decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Now an OOXML Protest from Denmark's OSL - Updated 3Xs: Official English Translation
Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:00 PM EDT

ComputerWorld Denmark is reporting that a strong letter of protest has been sent to ISO from Open Source Leverandørforeningen in Denmark (OSL):
President Morten Kjærsgaard from OSL have today lodged an official complaint to the ISO Vice President Jacob Holmblad, who also sits as managing director of Danish Standard.

"Our appeal goes both on process with Danish Standard, but also to the lack of technical implementations in OOXML ISO level. Jacob Holmblad will appeal directly, because he has one foot in each camp," explains Morten Kjærsgaard to Computerworld....

Thus, the OSL in the wake of Jens Kjellerup, IT manager at the town executive for Children and Young People in Aarhus municipality, 14 days ago complained to the Danish Standard of OOXML process.

You can read a translation of the article or if you can, here's the letter [PDF] itself. If any of you can provide a translation of the letter, or refinements of the article's translation, please do.

Update: We have a translation of the letter now, thanks to Groklaw member KarlJorgensen. It states that ISO rules were broken, there was no consensus in Denmark, and that the Fast Track process "has been formally annulled for 2 months now - since the 29th of March, where the specification should have been sent to the national standardization organizations. The basis for a fast track procedure is no longer present, and I therefore expect ISO to pick up the case again." Read on for the full letter, and for clarity, it's a letter of protest, not an appeal from the standards body. However, it's a letter from a member of the technical committee who participated in the BRM and who raises serious concerns.

Update 3: We have the official English translation of the letter [PDF] now.

What I understand is that the complaint is based on the fact that Denmark's committee was seriously divided, and amendments they wanted to OOXML were never applied. And worse, they were arguing over an unfinished draft. How can that work well? No one can implement OOXML, and for as long as that is true, no one can interoperate with it. They ask that the matter be reopened.

Here's the part I'd like a clear and certain translation of:

Jacob Holmblad told to Computerworld that he will look at the complaint at the earliest opportunity. "The complaint was indeed sent to the ISO, but I like to send it on. Such a complaint is serious, and therefore it must also be dealt with seriously," says the Vice-President of ISO and the Director of the Danish Standard.

He takes next week to Geneva, where OOXML issue undoubtedly will be reversed with the ISO organization.

Update 2: Two readers say a more accurate translation would be: "He will go to Geneva next week, where the OOXML-issue will undoubtedly be raised with the ISO organization."

If you hover over each section, you will see the original language. This article seems to be raising a serious question. If there is no final draft yet, and for unknown reasons there isn't, and if Microsoft itself is not supporting OOXML yet, and it says it isn't, how is true interoperability possible? This couldn't be a deliberate delay game, could it? I hate to think that, but I confess this article has started me thinking in a brand new way about the delay in delivering the final draft. And since currently Microsoft isn't supporting ODF, only promising to do so someday, where does that leave interoperability? Finally, since ODF 1.1, as I understand it, has issues with spreadsheets and accessibility that are solved in ODF 1.2, why did Microsoft choose to support the version that works less well? Is their goal really interoperability or just the appearance of a willingness to do it someday?

Here's the official English translation of the entire letter as submitted 1 :

ISO
att: Vice-President Jacob Holmblad
[address]

Copenhagen, 30th May 2008

Complaint regarding the certification procedure in Danish Standards

Dear Jacob Holmblad

The Danish Open Source Businsess Association hereby submits a formal complaint regarding the certification procedures after the meetings in Danish Standards committee S-445 (previously S-142/U34) as well as the decision to change the Danish vote to a yes in connection with the treatment of DIS 29500. I write to you in your position as Vice-President for ISO,secondly as CEO for Danish Standards.

The Danish Open Source Business Association informed Danish Standards in a letter of March 22 2008 that the Danish requirements to DIS29500 have not been met. We summarized our points of views in the following five main points:

1. Microsoft's Office formats hinder interoperability
2. XML forms are missing
3. The complete specifications text is still not ready
4. Contradictory formulations
5. The maintenance of DIS29500 is not in place

I would also like to point out that after the round of hearings during the summer of 2007, agreement had been reached in the committee to formulate 168 change proposals and on this basis recommended a "No with comments". In order to change this position, according to Danish Standard's rules, there had to be a consensus in the committee. Furthermore, according to ISO's regulations, the complete specification must be ready at the latest 30 days after the BRM, so that the committee can consult the specification in order to verify to what extent the Danish technical objections were accommodated.

