The Commonwealth of Massachusetts is apparently
on a philosophical crusade mandating open source for state government use.
Here's
an article on the situation.
It all has to do with standardizing on XML. Which is a fine thing to do, of course. But Mass. is going far beyond mandating XML, and seems to be on a crusade to practically ban Microsoft Office, and may in fact be a strategy to try to pressure Microsoft to open up the Office format.
Microsoft offered compromises and thought they had a deal, promising no violation of their license, but now the state has published a new specification that eliminates Microsoft as an acceptable solution.
Apparently Massachusetts has been infected by open source favoritism, which goes far beyond allowing open source products to compete with proprietary products, and gives legal and regulatory favoritism over proprietary solutions. Or, in this case, practically speaking outlaws proprietary solutions.
A couple of points:
1. Massachusetts was a big player in the state antitrust efforts against Microsoft, which the states lost. Revenge?
2. It will cost the state an enormous amount of money forcing this conversion through, and for what gain? What new functionality will they gain that they don't already have? None. No, the evidence suggests that this is a philosophical move by the state, not a rational or practical one, and not one that serves the best interests of the Mass. taxpayer.
3. Ultimately, this seems to be the point of a spear intended to try to force Microsoft to open up its Office format and make it "open."
By the way, the comments that follow the article ARE interesting. Most of the time I don't bother with unmoderated discussions or comments, but in this case the comments are enlightening, both those by the open source partisans, and those defending Microsoft.
Update: The Financial Times has a better and blunter article on the situation.
It all has to do with standardizing on XML. Which is a fine thing to do, of course. But Mass. is going far beyond mandating XML, and seems to be on a crusade to practically ban Microsoft Office, and may in fact be a strategy to try to pressure Microsoft to open up the Office format.
Microsoft offered compromises and thought they had a deal, promising no violation of their license, but now the state has published a new specification that eliminates Microsoft as an acceptable solution.
Apparently Massachusetts has been infected by open source favoritism, which goes far beyond allowing open source products to compete with proprietary products, and gives legal and regulatory favoritism over proprietary solutions. Or, in this case, practically speaking outlaws proprietary solutions.
A couple of points:
1. Massachusetts was a big player in the state antitrust efforts against Microsoft, which the states lost. Revenge?
2. It will cost the state an enormous amount of money forcing this conversion through, and for what gain? What new functionality will they gain that they don't already have? None. No, the evidence suggests that this is a philosophical move by the state, not a rational or practical one, and not one that serves the best interests of the Mass. taxpayer.
3. Ultimately, this seems to be the point of a spear intended to try to force Microsoft to open up its Office format and make it "open."
By the way, the comments that follow the article ARE interesting. Most of the time I don't bother with unmoderated discussions or comments, but in this case the comments are enlightening, both those by the open source partisans, and those defending Microsoft.