Open Document Format is NOT Open Source *twitch*
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| Inhibit May 23, 2006 8:24 PM EDT |
Is it my imagination or does this author *not* understand that ODF has nothing to do with *OPEN SOURCE*. There is NO source. ODF is a document format. A way of putting a piece of documentation together. Like that horrible open format (note the lower case "o" and "f", it's a description) XHTML... I repeat, no source. Is he under the impression that "JavaScript" is a child of Sun because it has Java in the name? I've heard you can use similar words to describe things in English. Lying in your very first paragraph is an excellent way to start a rant. Giving this air time recalls my recent thoughts on giving false statements equal time from some twisted sense of objectiveness to mind. Next we'll give the flat-world society vocal equality with those round worlders. Sorry if that's a bit rant-like. I'm going to go get a nice glass of water and forget I read that before I get twitchy. |
| Inhibit May 23, 2006 8:28 PM EDT |
Oh, and great coverage dcparris. Your posts and Andy Updegrove over at Consortiuminfo.org have kept me pretty up on the whole ODF/Mass thing. |
| dcparris May 23, 2006 10:00 PM EDT |
You're more than welcome. See my upcoming reply in the morning. :-) |
| sjm May 24, 2006 10:13 AM EDT |
Hey, that's *my* twitch! The main thing I've seen wrong with both his articles is that he argues about open source. It seems most of his diatribe is against "shutting out" Microsoft and mandating "open source" (which to him equates to IBM). Teach him that the fundamental premise in his argument is flawed--that Open Document Format, though OpenOffice supports it, is an open *standard*. Standards are necessary in any business. The decision in Massachusetts is about a *standard* and doesn't mandate anything about the product that produces it. One has the choice to use whatever program one chooses to produce the document. Only the final document format is dictated as Open Document Format. It's not dictating *open source*, but an *open standard*. If you want to drive the point home, you might even take up the argument that for Massachusetts to dictate the use of OpenOffice would be just as bad as dictating MS Office. The situation isn't about dictating the means, just the end. Dictating any means would be wrong. The end, though, is another matter. If we want the documents to be available to all, dictating an *open* standard as the end is necessary. Then all are freely able to use any means possible to reach the openly defined end. An end that is not openly defined (the definition of the end is freely available) would be wrong in that it effectively shuts out two groups. The first would be those wanting to enter into the competition in the production end without access to the definition of the standard. The second group would be those who wanted to be on the receiving end (i.e. those wanting to read the documents) without access to the select group of programs (those that had access to the standard's definition) to produce a means to decode the format. If you want, you could even pull in the related area of Free Trade versus trade barriers. Mostly, the US has stood for free trade and not for artificial barriers thinking that free trade promotes good competition and progress. This whole thing in Massechusetts is basically knocking down artificial trade barriers by giving everyone access to the goal. How many would think it fair to hold a competition (race) where only half of those who entered would know the exact definition of the goal (the finish line)? This whole thing is about giving everyone free access to know the finish line of the race. I, personally, wouldn't go much farther in my rebuttal. Leave all the rest as periphery. The rest isn't necessary to the argument, because it comes from a flawed premise. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!