You spoke about XML...that is a standard, is it not? On second thought, never mind. You don't see a problem with MS 'licensing' the XML format for Office 12, so I suspect you will double-talk your way around that being a standard MS shouldn't change to their own benefit (as they are wont to do).
As far as the Commonwealth's requirements go, let me make it as plain as I can: If you have to take out a license on something (free or not), that thing is not open. The terms of the license is immaterial. Therefore, if microsoft requires a license AT ALL, they are not meeting the requirements the Commonwealth has laid out. Simple, no?
Given recent events, it appears the Commonwealth will not be using MS Office after 2007.
If a fee must be paid, it isn't open. If changes are made to the standard, it isn't to standard anymore.
If either of these things occur, it isn't acceptable under the draft policy of the Commonwealth. So, if MS want's Office to continue to be used, they will have to adhere to the open standards specified...No Fees, No changes.
Unfortunately this isn't a done deal yet, and the business of politics is a MF. Still, MS has a history of messing with standards, and this is a clear attempt to nip that in the bud before it occurs.
It doesn't dump Office, per se, but it does keep Microsoft honest. The draft policy letter states that 'Proprietary extensions to XML' are to be avoided. So if MS screws with that standard the way they mess with every other standard they get their hands on, bye bye Office.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, and FYI, OpenDocument IS a standard. http://www.oasis-open.org/news/oasis_news_05_23_05 .php
There is no law, there is a draft recommendation.
You spoke about XML...that is a standard, is it not? On second thought, never mind. You don't see a problem with MS 'licensing' the XML format for Office 12, so I suspect you will double-talk your way around that being a standard MS shouldn't change to their own benefit (as they are wont to do).
As far as the Commonwealth's requirements go, let me make it as plain as I can: If you have to take out a license on something (free or not), that thing is not open. The terms of the license is immaterial. Therefore, if microsoft requires a license AT ALL, they are not meeting the requirements the Commonwealth has laid out. Simple, no?
Given recent events, it appears the Commonwealth will not be using MS Office after 2007.
If a fee must be paid, it isn't open. If changes are made to the standard, it isn't to standard anymore.
If either of these things occur, it isn't acceptable under the draft policy of the Commonwealth. So, if MS want's Office to continue to be used, they will have to adhere to the open standards specified...No Fees, No changes.
Unfortunately this isn't a done deal yet, and the business of politics is a MF. Still, MS has a history of messing with standards, and this is a clear attempt to nip that in the bud before it occurs.
It doesn't dump Office, per se, but it does keep Microsoft honest. The draft policy letter states that 'Proprietary extensions to XML' are to be avoided. So if MS screws with that standard the way they mess with every other standard they get their hands on, bye bye Office.
At least, that's the theory.