Slashdot Mirror


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.

4 of 197 comments (clear)

  1. Let's get the ball rolling! by mrchaotica · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!

    --

    "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

  2. "Red" and "blue" is irrelevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Red State? by cary67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!

  4. Re:Makes Sense by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.