The discussion on the meeting March 26 was based on the unfinished specifications draft and on editorial notes from the BRM. This was far from sufficient to assure the committee that the 168 change proposals had been accommodated. Therefore, as you know, there was a great deal of disagreement during the meeting. Quite simply, we discussed specifications that did not yet exist.

Two months after Danish Standards announced the changed vote, we note that:

  • There never has been agreement in the committee regarding whether the Danish requirements were met
  • The five main points in our letter 22 March 2008 have still not been solved
  • The specification is still not ready, so that we can make certain that the change proposals have been incorporated

On this basis, the Danish Open Source Business Association ascertains that the procedures and the decision conflict with ISO's rules, and the process has caused considerable damage to the reputations of Danish Standards and ISO.

It is highly unusual that there are still no combined specifications, and I would like to bring to your attention the fact that Deputy Director of Danish Standards, Jesper Jerlang, in Danish Computerworld on May 22 admits that ISO's rules have been broken because Danish Standards has not received the final specifications. This is stated in section 13.12 in ISO's JTC 1 directive, which states:

"In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance."

The process has thus been formally annulled now for 2 months -- since March 29, at which time the specifications should have been sent to the national standardization organizations. The prerequisites for the fast-track procedure no longer exist, and, therefore, I expect that ISO recommence the case.

I also expect that Danish Standards will inform ISO that it wishes ISO to recommence the case. The legitimacy of an ISO standard can only be sustained, when the certification process and foundation can not be called in question. An over-hasty, and therefore probably incorrect completion of one standard can bring other standards and the very system of standards in discredit.

Kind regards

Morten Kjærsgaard
Chairman of OSL


1 The Groklaw translation of the letter that we did originally follows, for the sake of history:

Copenhagen, 30th May 2008

Complaint over the certification process in Dansk Standard

Dear Jacob Holmblad

The Association for Open Source Vendors [OSL]hereby lodges a formal complaint to ISO over the certification process after the meetings n Dansk Standard's committee S-445 (former S-142/U34) as well as the decision to change the Danish vote to a yes in connection with the processing of DIS 29500. Thus I write to you in your capacity as vice president for ISO and as your capacity as executive director in Dansk Standard. I will send this complaint in English before the end of the month.

On the 22nd of May, the Association for Open Source Vendors made Dansk Standard aware that the Danish requirements for DIS29500 had not been fulfilled. We summarized our views in the following 5 main points (see attached letter)

1. Microsoft Office formats stand in the way of interoperability
2. XML schemas are missing
3. The finished specification is not available
4. Contradictory wording
5. The maintenance of DIS29500 has not been decided

Furthermore I would like to point out that after the round of hearings in the summer of 2007 there was agreement in the committee about formulating 168 requests for changes and based on that recommend a [vote of] "no with comments". According to Dansk Standard's rules, a concensus in the committee is required in order to change this recommendation, and according to ISO's rules a finished specification should be available (no later than 30 days after the BRM), which the committee could consult to verify that the Danish objections had been addressed.

The discussion on the meeting on the 26th of March in the JTC1-committee was based on the incomplete draft of the specification and on the editor's notes from the BRM. This was woefully inadequate to assure the committee that the 168 requests for changes had been addressed.

As a result, there was no agreement at the meeting (as you know). We simply discussed a specification which does not yet exist.

Two months after Dansk Standard's announcement of a change vote, we know:

  • there has never been agreement in the committee of whether the Danish requirements have been fulfilled.
  • the five points raised in our letter of of the 22nd of March have not yet been solved
  • and the specification is not yet available for us to ensure that the recommended changes have been incorporated.

Based on this, the association for open source vendors finds that both the process and decision is in violation of ISO's rules, and that the process has significantly damaged the reputations of both Dansk Standard and ISO.

It is very unusual that there still is no complete specification available, and I would like to draw your attention to Vice President in Dansk Standard, Jesper Jerlang in ComputerWorld on the 22nd recognizes that ISO's rules have been violated, as Dansk Standard has not yet received the final specification. This is evident from chapter 13.12 in ISO's JTC 1-directive, which reads:

"In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance."

