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.
I never thought I'd say something like this, but GO TEXAS!
It may be Texas, but the bill was filed by Rubén Hinojosa, a Democrat representative from the U.S. House. They'll shoot it down. (unless Cheney misses and hits MS OOXML by accident.)
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
Well, I'm not a Texan, but since it's a bill in the Texas state Senate, I figure you probably ought to contact your state Senator.
Also, since it's going to have to get out of committee before anyone else sees it (unless your state government is unusual), you could contact the other Senators who make up whichever committee it goes into -- which, based on a 10-second scan of the list of committees, I'm guessing is this one. But I could be wrong.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.
Unfortunately, it's in the form of a recommendation, but it's better than nothing. In a nutshell, it directs Texas state agencies and higher education institutions to consider OSS for all IT procurements. I believe it was originally the brainchild of a Dallas-area senator named John Corona.
I referenced it quite often while pushing for OSS-based IT implementation at the college I was teaching at...most administrators were ignorant that this even existed.
Microsoft went for ISO fast-track approval which allows only one month for dissenting countries to speak out (and with 6000 pages in the spec it's not enough time -- there hasn't been any public standardisation prior to this fast track as is normal with fast-tracked standards).
Anyway, as I understand it there only needs to be one single vote against in order to force a fast-tracked proposal down the long and arduous path of open evaluation, analysis, and justification. Canada and Britain have voted against Microsoft. Thanks Canada, thanks Britain!
OOXML is now considerably more shakey with governments around the world, and other countries, like Texas.
-- Matt Carter
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!
Okay, then I will instead:
OpenXML doesn't meet the criteria because parts of it are patented. Besides, even if it weren't patented parts of the "standard" essentially say "re-implement the behavior of Word" which, for obvious reasons, is entirely unreasonable and should also disqualify it.
If this post above yours is accurate, no it won't.
No, you're wrong. Patents qualify as restrictions.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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.