Today’s Articles on ODF and Massachusetts
Two very thoughtful articles about Massachusetts’ OpenDocument Format (ODF) decision have come to my attention today.
The first, by Bernard Golden on SearchOpenSource.com, summarizes the Massachusetts decision and the recent counter-attacks orchestrated against it. In The real story behind the Massachusetts ODF flap, Golden writes,
“Using a standard format to store documents increases the likelihood that it will be possible to view them in the future since many different applications can access the files. Proprietary vendor-specific formats run the risk of being abandoned as vendors update or abandon their application, leaving no viable way to view the documents.
While ODF is mandated, the application used to create documents is not; any application that can read and write ODF can be considered for use by state agencies.”
He explains the reason Microsoft feels threatened by this move, since its monopoly could possibly be under threat:
“Microsoft quite clearly understands that controlling the file formats of documents is a life-or-death proposition. If it is forced to support an externally defined standard, the company’s office products become one of a number of potentially acceptable applications for office productivity requirements. For Microsoft, the ODF decision by Massachusetts is the thin end of a wedge that will splinter its desktop monopoly.
Furthermore, Microsoft wants its office products to be part of an all-Microsoft IT infrastructure. Office-created files will be shunted around .NET-based applications, made available by Microsoft-based SOA services, and stored in Microsoft-provided databases. Without special Microsoft file extensions, the whole hairball becomes significantly less intertwined. Standard file formats enable a mix-and-match infrastructure.
Finally, of course, Office is a huge business for Microsoft. It is one of its two franchises, bringing in billions of dollars of profit to the company. Reducing the torrent of Office cash threatens the entire panoply of money-wasting Microsoft initiatives.”
It’s a great summation of the situation, and of the larger conflict between broadly-supported standards and proprietary standards imposed by a single organization for its own greatest benefit.
The second article, by Gary Cramblitt, is titled, An Open Letter to Massachusetts Residents with Disabilities.
He discusses and debunks what would have been the only valid complaint about Mass’ decision, except that an explicit exemption to the ODF rule was made clear by Peter Quinn at the beginning of the process.
Cramblitt begins,
“If you’ve been following the debate in Massachusetts concerning adoption of the Open Document Format (ODF), you might be aware that a number of people and organizations have expressed concern over the impact of this decision on people with disabilities. Basically, the (flawed) logic goes: 1. This decision forces me to switch to open source software. 2. Open Source software isn’t accessible. 3. Open source software is business unfriendly, and therefore nobody will develop assistive technologies for it, and 4. We, people with disabilities, will be victims of the decision.
Let’s set aside for the moment that 1) this decision does not force the use of open source software, 2) the MA Information Technology Division (ITD) decision does not mandate any particular software, 3) the ITD has already stated that the needs of disabled persons trumps the policy, 4) open source software that reads and writes ODF is already quite accessible and can even be used with the very same JAWS product that blind users currently run, and 5) OpenOffice.org is licensed under the GNU Lesser Public License, which does not exclude businesses from developing proprietary software on top of or along side of it. (Indeed StarOffice is a commercial product that shares the same code base as OpenOffice.org.)”
Overall, this two articles represent the majority opinion that the Massachusetts decision is a solid step to improve technology in the state and will benefit its citizens far more than the current system. These and other strong supporting arguments outmatch any the opposition has been able to raise.