The process has been formally annulled for 2 months now - since the 29th of March, where the specification should have been sent to the national standardization organizations. The basis for a fast track procedure is no longer present, and I therefore expect ISO to pick up the case again.

At the the same time, I expect that Dansk Standard will communicate to ISO that the case should be re-opened. The integrity of an ISO standard can only be legitimately maintained by ensuring that there is no doubt around the approval process and approval criteria. A rushed and therefore possibly erroneous approval of even one standard can bring other standards into doubt and discredit the standardization process itself.

Regards

Morten Kjærsgaard
Head of OSL


  


Now an OOXML Protest from Denmark's OSL - Updated 3Xs: Official English Translation | 221 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections, if any, here, please.
Authored by: chaz_paw on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:19 PM EDT
Thanks.

---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376

Charles

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic, here, please.
Authored by: chaz_paw on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:20 PM EDT
Thanks

---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376

Charles

[ Reply to This | # ]

NewsPick discussions here, please.
Authored by: chaz_paw on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:23 PM EDT
Thanks.

---
Proud Linux user since 07/26/04
Registered Linux user #422376

Charles

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is a "protest" an "appeal?"
Authored by: argee on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:31 PM EDT
Will this count as an official appeal? Was it filed by
the deadline?

---
--
argee

[ Reply to This | # ]

Translation
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:40 PM EDT

I'm not a dane, but:

It is serious

Jacob Holmblad tells Computerworld, that he will look at the complaint at the earliest opportunity.

"The complaint was supposed to be sent to ISO, but I will certainly send it along. Such a complaint is serious, and it should consequently also be treated seriously," says the Vice-President of ISO and the Director of Dansk Standard.

He will go to Geneva next week, where the OOXML-issue will undoubtedly be raised with the ISO organization.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Translation - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:55 PM EDT
Now an OOXML Protest from Denmark's OSL - rough translation
Authored by: KarlJorgensen on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 02:50 PM EDT

I'm Danish, so I can provide a rough-and-ready translation of the PDF letter

Copenhagen, 30th May 2008

Complaint over the certification process in Dansk Standard [ed: The Danish standards organisation]

Dear Jacob Holmblad

The association for open source vendors hereby lodge a formal complaint to ISO over the cerfication process after the meetings n Dansk Standard's committee S-445 (former S-142/U34) as well as the decision to change the Danish vote to a yes in connection with the processing of DIS 29500. Thus I write to you in your capacity as vice president for ISO and as your capacity as executive director in Dansk Standard. I will send this complaint in English before the end of the month.

On the 22nd of May, the association for open source vendors made Dansk Standard aware that the Danish requirements for DIS29500 had not been fulfilled. We summarized our views in the following 5 main points (see attached letter)

  1. Microsoft Office formats stand in the way of interoperability
  2. XML schemas are missing
  3. The finished specification is not available
  4. Contraditory wording
  5. The maintenance of DIS29500 has not been decided

Furthermore I would like to point out that after the round of hearings in the summer of 2007 there was agreement in the committee about formulating 168 requests for changes and based on that recommend a [vote of] "no with comments". Accoring to Dansk Standard's rules, a concensous in the committee is required in order to change this recommendation, and according to ISO's rules a finished specification should be available (no later than 30 days after the BRM), which the committee could consult to verify that the Danish objections had been addressed.

The discussion on the meeting on the 26th of March in the JTC1-committee was based on the incomplete draft of the specification and on the editor's notes from the BRM. This was woefully inadequate to assure the committee that the 168 requests for changes had been addressed.

As a result, there was no agreement at the meeting (as you know). We simply discussed a specification which does not yet exist.

Two months after Dansk Standard's announcement of a change vote, we know:

  • there has never been agreement in the committee of whether the danish requirements have been fulfilled.
  • the five points raised in our letter of of the 22nd of March have not yet been solved
  • and the specification is not yet available for us to ensure that the recommended changes have been incorporated.

Based on this, the assocation for open source vendors finds that both the process and decision is in violation of ISO's rules, and that the process has significantly damaged the reputations of both Dansk Standard and ISO.

It is very unusual that there still is no complete specification available, and I would like to draw your attention to Vice President in Dansk Standard, Jesper Jerlang in Computerworld on the 22nd recognizes that ISO's rules have been violated, as Dansk Standard has not yet received the final specification. This is evident from chapter 13.12 in ISO's JTC 1-directive, which reads:

" In not more than one month after the ballot resolution group meeting the SC Secretariat shall distribute the final report of the meeting and final DIS text in case of acceptance."

