Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Government Adopts Open Source Software Initiative
christian.einfeldt writes "The Dutch government has set a target date of April 2008 for its agencies to start preferentially using open standards-based software. Organizations in the government will still be able to use proprietary software and formats ... but will have to justify it. A Microsoft Netherlands spokesman claims that Microsoft's Office productivity suite will still be used widely in the Dutch government until April, and that Microsoft Office will comply with the new Dutch rules once Microsoft's so-called "Open Office XML" standard is approved as an international ISO standard in February."
I love my country, now and then. This is such a moment.
And I love Microsoft's comment as well. Now lets first see that they manage to make OOXML an open standard! But at least someone still beliefs in it. It's so heartwarming. And actually a bid sad.
Supporters of open source should tone down the rhetoric about it and fight for open standards. If open source is better, as they believe, it will win if the playing field is level. What levels the field is open standards. Same is true about the free/paid software issue.
We should not fall for the well engineered PR spin of conflating these two.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
What a bunch of tulip smelling, wooden show wearing, low lying pansies. If you go open, go open all the way. This makes sick. Smell your tulips, wear your wooden shoes, and pronounce your j's as y's while the world laughs at your lack of decisiveness. Bunch of orange clad pansies if you ask me.
And precisely what is your home country doing that's so superior, Mr Wanker?
This action plan (it's not legislation, yet) is intended to get government agencies to use both open source software, and open standards.
I don't really care wheter or not our government uses open source or proprietary software, whatever works best for the task at hand. I do however care a lot about them using open standards. It sure would be nice if we can still figure out how to open a certain document in 50 years time, without depending on a single software vendor to help us out.
One step at the time - and if Microsoft can document fully their OOXML format, it's still a win for OpenOffice and the rest of the office suites out there - compatibility with Microsoft Office will be easier to obtain.
I'm unconvinced - from what I've seen of the OOXML "spec", I am not sure maintaining compatibility by following it would be any easier than the current reverse engineering done on the existing formats. So the only change I think we're going to see if OOXML gets approved as a standard is that the third party software writers will _look_ worse since they will lose the "well it isn't documented so we're doing the best we can" excuse.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
For fucks sake, can't anyone in the media tell the difference? There is nothing to stop a closed source software using an open standard.
This is something that should have been settled along time ago (many years ago), yet just because someone wants to control the market and the interfaces between programs, it is taking much longer then it should.
I believe that ODF allows for a new point of adjustment to the current way things are perceived in the Office suite environment.
I have a hard time understanding why people don't see the benefit of standardizing ODF as the standard, it allows for so much progress. The fact that it is not controlled by a money hungry company that has made many attempts to capitalize on anything they do. They have been caught red handed many times in bad business practices, they do not like competition or having to compete, should be a major factor for everyone to adopt ODF format.
Keeping it as open as possible is extremely important for the liberty of the users, developers, and businesses alike to make sure that no one gets the raw end of the deal. It truly could allow for a true transparency between office suites. It will also make all office suites keep in check with interoperability between each other.
It truly is an important decision, yet it should be an easy one, when it make so much more availability to all users, contributers, and business people alike to allow ODF as a betterment for business, community and choice.
This is not about 'MS crap'. This is about open standards. If MS adopts open standards for use in their programs, their software can still be used.
-- Cheers!
It seems apparent that "Open Office XML" sufficiently resembles "OpenOffice.org", and moreover, that the standard sufficiently relates to the same market as OpenOffice.org, that anyone wishing to retain the OpenOffice.org trademark should demand Microsoft stop confusing the marketplace with the name of their coincidentally no-so-open standard.
IBM didn't sink from prominence overnight. It took from about 1980 to about 2000
at first there was a whisper of dissent along the hall in acedemia
and then new voices joined the complaint
and the pundits all screamed we are set upon by fools
and as it turned out the king actually did not have any clothes at all.
Ripped from groklaw posts regarding Denmark's decision (also applies here):
...open standards in all new IT solutions, unless it will significantly increase
Even if MSOOXML gets the ISO stamp, it doesn't make it "open", merely
a standard. On the "open" front it's pretty much pretense all the way.
Not that ISO even pretends to usually care if a standard is open or not, even if
in this case even they seem to be party to the shell game.
the costs of the project.
- new Office, not really ooxml: $$$
- new OpenOffice.org: Free
Moreover, all authorities must be able to receive office documents in two open
document standards - namely ODF and OOXML. This allows citizens to communicate
with government using open standards.
