which may include adding features at some point). If some OSS group wins, so be it. If some proprietary group wins, so be it.

    Allowing only OSS is both wrong and bad, IMO, for a number of reasons.
    1. It is straight against capitalist economy to require one business/development model. In capitalism, you specify the product and whoever can do it best/cheapest/easiest wins. Only an OSS zealot would think that OSS would always win.
    2. The government should not dictate the "right" business model for people to follow. As long as they are legal under the laws (both criminal and financial) of the country, they are valid. The government should not dictate that some valid models are not valid for the government.