The process has been formally annulled for 2 months now - since the 29th of March, where the specification should have been sent to the national standardisation organisations. The basis for a fast track procedure is no longer present, and I therefore expect ISO to pick up the case again.

Athe the same time I expect that Dansk Standard will communicate to ISO that the case should be re-opened. The integrity of an ISO standard can only be legimately maintained by ensuring that there is no doubt around the approval process and approval criteria. A rushed and therefore possibly erroneous approval of a just one standard can bring other standards into doubt and discredit the standardisation process itself.

Regards

Morten Kjærsgaard
Head of OSL

Any errors in translation are mine. As usual, if in doubt, please refer to the original (or the forth-coming english version from the author)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft does not want to interoperate at all
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 03:48 PM EDT
We know that from a smoking gun e-mail from Bill Gates that came out in the Iowa case.

It was the same e-mail that also said that Microsoft should leverage improved security as an add-on.

Backlink

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Summary of the situation ISO/IEC is in.
Authored by: PolR on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 04:53 PM EDT
Now we have:
  • Three appeals from P-members (South Africa, Brazil, India) have been lodged.
  • One official protest that will be brought for discussion by an ISO VP
  • The final draft has not been published two months after the deadline was passed, despite published statements that ECMA delivered it to JTC 1 ITTF in time.
  • Microsoft doesn't plan to support the standard until a later version but has promised to support ODF.
  • Microsoft has admitted to the media it is harder to implement OOXML despite having pre-standard code than ODF.
  • Several media have speculated the OOXML standard is already dead due to the implementation roadmap published by Microsoft.
Given the controversy (read protests) surrounding OOXML, this is a lot of pressure on ISO/IEC. The discussion will move past JTC 1 to higher instances. People not previously engaged in OOXML decisions will be involved into this mess. They will have to decide if they bless JTC 1 actions or clean up the damage while under close media scrutiny.

This is the last chance for ISO/IEC to salvage their credibility in computer related matters. If they don't clean up the mess, they will be known as Microsoft's sock puppets for good.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Is "Annulled" the Correct Translation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 07:27 PM EDT
The process has been formally annulled for 2 months now - since the 29th of March, where the specification should have been sent to the national standardisation organisations. The basis for a fast track procedure is no longer present, and I therefore expect ISO to pick up the case again.
Is the word "annulled" the correct translation? If so, this is very significant. The Danish committee appear to be saying that they won't recognise as legitimate any OOXML document issued by ISO from the fast track process. In other words, the Danish committee is saying that as far as they are concerned, the process terminated without result and must be either started over again or abandoned.

There is nothing to stop any other NB from taking the same position, even if they didn't appeal. They can take the position that since no final specification was issued before the deadline, then there was no final specification, and they don't have to appeal something that doesn't exist. In other words, an approval has an expiry date after which it is no longer valid.

If a number of NBs take this position, then it doesn't matter what ISO rules are bent to get OOXML approved. Those NBs can simply say there is no OOXML standard, there never was any OOXML standard, and that is the end of the matter as far as they are concerned.

We needn't assume that the ISO or IEC are holding back the document to help Microsoft. This could be due to some Sir Humphrey inside one of the organisations pushing the paperwork to the back of his desk in order to kill it off and save the ISO and the IEC the embarrassment of approving it. "Oh, we missed the deadline for issuing your standard? I can't imagine how that could have happened. I guess we have to start the whole process all over again. Please fill out this form in triplicate and we'll give it all the attention it deserves. Again."

The key issue in all this will be what position the NBs in the major traditionally participating countries take in this matter. If they get together and agree not to recognise the document as existing, then it is effectively dead.

[ Reply to This | # ]

OOXML, what a fiasco!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 11:13 PM EDT
ISO used to mean International Organization for Standardization.

Then it became => I Sold Out.
Now its => I'm Sorry, OK?

This fiasco has given us all one thing to think of. There are times when you
think all hope is lost, and the "bad guys" have won. With their power,
resources, deception, lobbying and manipulation, it looks like MS is invincible.


But in reality, they're not. Everything they do is nothing but a mask, a facade
of marketing. Once you ignore that, you'll find humanity isn't dumb as Microsoft
wants us to be. They can talk the talk, but they cannot do the walk.

