Texas Bill For Open Documents

Ditesh Kumar tips us to a blog entry by Sam Hiser noting a bill filed in Texas that would require state agencies to conduct their work in an open document format. After Microsoft's grueling battle against ODF in Massachusetts, bluest of blue states, it must be galling to face te same fight in the reddest of the red. Hiser notes that the bill includes a rigorous and sound definition of an open document format, which ODF would meet but Microsoft's current OOXML submission would not.

Comments

Makes Sense

[inphorm]

As much as I like MS (well I like it because all it's problems give me a job, fixing them for various people.. I don't use it at home though.. haha), Open Documents make much more sense, rather than trying to lock users in to using 1 particular package.

Queue MS bashers here.. haha

Can I just say here (to play the devil's advocate) MS isn't the only company that uses Anti-Competitive methods or tries to lock users into their product. ipods anyone?

Things like this keep companies like MS and others on their toes. I also believe that companies have a right to profit from products they create, only if they do it ethically though.

- paul

http://www.paulpichugin.com.au/

Re:Makes Sense

[wall0159]

"MS isn't the only company that uses Anti-Competitive methods or tries to lock users into their product. ipods anyone?"

there's a big difference between DRM that's specific to a device (that's right - tracks from the ITMS are the _only_ lock-in to the ipod, which also plays mp3 and AAC - open formats), and software that results in lock-in on content that you create yourself.

I'm no fan of DRM or the ITMS, but the lock-in to the ipod is no worse than that of any other music player!

Re:Makes Sense

[sumdumass]

When the government start using Ipod only files to distribute and interact with documents I need in order to do business in the state, I'll start bitching a bit louder about the Ipod. But I shouldn't need to purchase a $400 program to interact with a state on a fundemental level. I shouldn't have to do this to do business in the state either, even if the business is with others in the state and we just need to get permit aprovals and such.

And I know, there are alternative ways to interact. But the end result would be either pony up the dough or suffer an unfair competitive advantage to your competitors because of the states decision that is funded by my tax dollars.

And the refusial to pay, isn't even a decision over the money needed, it is about principle. Sooner or later we will have enough little $400 for this program, 200 for that program and so on. Before long, a person will have to have thoughsands of dollars just for programs to do business. And it might not stop at doing business, what about complaints and such. Shoudl a person need to pay a microsoft tax to fill out a complaint form or ask the state/city to fix something they should have already fixed? I know, I'm rambling. Your point is still valid but i see it in different levels. Hopfully other can too.

Let's get the ball rolling!

[mrchaotica]

With Massachusetts, bunches of foreign governments, and now Texas realizing the importance of document formats that are Free, future proof, and equally accessible to all citizens (including those who don't use Windows), I think it's about time the other forty-eight states introduced similar bills of their own. I just wrote an email suggesting such to my representative; now it's your turn!

"Red" and "blue" is irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

This just goes to show that Free Software is not a democrat or republicrat thing. (Remember, Microsoft itself is in one of the 'bluer' states.)

The real issue here is freedom, and the benefits that can be derived from it: Better security, lower upfront costs, less obsolescence, open formats, and the ability to choose between software packages and providers, rather than just taking whatever Microsoft shoves down your throat.

Why not OpenXML?

[pdschmid]

The author is pretty dismissive about OpenXML, yet doesn't explain why OpenXML wouldn't meet the criteria. The bill would take effect December 1, 2007. By then OpenXML will probably be an ISO standard and there will probably be more than one adaptation of it (Novell is working on one for OpenOffice). So:

1. "interoperable among diverse internal and external platforms and applications": Doesn't really say whether this interoperability has to be possible or whether such platforms and applications have to already exist. Also, it is to be expected for internal ones that the support for the open format would have to be implemented first. Then of course, what is meant with "diverse". Does two count as diverse? Does it need to be three, four, five,...? This is vague and very open to interpretation.
2. "published without restrictions or royalties": OpenXML already fulfills this today
3. "fully and independently implemented by multiple software providers on multiple platforms without any intellectual property reservations for necessary technology": Once Novell did it for OpenXML, there will be three vendors (Novell, Microsoft and the open-source project doing the ODF-OpenXML converter) on multiple platforms (Windows & all platforms OpenOffice runs on). Sounds like OpenXML has this one in the pocket as well.
4. "controlled by an open industry organization with a well-defined inclusive process for evolution of the standard": Ecma is such a body. But for all skeptics, once OpenXML is an ISO standard in 6 months or so, this will be a given.

Re:Why not OpenXML?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are quite the fool to believe that OpenXML is as documented and implementable as ODF. MS believes that documenting a function as "Should work like Word-97 spacing bug" as sufficient.

That is not a standard, that is just a list of all the bugs in the MS code, which no one should really try to emulate.

Re:Why not OpenXML?

[daeg]

Have you actually read any of the OOXML "specs"?

Ecma 376 section 2.8.2.16 (page 1541) "sig (Supported Unicode Subranges and Code Pages)" describes the <w:sig> element whose attributes are all bitmasks. For example, take the attribute csb1:

"Specifies a four digit hexadecimal encoding of the upper 32 bits of the 64-bit code-page bit field that identifies which specific character sets or code pages are supported by the parent font"

Also, do you want attributes in your "open" format to be "useWord2002TableStyleRules" or "truncateFontHeightsLikeWP6" "footnoteLayoutLikeWW8" or "autoSpaceLikeWord95"? Yes, their format wants to support the buggy spacing methods from Word 95.

Of most concern is that if OOXML were the standard, Microsoft will maintain its complete control over government documents. Why? Because it will probably be illegal to switch products to a product that doesn't support the spec 100%.

