It seems to me easy to resolve the "is it open or not" question: the legislature can tack on an implementation requirement.
For example, state: "Beginning [insert date here], the only formats accepted for document submission will be those which have at least two (2) functionally complete implementations, available without restriction to the public for free; formats available for distribution will be those for which two (2) functionally complete implementations, available without restriction to the public for free, can translate from an approved submission format."
Note that I'm not saying MS Office needs to be free, just the format translator. AND I'm saying that someone besides MS needs to make one that works, too.
A standard ain't a standard if just one guy does it. If MS really wants a standard, they're going to have to do more than just declare it. They'll need to teach it.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems to me easy to resolve the "is it open or not" question: the legislature can tack on an implementation requirement.
For example, state: "Beginning [insert date here], the only formats accepted for document submission will be those which have at least two (2) functionally complete implementations, available without restriction to the public for free; formats available for distribution will be those for which two (2) functionally complete implementations, available without restriction to the public for free, can translate from an approved submission format."
Note that I'm not saying MS Office needs to be free, just the format translator. AND I'm saying that someone besides MS needs to make one that works, too.
A standard ain't a standard if just one guy does it. If MS really wants a standard, they're going to have to do more than just declare it. They'll need to teach it.