While they thought they won, it was but empty. As Rocky Balboa says: "It
ain't over until its over". (And it wasn't over even when MS essentially
declared victory).

As with the case of MS's OOXML, their sudden adoption of ODF was just an
indication that they knew they have no leg to stand on. (What makes things worse
is there is NO OOXML implementation in the market, developed with the specs as
specified by ISO...There won't be for quite a while!)

Now with 4 countries (South Africa, India, Brazil and Denmark), appealing the
fast track of OOXML, this so called "standard" is now in total limbo.

They won the battle, but they've lost this part of the war. (The war isn't over
until ODF is fully and properly implemented by all).

MS isn't in it for humanity. (unless it makes good PR for them). They're in it
for themselves and for the money it will bring. Not just at a local level, but
an international level.

And this love for money and securing future streams of it, is their weakness.
They are tied to it, a slave to it, if you will.

They rely on things to be quickly adopted and implemented their way. But they
aren't able to sustain any commitment if its NOT profitable in the long term.

To simply make money a non-issue (as in the case with open source), and to
outlast them with persistence and commitment is all but one really needs to beat
Microsoft into submission.

Yes, they will try again to manipulate things to get their way, however one must
remain weary of them while still keeping focus as to what we're trying to
accomplish.

To be distracted in childish marketing games is EXACTLY what Microsoft wants.
They know how to play that game well, don't waste time playing with them.

Despite all the controversy and such, don't every lose sight of what we're
trying to do with open standards and open source.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The fact is today
Authored by: skuggi on Saturday, May 31 2008 @ 11:43 PM EDT
No one needs MSOOXML and no one needs Microsoft. It is the other way around.
Today as a software company the are declining very fast and faster than we can
keep our eyes on. Only thing keeping them afloat is their oem partners, back
scratching and lies. How long will that last I wonder?
If I remember correctly from recent interview with Gates and Ballmer they said
that MS was among few companies capable of keeping all it's staff on payroll for
a year without any profit at all. Makes one wonder.
The world is moving so fast towards free software that you can hear the
screeching brakes from those software companies trying to slow it down, they
can't stop it, only try slowing it down and it does only make a friction and
heat. Free software continiues at the same speed.
MSOOXML is only one of those screeching sounds you hear. Silverlight is another
one.

---
-Skuggi.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft got all it needs
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 07:53 AM EDT
Microsoft has its standard, look at the ISO press releases. Still there, ISO
29500 is approved, nothing about protests.

BTW, Denmark hasn't protested. The danish OSL has protested and that's not the
Danish authority for standards. As far as I got it.

Back to MS. There is a standard that MS Office supports. Thus, every
organisation can buy MS Office because it supports a standard. Who cares if the
text of the standard is available or if there are protest against it or if only
the next or beyond version will support the standard in the future? As long as
nobody knows, who cares? And who knows when the iso.org got it under cover?

Not everyone reads groklaw but many poeple get MS ads. So the legend is:
Microsoft has its own great standard on office file formats and it even supports
*both*. If the legend makes more money than the truth, print the legend.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Fast track is moot
Authored by: pcrooker on Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 08:58 AM EDT
The penny finally dropped for me - as MS have publicly stated, they will not be
conforming to OOXML for some time. So, no need to rush, is there? Why not ditch
the fast track and do it properly without all the controversy?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Microsoft's Motivation
Authored by: emmenjay on Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 10:55 AM EDT
It seems obvious to me that the OOXML standardisation effort was never about
getting the standard approved. It was about discrediting the ISO approval
mechanism.

Given the blatant arm-twisting that went on and the stomping all over the ISO
rules that accompanied it, I find it hard to believe that MS were so stupid as
to believe that the ISO approval of OOXML would be widely accepted as being
meaningful. However what they have achieved is just as useful: asserting that
ODF is approved does not now carry much weight. One may reasonably respond
"OSO approval means nothing -- even OOXML has that".

Microsoft has, in some circles, a reputation for being stupid. I am sceptical.
It is beyond coincidence how often that "stupidity" works in their own
favour.

Michael J Smith

[ Reply to This | # ]

So if ISO still ratify, what can be done?
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, June 01 2008 @ 05:57 PM EDT
Well, the nuclear option is to remove yourself from the ISO process and delete
the copyrights for all ISO standards.