While I do like the Microsoft Office products more than the other suites (close race now, but Outlook seals it for me), this is just going to screw everyone over.

Re:Why not OpenXML?

[ozmanjusri]

By then OpenXML will probably be an ISO standard

No, probably not. Microsoft's attempt at a swift flanking move on our stampede to format freedom has (temporarily) been blocked http://www.computing.co.uk/itweek/news/2173717/ope n-standards-bodies-call-halt.

"published without restrictions or royalties": OpenXML already fulfills this today

Good point. Today yes, OpenXML meets that criteria, but tomorrow may be a different story.

"fully and independently implemented by multiple software providers on multiple platforms without any intellectual property reservations for necessary technology": Once Novell did it for OpenXML, there will be three vendors (Novell, Microsoft and the open-source project doing the ODF-OpenXML converter) on multiple platforms (Windows & all platforms OpenOffice runs on). Sounds like OpenXML has this one in the pocket as well.

Novell is in Microsoft's pocket, and Microsoft is funding the ODF-OpenXML converter. Besides, you forgot to allow for the "without any intellectual property reservations for necessary technology" part, which is not guaranteed with OpenXML.

But for all skeptics, once OpenXML is an ISO standard in 6 months or so, this will be a given.

We'd better wait until then before adopting it then. Mean time, ODF does all of the above, but without any of the "gotchas".

By the way, congratulations on writing a post which very cleverly skirts all the questionable bits of Microsoft's OpenXML push without actually lying. Care to disclose who you work for?

Re:Why not OpenXML?

[killjoe]

Probably because MS did and does pay people to post favorible comments about them here and elsewhere (including wikipeadia).

Besides who would shill for a corporation without getting paid? You don't see me posting about how great mazdas are at a forum about BMWs do you?

Austin != Strongly Red

[Hadlock]

Keep in mind Dell, which has been noted recently for the N-Series computers, is also located near Austin. The concept that the incredibly liberal capital Austin introducing progressive bills isn't terribly suprising. If this had been a city council proposition in a small town an hour outside of San Antonio or Tyler, this would be news.

Red State?

[cary67]

I'm not sure why being a so-called "red state" means that it's people or government agencies are supporters of MS. What does that have to do with anything? Spare me the drivel about the Bush administration caving on the MS anti-trust case. Maybe they did. Maybe I agree. However, the sweeping generalization made by the original poster is simply unsupported. Instead, I would point you to the fact that you're talking about the people who brought you the Boston Tea Party and The Alamo here. It's no surprise. These are Americans standing up against 21st century tyranny. Government users are BIG business for MS and YOUR tax dollars are paying for it. Texans, voice your support for this bill today!

Re:Red State?

[cary67]

The Republican Party (note: not just Bush) currently favors the interests of large corporations. Texas is controlled by Republicans. Microsoft is a large corporation. Therefore, Texas supports MS. Maybe it's not that cut-and-dried, but that's the logical train of thought that would cause people to reasonably assume such.

Yes, and Democrats support trial lawyers and labor unions (note: not necessarily regular people) so.... ---insert random logical assumption here.---

The fact that a "blue" state was the first to rebel against MS would seem to undermine your statement. Indeed, assumptions are rarely reasonable or logical.

People are being poisoned by the Red/Blue nonsense. It's hogwash that is intended to divide us and perpetuate a corrupt two-party system. Reality is not always what TV says it is. California is "blue" but I lived in Riverside County, which voted something like 2:1 to elect Bush. Now I live in "red" Texas, but can attest that Austin is overflowing with "blue" people.

Re:What do legislators really want?

[MoxFulder]

Microsoft had a rethink of the strategy they were using, dropped the prices for the government, threw in some more support for servers and all sorts of other things and all of a sudden, the government has a change of mind and also givs MS some tax breaks.. go figure.

You (and others) often use this as evidence that open source initiatives don't really work. In my mind, that's not really clear. I mean, in your example, competition from open source has in fact forced Microsoft to reduce prices, improve support, and maybe provide better docs. Of course you and I would prefer Microsoft get dumped all at once, but I believe that progress has being made. The fact that government initiatives in favor of open source have forced Microsoft to negotiate better deals DEMONSTRATES that open source has influence and strength.

Re:Hell frozen over?

[The_Wilschon]

Indeed Go Texas!

If you live in Texas, WRITE TO YOUR LEGISLATORS ! You can find out who to write to at the Texas Legislature Online's "Who Represents Me?" page. In my case, there were direct links to my Texas State Senator's and Texas State Representative's webpages, and I used the "email me!" type links I found there. If you don't want to take the time to write something yourself, you are welcome to use the same short letter I wrote:

I recently learned that a bill (SB 446) had been introduced to the Texas Legislature which would require all electronic state documents to be stored in a format described by an open standard. I am writing to lend my overwhelming support to this bill, and to express my hope that, if given the opportunity, you will vote in favor of this measure.

Open standards for documents ensure a number of things. First, the records of our great state will be preserved in a form accessible to posterity. You have no doubt heard the aphorism "Those who do not learn their history are doomed to repeat it," and how can our descendants learn our history if it is locked away in a format that can no longer be supported. It would be as if we had recorded all our state documents on 8-track tapes. Second, those who cannot afford the more expensive platforms and applications required for closed format documents would no longer be restricted from participating in the government (of the people, by the people, for the people) of the State of Texas.

Please, ensure that both the present and the future of our state can participate and learn from our government, and support this measure to require open formats for all state documents.

Re:Reddest?

[Ryan Amos]

Texas is conservative, but it's more of a libertarian, small government kind of conservativism. Bush won by a large margin here because he used to be the governor and (this was probably more of it) east-cost snobs like Al Gore and John Kerry are despised here.