Slashdot Mirror
OpenDocument Foundation Closes
Munchkinguy writes "First, they dropped support for their namesake OpenDocument Format and declared a switch to the W3C's 'Compound Document Format.' Then, W3C's Chris Lilley clarified that CDF 'was not created to be, and isn't suitable for use as, an office format.' Now, the Foundation has mysteriously closed up shop, leaving the following message: 'The OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. is closed. We sincerely wish our friends and associates in the OpenDocument Community all the best and much success going forward. Good-bye and good luck.'"
Oh come on, you were all thinking it.
This really does sound fishy to me... Especially since (last I checked) Microsoft was a large part of W3C?
But it was in .docx format, so no one is able to open it.
this story is just BEGGING to be tagged "thanksforallthefish"
Monstar L
We don't need any official-sounding non-organizations spreading (F)UD.
-- Cheers!
[chorus]
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
And another one gone, and another one gone,
another FUD bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna see it on youtube
another FUD bites the dust
How do you think OpenDoc Foundations gonna get along
When the M$ bux are gone?
You got all the FUD that they could give,
And kicked them out when you were done.
Are you happy? Are you satisfied?
How long can M$ stand the heat?
Out of Redmond, the chairs do fly,
To the sound of the FUD beat [chorus]
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
dum, dum, dum, another FUD bites the dust.
And another one gone, and another one gone,
another FUD bites the dust
Hey, I'm gonna see it on youtube
another FUD bites the dust
As was said in the last story, the OpenDocument Foundation has no official status -- it was merely a group founded by a few guys who have changed their minds about OpenDocument (whether they were paid to do so or not, no one knows). The closure of the Foundation has no impact, other than the ability for OOXML supporters to spread FUD headlines like this.
For what it's worth to you, it's been known for some time that the Open Document Foundation doesn't represent any actual source of authority vis-a-vis ODF - nobody's really sure what the organization was for to begin with. More info in this (oft-linked) blog entry.
(rot13) rpbzbab@tznvy.pbz
I should know better than to feed the trolls but you do know these guys are not responsible for Open Document and have no official status. They were more or less a fan club. Redmond is the most likely culprit in this case so the addage NEVER... NEVER trust Redmond would be appropriate. This isn't even substantial news to the open source world and won't impact anything in it.
Well that might be because people want to be able to edit the document later. Just a thought.
je suis parce que j'aime
The Republican Party released a similar piece saying the party was unsuitable for use in a Democracy. "We wish all the good luck too our Democratic colleagues in sustaining the intent of the US Constitution."
Someone else (who isn't busy like me ;-) ) should form another organization by the same name then
I suppose.
Anyone?
The worst that could happen is that M$ will pay you a bundle to close it down again.
At best you could shepherd a format that we sorely need promoted.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
http://incompetech.com/gallimaufry/care_less.html
And opendocumentcommunity (.org, .net, .com) domains are vacant. Quickly, choose one and spread FUD!! XD
The "Open Document Foundation" is and was never a crucial part of anything. The Open Document Format was developed by OASIS - see http://docs.oasis-open.org/office/v1.1/OS/OpenDocument-v1.1-html/OpenDocument-v1.1.html/.
This is an excellent precedent. Maybe the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution will follow their lead.
Why is this still making news, it has already been found out that the OpenDocument Foundation, Inc. has nothing to do with the OpenDocument Alliance...the real organisation behind ODF; so I ask again why this is still making news?!
Michael
http://s1.sfgame.us/index.php?rec=58163
because it is NOT this ODF (the ISO standard (almost?), by OASIS) everyone knows about. Just some stupid group of people with same name.
#
#\ @ ? Colonize Mars
#
...I just made a new organisation called the Open Document Format Gathering and we are now closing because ODF sucks / whatever.. now give me my Microsoft check...
Recently they tried to bribe their way to the Nigerians to get ahead of Mandriva. Then we hear of Blamer throwing chairs around the office yelling "I'm going to fucking kill Google", I really wouldn't put it above them trying to bribe this committee into submission.
In other words, when everything else fails, look for the money trail.
In all honesty, no matter how much I would care about some open standards, Linux, Linus, and so on (and I do care about those things), if Microsoft sent me a $100k check in exchange of not caring "as much" about open standards, I don't know if I would resist. (If I would resist, I probably wouldn't resist if they doubled the offer).
To me this "bribing conspiracy" makes sense. It would be pocket change for Microsoft and would quickly solve their problem (promoting OOXML). Not a bad business move on their part...
I don't know why you'd be suspicious. Huge evil megacorp, known for bribery and corruption, is facing it's worst nightmare in the form of ODF. It's tried everything to get rid of it, and ODF is still slowly but surely progressing. Suddenly, one of the big organisations behind ODF declares that ODF is somehow a failure when it's on top, and then decides to blink out of existence altogether.
Nope. Nothing fishy there. I'm sure the OpenDoc Foundation just accidentally ate a ring of teleportation or something.
Open Source means that YOU should 'constructivicize' HIS criticism, with an added license that the next man can un-'constructivicize' it right behind your back again.
;)
A horse can't be sick, you know, even if he wants to.
Cute quote. Way to fire up the hordes. Your evidence is, exactly, what?
Oh, I see where your ideas could have come from. Going to share?
...popular usage and not by committee.
Ah, so this is a statement that we are getting back to that.
We don't need a foundation. all we need is popular usage....
Actually, office document formats are essentially programming languages (or perhaps even something approaching a virtual machine specification) that are optimized for easy program generation by user tools.
In the case of word processor documents, the program renders something (unfortunately also called a document) on some kind of device, typically a printer (with various paper formats) and the screen. The difference between HTML with CSS and javascript, and something like MS Word doc format are: built in interfaces to other systems (e.g. compound documents in the case of word), services the underlying rendering platform is expected to provide, plus miscellaneous implementation choices (e.g. VBA vs. javascript). The differences in services provided (e.g. compound document linking and updating in the case of Word) reflect in part the practical differences in the target application domains. And these practicalities do matter, although as HTML matures it is becoming a more practical alternative (in my opinion) for many kinds of documents.
In the case of spreadsheets, they are also a "document" when we are talking about the standard in question, although they are also arguably special purpose programs. The main thing they have in common with "documents" of the prior type is that they are also expected to have graphical renderings.
So really, what we are talking about here are practical ways of achieving various things users need in the course of their work. There are always more than one way to get things done, and accordingly, users could make do with HTML or PDF for many tasks, particularly if they are provided with an editor. With CSS and javascript, there's an even stronger case to be made that there isn't any critical need for a "presentation" document format.
While such solutions would clearly be adequate, they are not necessarily optimal for everyone. For example, HTML does not provide change tracking and commenting capabilities, although this can be a blessing when interchanging documents.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
OK, so that makes Windows, .DOC(X?), and MSIE the standards. We can all pack up and go home now.
The reason for standards committees is that de facto standards often suck for everyone except the people who invented them.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I'm sensing a business plan here, plug a free, alternate version of something M$ doesn't want to succeed until they show up to bribe you. It's remarkably similar to the old business plan of creating a startup with a product better than something M$ already offers and wait for them to buy you out and let your former company (now a div of microsoft) flounder and collapse.
Cute quote. Way to fire up the hordes. Your evidence is, exactly, what?
I think the evidence made public during the anti-trust trial and conviction should be enough for anyone to have a healthy distrust of everything Redmond does, especially anything regarding openness or interoperability or anything else that threatens Microsoft's OS and office suite lock-in and thus their entire business model.
The enemies of Democracy are