Weekly Edition
Return to the Press pageSponsored link
Vyatta –
Linux & Open Source
Alternative to Cisco –
Advanced Routing,
Firewall, VPN, QoS..
Free Download ->
| |||||||||||
Is ODF an Open Standard? ~ by David A. Wheeler (Groklaw)
Groklaw has an
article by David A. Wheeler on the openness of the open document
format. "But is OpenDocument really an open standard, or not? For
example, can anyone implement it? Was its development process completely
controlled by a single party (which would not be open), or is there
evidence that it's a consensus result by many? It's generally accepted that
OpenDocument is an open standard, but recently I've been told that some
people are claiming otherwise. So let's figure out what the criteria are
for an open standard, and then see if OpenDocument meets those
criteria."
(Log in to post comments)
Short version / Spoiler: Posted Feb 10, 2006 20:58 UTC (Fri) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] Hell yeah! :-)
Short version / Spoiler: Posted Feb 10, 2006 22:39 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] Well, yes, but the real use of the article is that you can establish what isn't an Open Standard using the sources he gives (OK, one of them is me) and his discussion of them.Bruce
Short version / Spoiler: Posted Feb 10, 2006 23:19 UTC (Fri) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link] I liked his approach. He begins with a few definitions and builds on that. I could not find any issues with it.
I can see why Microsoft isn't happy, as they weren't in the loop...
Groklaw had a comparison between the Microsoft XML format and the Open Document Format, and it shows that Microsoft don't want an open format.
Tom
Short version / Spoiler: Posted Feb 11, 2006 0:10 UTC (Sat) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] >I can see why Microsoft isn't happy, as they weren't in the loop...
If they weren't in the loop, it's because they kept themselves out of it. Note this quote from the article:
"The 'open meeting' requirement that 'all may participate in the standards development' is a little more interesting, but it seems to be met, too:
* Note that this does not mean that everyone has to participate -- sometimes organizations who should participate don’t do so. In 2004, Europe formally asked in very strong language that Microsoft participate in OpenDocument development; while it was an observer on the technical committee for a long while, and is part of OASIS, Microsoft never chose to become actively involved with this standard. The definition doesn’t require that all parties get involved, merely that they are given the opportunity."
Short version / Spoiler: Posted Feb 11, 2006 0:28 UTC (Sat) by tomsi (subscriber, #2306) [Link] You are "dead on":
"sometimes organizations who should participate don’t do so."
"he definition doesn’t require that all parties get involved, merely that they are given the opportunity."
I think Microsfot don't wan't to paticipate, because they know that they lose. It's not their ball anymore, so they can't dictate the game.
Just my two cents...
Tom
Is ODF an Open Standard? ~ by David A. Wheeler (Groklaw) Posted Feb 11, 2006 13:46 UTC (Sat) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] There's [an article in] a French law that speficically defines an open standard. It goes something like (translation mine): "An open standard is defined as any communication, interconnection or exchange protocol, or any data format, that is interoperable and for which the technical specifications are public and without restrictions on access or on implementation." It's weaker than the criteria mentioned by David Wheeler, because it doesn't mention evolution of the standard (or its creation process), but I find it remarkably simple and to-the-point.
Is ODF an Open Standard? ~ by David A. Wheeler (Groklaw) Posted Feb 11, 2006 17:29 UTC (Sat) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] That's very interesting! Can you point me to it?
Is ODF an Open Standard? ~ by David A. Wheeler (Groklaw) Posted Feb 12, 2006 9:56 UTC (Sun) by seyman (subscriber, #1172) [Link] Don't know of any english sites but Thierry Stoehr's web site about open formats has all the details : http://formats-ouverts.org/blog/2004/07/01/12-UnArticleDe...
Definition of open standard in French law Posted Feb 12, 2006 16:39 UTC (Sun) by dwheeler (subscriber, #1216) [Link] Excellent, thanks. I will probably write a related article creating a merged definition of "open standards", similar to this article; the French definition is definitely useful. (I knew there was a reason I took French in school.) For those who read French, the original is: "On entend par standard ouvert tout protocole de communication, d'interconnexion ou d'échange et tout format de données interopérable et dont les spécifications techniques sont publiques et sans restriction d'accès ni de mise en oeuvre."Should I read "sans restriction d'accès" as "anyone is permitted to read it (possibly for a fee)" or "access is given to the public at no cost"? The reading seems ambiguous to me; "Sans restriction" is literally "without restriction" but it's not clear exactly what restrictions are in view. Any justification for a particular reading would be appreciated.
Definition of open standard in French law Posted Feb 12, 2006 19:53 UTC (Sun) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link] I would argue that 'without restriction' should be interpreted to mean 'without restriction.'ANY licensing requirements are restrictions.
Definition of open standard in French law Posted Feb 12, 2006 21:40 UTC (Sun) by lolando (subscriber, #7139) [Link] I tend to agree, since I've heard that some people, most notably the French standardisation committee (AFNOR) are made more and more uncomfortable by this wording -- they require a hefty amount of money for access to the standards they publish.
|
|||||||||||