- rx ODF with OpenOffice.org: True
- rx OOXML with any version of MSOFFice: false
The openness of a standard implies that:
* the standard must be fully documented and publicly available;
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False, proposed "standard" includes by reference
undocumented components
* the standard must be freely implementable without economic, political or legal
constraints on its implementation and use, now or in the future;
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False Legal Constraints
* the standard should be managed and maintained in an open forum via an open
process (standardisation organisation).
- ODF: True
- OOXML: False see recent articles on OOXML Bait and Switch
This sounds optimistic to me, but it could easily be true. Actually, it would be very good news if it became n ISO standard ... if Microsoft gets the standard by improving and clarifying it, and by explicitly dropping all patent restrictions on its features. But it's entirely possible that they won't do that but will get an ISO standard anyway, in which case we'll have an "open" standard that can't be implemented properly by any third parties, and can't be implemented legally in the United States without licensing patents on the standard from Microsoft.
This is why I think it's important for governments to clearly define what they mean by "open." The definition should have nothing to do with any standards body like ISO or Ecma. As we've all seen, ISO votes can be rigged, so "open" should mean that a standard is well-documented and contains no patent, copyright or trademark restrictions that would prevent a third party from implementing it without working with the developer of the standard. It should also require that the original developer of the standard not be the sole authority in charge of developing it further, and keeps their own products compliant with it. (How many people have imagined Microsoft "deviating" from their own OOXML standard in undocumented ways when they release the next version of Office?)
"We think it's not in the best interest of the wider software market to single out one model for endorsement like this" the spokesperson for Microsoft said.
Think about it, think hard. A single model ? That is like the mafia boss telling the judge "it is unfair to single out the model of law-abiding citizenry as only allowable one".
Nobody hinders Microsoft to compete in the market of open standards; just like Nokia and Ericsson compete in the world of the open standards of telecommunication. Sure, they'd prefer if each had a monopoly, and nobody else could even manufacture handsets.
The Dutch policy directs government organizations at the national level to be ready to use the Open Document Format to save documents by April
No reason for Microsoft to whine. ODF is some ISO standard, and they are more than welcome to place their ISO/IEC 26300-compliant product in the market. Nobody hinders Microsoft to make the big buck at supporting their software.
Security through obscurity does not work. You know it, I know it and most slashdotters and security professionals know it. But still some non engineers in the top management don't buy it. Many top politicians don't buy it. Selling closed/proprietary software as "more secure" works for them. Blocking open source as "insecure" works there. Now we are in a no-win situation. Either explain and prove them wrong and thus antagonize them, (these top dogs don't like to be proven wrong) or leave them alone and get blocked by them.
In the case of open standards, it is much more difficult to argue against it. That is why even MSFT is coming out with, "ours is also an open standard" line. That is why I was asking people not to get into open/close source argument and give the other side less foot hold.
Let us face a pragmatic reality. There are many closed source vendors who would like to get just a piece of MSFT's market share. It would be foolish for the open-standards advocates not to include them in the big tent. Don't antagonize these people whose interests are aligned with ours.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Hi All,
;), this is what it boils down to:
I attended the conference of ososs.nl (http://www.ososs.nl/, mainly Dutch), which was held the day after the documents passed Dutch parlement. Ososs was set up by the Dutch government and they are co-writes of the document of the Netherlands Economic Affairs Ministry
To get the facts
1) Any govenmental agency must by default use solutions and products that use open standards. Only with a very good reason one can choose a closed standards product. If currently a closed standards solution is used, replacing it should be done with an open standards version ("ist" to "soll" situation).
2) Open-Source products must be considered in any aquisition of new products. It must be weighted on equal terms with closed-source products.
3) All things being equal, open-source is the preferred choice.
4) Interoperability, govenmental transparancy and innovation are at least as important as the price of the solution.
4) There is a deadline of April 2008 to implement the use of Open Document Format for all external communications within all branches of the govenment
5) All semi-govenmental agencies have until 2011 to implement ODF
6) The parlement explicitly stated that education must be included in this initiative. Not only for their internal ICT, but as an integral part of education of pupils and students in ICT.
7) The parlement will keep watching progress being made.
I personally feel that the most intresting point is not just the points above, but the fact that the govenment is using a top-down approach, which has full support of both the Home office as well as the Economic Affairs Ministry. I feel this is a landslide victory for open standards and open source in the Netherlands.
Futhermore, I'd like to add that all parties in the parlement, left to right, were in favour of this act; this has not happened in a very long time...
Sorry dude, your wrong I spoke to several "top brass" guys at the ministries and the are dead serious. Open standards is the way to go, open source the thing to follow it up. The reaction to Microsoft's FUD letter on the conference the day after was very clear. The balance has been shifted....