A bill has been introduced in Minnesota that would require all Executive branch agencies to "use open standards in situations where the other requirements of a project do not make it technically impossible to do this." The text of the bill is focused specifically on "open data formats." While the amendment does not refer to open source software, the definition of "open standards" that it contains would be conducive to open source implementations of open standards. 
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-01-18
Member since:
2005-12-31
Member since:
2006-03-20
Member since:
2006-01-03
according to the Minnesota's bill site:
"Open standards" means specifications for the encoding and transfer of computer data that:
(1) is free for all to implement and use in perpetuity, with no royalty or fee;
office XML will always has licensing fees, therefore it's not an open standard.
Member since:2006-01-06
Member since:2005-07-06
False. There are no licensing fees for Office XML.
At the moment.
(1) is free for all to implement and use in perpetuity, with no royalty or fee;
EDit: Also, this would seem to exclude any format encumbered by patents, since they are not guaranteed to be free for all to implement. Doesn't MS hold some patents for use in their file formats ?
Edit2: Yes they do : http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/ip/format/xmlpatentlicense.asp - I'll stop editing now :-)
Edited 2006-04-05 17:52
Member since:
2006-01-06
Look, I have no problem with government agencies adopting open file formats; HOWEVER, using the force of legislation is no less tyrannical than if Microsoft had tried to use the legislatures to make its Office formats be exclusive government standards. Let the two compete. If Microsoft cares about the requirements of government agencies looking for open formats, then it will adapt its practices. But nobody should try to pretend that this has anything to do with "freedom". It's about control.
Member since:2006-01-18
Member since:2006-01-18
Member since:2006-01-03
Member since:2006-01-18
Member since:2005-07-06
Look, I have no problem with government agencies adopting open file formats; HOWEVER, using the force of legislation is no less tyrannical than if Microsoft had tried to use the legislatures to make its Office formats be exclusive government standards. Let the two compete. If Microsoft cares about the requirements of government agencies looking for open formats, then it will adapt its practices. But nobody should try to pretend that this has anything to do with "freedom". It's about control.
It makes complete sense for a government to favour formats which ensure the people will always have access to the information stored within even if they would have to reimplement reader-software. And to make sure that there are no hidden costs, which is why they say it must be "perpetually" open and free of license costs.
If MS gives Minnesota a complete spec and a formal promise not to charge license fees in the future they will be in the runnning too. How's that not freedon ?
Edited 2006-04-05 17:45
Member since:2005-10-02
Authorities should not have that kind of freedom.
Authorities are evil per definition and must therefore be controlled.
Ergo: There can be no proprietary software as well as no proprietary formats in use by authorities.
What happens outside governmental agencies is a different matter. Nobody prevents you from using proprietary solutions at home. But in order to secure interoperality as well as security from vendor lock-in, proprietary formats must not be used by authorities.
[EDIT] Yes, governments need to be controlled by the population. As little freedom as possible to the part of society controlled by politicians. They are bound to screw up. Therefore we must control them.
Edited 2006-04-06 03:09
Member since:2006-01-18
Member since:2005-10-02
Member since:
2005-07-02
Member since:
2005-10-19
Member since:
2005-07-02