A corporate evisceration.

Next step down is to just deny IS29500 as a standard. Make it official. Only
works in that country, mind. Still leave ISO.

Just leave ISO. Doesn't really matter unless most of the paying members do a
runner.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Open standards not enough for software
Authored by: Jose on Monday, June 02 2008 @ 11:31 AM EDT
A standard is a tool for engineers that want to
interoperate.

Within the context of prerequisites for purchasing
decisions (especially for any government body), legitimate
source code + legitimate source code licensing must be
included in the software requirements.

Preferably only qualifying "open source" (and qual
licensing) will be used (as bounded precisely perhaps
through product, version, platform specifications), as
having source code is very valuable to a product's users
if only indirectly.

If you demand open source ("open source," meaning the code
can and WOULD be built through open toolchains), vendors
will provide open source since they don't want to lose
business automatically when with open source they can
still continue to keep the business as they provide
competitive servicing contracts.

It's up to the buyers to be demanding. Also, we must apply
this requirement to plugins.. etc -- in short, to all
software at all layers.

Consider a scenario where we allow the use of closed
source tools to create the document but stipulate that the
final document is as defined/rendered by open source app.
In this case, the closed tools can add all sorts
of "invisible" data. At first, this seems fine since the
document is defined by the FOSS app used for reading, but
consider an example. When opened from Openoffice, we see
the regular old document. When opened from closed product
X, the document pages turn automatically, there are
special effects visual and aural, we have undo history,
the environment opens up related documents, webpages,
movies, etc automatically and sets off more fireworks and
background processing.... And this would be done using the
invisible information which cannot otherwise be derived by
the open source product (ie, it is proprietary).

On one level this seems fine, except that this still
brings in the issue of being locked in to the language of
fireworks used by that one entity, and this would not be a
wise way to make purchasing decisions as it limits what
you can use in the future and from whom and under what
terms. Secondly, in practice, the creators of the document
will begin to anticipate the fireworks as a way to convey
information, bringing us back to square one of the readers
not being able to get all the official information or
being able to contribute back in the same way.

In short, we need to recognize the problems posed by
closed source software and always demand the source code
to the apps we buy to prevent lock-in monopolies. The
source code licenses should probably be "free licenses"
(see fsf.org definition). Also the source code would have
to be buildable by and able to run exclusively off open
source products in order to ensure that we have in fact
all the source code [otherwise the key lock-in stuff will
be closed off and hidden within adjacent "necessary"
closed source software].

And as the market grows, we should also demand open
hardware.

Well, if we don't demand open source, perhaps as described
above, we might as well accept OOXML or just plain closed
specs since any vendor with enough leverage could pre-empt
ANY real open spec (whether the spec is a robust and veted
spec like ODF or an inconsistent, ambiguous, partially
closed mess like OOXML).

Software is not like nuts and bolts. ISO standardization
has meaning for the latter but are a joke as a way to
constrain the former. Who here buys software from a vendor
that says they will not upgrade their system ever? No one,
since in fact vendors market the fact they
will "continually improve" the software. So while bolts
(their interfaces) are virtually completely defined by a
standard for them, software and its interfaces are most
certainly not defined in total by any standard, not in
this world anyway. A body of software is much more like a
whole thriving city than a bolt spec. ISO works for bolts,
but not for cities. I mean, imagine a standard for cities
such that every facet of every city (including their
inhabitants) were virtually well-defined.... I don't think
so.

Good bye to ISO for software "open" specs. Hello "open
source" software standards.

PS: Perhaps new features found in no other competing open
products can be accepted as closed source through a
well-defined interface (as plugins), but everything that
has a fairly close competitor would have to be opened up
or else the whole product should be kept out. In which
case, the money saved can more than be put to good use to
have the features desired be implemented in open source by
a third party (by the community) and in a way that is even
more useful to the business. In other words, reject closed
source except in the most minute quantities. Instead use
the money to contract open source developers to build as
open source the features you seek.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ODF 1.1 vs ODF 1.2
Authored by: andrewkm on Monday, June 02 2008 @ 11:50 AM EDT
As I understand it, the ODF 1.2 specification still hasn't been finalized yet.
So, from that perspective, I can understand MS not wanting to implement it yet;
not much sense in implementing a standard that could change.

Note: I work for IBM, these thoughts are my own

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )