Slashdot Mirror
MN Bill Would Require Use of Open Data Formats
Andy Updegrove writes "A bill has been introduced in Minnesota that would require all Executive branch agencies 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.' 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 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."
But this isn't about Open Source, it's about Open Standards, two orthogonal issues. Of course, Open Source is preferable, but it's not required to have Open Standards. Microsoft could add ODF support to its next version of MS Office (which they'll of course try to resist for as long as possible, as it'll kill their market lock-in), and it would be viable as a software supplier, but it'd have to compete on ease of use, price, robustness, etc.. It'd have to compete on its merits for once, instead of being the mandatory choice because of the current platform lock-in (even though OpenOffice.org does an excellent job interoperating with MS Office files).
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
I don't think it's significant at all, Minnesota was closer to being red in the latest election than almost any time in the last century. It can all be directly attributed to the Twin Cities having a very tech-oriented community, often given titles such as "Most Wireless City" and other things. Outside Silicon Valley and Seattle, it is probably the most tech oriented metropolis. This would of course have an indirectly related effect on it's political orientation as well, but partison politics really seem insignifact cause-effect wise.
The real key to any 'open standard' is that it be implementable without payment of royalties or encumberments of any kind. That is what makes ODF or Ogg Vorbis 'open standards' and MS Office formats and MP3 non-open standards. Open standards are great for consumers and voters because it means they can buy which ever standard conforming product best suits their needs, and that encourages true competition. Vendors like Microsoft will off course complain loudly, but it isn't supposed to be about what is best for the vendors, it is supposed to be about what is best for the citizens, and Minnesota seems to understand that better than most. I expect that Microsoft will go in with all guns blazing to derail this proposal.
You're not being told that you cannot use Microsoft Office. The Government is also not being told it cannot use Microsoft Office. The subject here is how the _data_ will be _stored_. You can use Microsoft Office, but the files must be saved in an open format of some sort.
This is certainly a Good Thing.
Install COX in your backend today!
I'd love to see it become more than just Open "Formats"... it should also include Protocols. e.g. MS Exchange. Exchange essentially locking people into using MS Outlook.
It is strange how our ideals affect information.
In the olden days, people concentrated quite heavily on open formats. Many programmers saw the data as separate from the program. In this environment, one would expect multiple programs to be dinking with the contents of a file. In such a world, maintaining and adhering to published open formats was the key to success.
One of the ideals of OO revolution was that object would own the data. Taken to extremes that means that one object should own the data through its entire existence. Early ideas on the problem of persistence was that OO would just save the internal state of the program to the disk, rather than going through the complex task of converting the data to an open format (risking the potential that other programs would be tempted to modify the data). It seems to me that OO ushered in proliferation of proprietary formats. It definitely provided an excuse for creating proprietary formats.
It seems to me that open data formats is contrary to the ideals of object oriented programming. However, when dealing with data that last longer than the computer, it seems naive that one object will be able to own the data.
I certainly support the idea that Govt and public-domain agencies should use file formats that are royalty free, published, and ideally, with a source-code reference implementation for reading them (assuming they aren't self-describing) and a bunch of sample documents to use as test data for said reference implementation.
What might be surprising is that I hold this view inspite of being a Microsoft Employee. While I certainly want as many people as possible using MS software, I want them doing so because it's the best choice for their situation. I'd like to think that Word can deliver more value to its users than the ability to open Word files, so if govt agencies want to mandate that documents be created, shared, stored, etc in published, royalty-free formats, that's fine with me. Government agencies are a large customer of ours, so hopefully government action around requiring open file formats will push us to make our tools best-of-breed for dealing with those formats, or may even push us to open some of our own.
I don't use WMA for my music files, even though I could just email the guy that designed it if I have a problem. Just because I can today, doesn't mean I can 5 years from now. And there won't ever be a supported WMA player for something like OpenBSD, which might otherwise be a perfectly good audio appliance.
Now here's where I explain the title. As much as I am for the idealistic POV that open formats should be used where possible, I also beleive that govt is amazingly effective at turning a good idea into a bad law. (See also: 99% of current US laws). Another comment suggested that this story is more about Sun/IBM fighting MS via legislation, as opposed to some ideological position that is being done for the best interests of the people. If that's true, it's unfortuneate that our govt is continuing to do these sorts of things that are allegedly in the best intersts of "the people" but no one can explain exactly how, and ultimately, other businesses or politicians seem to derive the most benefit.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Off Topic: Election Judges can't read software.....therefore elections must not be dependent on software for certification of the main balloting.
I Say that as Citizens, with the "common man" as Citizen election judges, each group of election judges must, with their existing capabilites (say, high school education, in International Falls MN), shall not be precluded from personally certifying the ballots and the summation of counts up to the state level.
Therefore, all software, Diabold, opensource, or otherwise, should be disallowed on the face of it.
It could be that a shrink-wrap spreadsheet, self programmed to help with addition, and first tested by the local judges with known test data (and no vists from the "vendor") would fall within their capability and use.
It is the common man (gender neutral) citizen judge, not some State (appointed) administrator that is RESPONSIBLE and therefor must have method and tool decision power.
We don't need results before the polls close.
We do need results that we, as citizens, can trust.
All ballots should be paper.
All intermediate sums should be printed (hand, adding machine, or personally coded spreadsheets).
Paper Ballots:
How about the Check printing business?
Quick turn of anti-counterfit, serialized, personally labeled documents.
Standard smallish size, easy to handle,
Each precient can order their own color/background.
Printers can know that they only take orders from the right person.
Printer and precient and third parties can assure a single printing of the right number of ballots...
Both "major" parties have a vested interest in protecting the status quo. Nearly all states went to that sort of "all or nothing" EC allocation in the early mid-19th century, you know. It's not like partisanship is a new phenomenon. Geo. Washington warned us it.
We need a system that reduces the dependency on partisanship. I don't have anything against partisanship, per se, but I do not like some of its effects. Making the system nonrewarding to those effects would help diminish those aspects. I believe the solution is making the political machine more multipartisan, and I think the way to do this is using Condorcet voting instead of plurality voting. When the electorate can vote honestly, rather than strategically because of "wasted vote" concerns, then you'll get true representation in office.
BTW, you're more likely to find the minor parties more likely to work "for the people" than the major ones, because they are not (yet) in a position of needing to protect themselves. Their whole appeal is that they reach out to the masses not being served by self-serving parties. I used to live in MN and that's where I first got active in partisan politics - but it was a "third" party. The experience on the whole was great. Do make sure to pay attention to the "character" of the party though...any small party can be "for the people" when small, but you want to support one that will continue to be so when it grows, a "principle over politics" approach.
Constitutionally Correct
It's becoming increasingly hard to reverse engineer formats. Why?
Encryption
Legal protection for the encryption, the DMCA
Software patents
The relatively new concept of being able to own a file format.