Consumers and ODF

Usually, consumers and technology do not mix well. Like oil and water.

But, once in a while, there are things that all of us need to pay attention to. They may sound techie, but really they are big issues of public interest.

Yesterday, I had the pleasure of joining a roundtable, organized by the Consumer Project on Technology, with a roomful of people representing consumer groups in the U.S.

The topic of discussion: Why consumers should care about OpenDocument Format?

As we heard at the meeting, consumers care most about a few things: cost, convenience, access to public information. Consumers don't want to care until they have to care.

So what does this mean for ODF? To begin, as one person suggested, the discussion needs to focus first on the problems, not the solutions. And real problems do exist. Here are 3 examples:

1. How can we guarantee access to public information and records today and tomorrow?

Governments already have a problem with the "digital decay" of electronic public records. Freedom of information means nothing if future access to public records is not assured. Preservation of public information and digitial records is a pressing problem already.

2. How can we guarantee the every person truly owns and controls the documents they create?

Right now, you do not own your documents. Maybe you create a letter, a report, a spreadsheet or a presentation on your computer. When you save it, your file has a .doc or .xls or .ppt at the end of its name. BUT, you do not own .doc, .xls or .ppt. One company owns them. And therefore, one company controls access to the documents that YOU created with your own hands and your own information. What happens if that company raises its prices? Or changes the terms for accessing your documents? Or goes out of business? Or forces you to buy new software (that you don't need) just to use your documents again? You have a problem, and no choices.

3. Why do I have to keep buying new software and paying more money when I don't need it?

For most people, the answer is simple and sad: because you have no choice if you want to use the documents you created and be able to share them with other people. There is an unnatural monopoly over documents in the world. And when the company who owns all our documents (because it owns .doc, .xls and .ppt) says you must "upgrade", then you must upgrade if you want to use your documents ever again. That is NOT an "upgrade" -- that is blackmail. And you -- the consumer -- pay for it.

We need to talk about these things in plain english, without techie talk.

And we need to be talking to groups who should care about these problems -- like ...

* consumer groups
* libraries
* international relief organizations
* schools and universities
* election organizations
* local governments
* media organizations
* other groups that care about freedom of information

All of these groups rely upon large amounts of information and documents and access to public records. All of them should be worried about the problems mentioned above. All of them should start talking about how to solve these problems.

And ODF will likely be part of that discussion.

California Considers Open Source for Elections

Today -- Wednesday, February 8th -- a committee of the California State legislature, chaired by State Senator Debra Bowen, held a hearing to discuss the possibility of using open source software for elections.

Smart idea. For too long there has been inadequate attention to the architecture of election infrastructure. New technologies can be used to make voting easier, faster, more secure and transparent. But proprietary machines and software are not the best answer.

Electronic voting machines should run open source software AND produce paper records of all votes. It's as simple as that.

The case for open source here is compelling. There is no other way for government AND the public to be 100% certain that the software is secure, without flaws enabling abuse, and produces accurate (and verifiable) results. There is no second place here.

And once again, a state in the U.S. is stepping forward to seriously consider mandating open technologies for critical public services. Like voting.

California's State CIO, J. Clark Kelso, has gone beyond that, however. In September 2005, he established an Open Source Working Group composed of IT managers from 10 state departments.

Why?

According to California's 2004 Performance Review, open source is not just about cost savings. “Since the code is open, it offers the flexibility for organizations to modify the code as needed for specific uses. . . Open source can [also] provide superior security than closed source." Words to live by.

There it is. Cost, flexibility and security. The case for open technologies.

A National Campaign for Open Standards

My last blog entry highlighted a call to arms -- or open technologies -- for governments by Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu's founder.

And now, almost on cue, I find a government that has stepped up in a big way. Thailand. The Thai government, led by its National Electronics and Computer Technology Center (NECTEC), has launched a national campaign to promote open standards and open ICT ecosystems.

Thailand is serious about open technologies. They have established an inter-agency Working Group to coordinate its efforts nationally.

As I blogged earlier here, there is similar political movement afoot in Europe at the national level, notably by Denmark and Norway.

Shuttleworth to Gov: Get in the Game!

I speak frequently about the need for governments to take affirmative steps to open their ICT ecosystems. This is a major point in the Open ePolicy Group's Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems.

This idea was echoed yesterday by Mark Shuttleworth, Ubuntu's founder, at a speech in the Philippines.

The Roadmap urges governments to increase the presence of open source in ICT ecosystems. This does not mean mandating open source in all cases. It does mean mandating choice in public procurement -- combined with actions that will increase the competitiveness of open source. Advocacy by governments, as Mark Shuttleworth urged, is one key step.

Who Owns Your Documents?

This is important! Ask yourself this question . . .

When you create a Word document, an Excel spreadsheet or a Powerpoint presentation, do you own that document?

Maybe you wrote a letter. Or a presentation for a meeting. You did it on your computer with your own hands. It is your information you put into the document. But when you saved your document, the name of your file ends with .doc or .xls or .ppt.

You don't own .doc, .xls or .ppt

One company owns them. Microsoft.

So, it is your information you wrote, but do you own the document you created?

Who controls access to your information?

ODF's Biggest Disability

Wider acceptance and adoption of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) faces one major hurdle -- access for people with disabilities. This must be addressed quickly for ODF to take advantage of its head-start on Office Open XML. Access for disabled people is a deal-breaker for ODF. Without it, ODF is dead in water, politically. Fortunately, the issue is being addressed . . .

Andy Updegrove recently offered an update:

Disability issues: The ability of ODF to match, or surpass, the capacity of MS Office to accommodate those with disabilities remains an important test for implementation. Last week, Thomas Trimarco, the Massachusetts Secretary of Administration and Finance, delivered a [message] to representatives of the community of persons with disabilities stating that an evaluation will be made in mid 2006 to determine whether applications supporting ODF are likely to provide an acceptable alternative to MS Office for State employees with disabilities. If that need is not met by mid 2006, then the effective date of ODF implementation will be lagged as necessary until it is judged adequate to this task.

Meanwhile, work continues within OASIS to give final approval to and launch the new working group which will be chartered to facilitate use of applications supporting ODF by those with disabilities.

The Case for ODF

As you may have noticed, I have written several times about the need to raise awareness -- especially among consumers and users of technology as well as politicians -- of the value (and need) for open standards. This is especially true for open file formats like OpenDocument Format. The next 2 years are crucial for this.

Sam Hiser has made another valuable contribution to this effort today with his article in the Financial Times -- Progress Toward Openness is Being Watched Carefully.

The article clearly lays out the high value of ODF for data-senstive users like libraries and, yes, governments. Sam also offers a sharp distinction betweeen a truly open standard like ODF and a less-than-open standard like Microsoft's Office Open XML.

So, what will help spread awareness of the value of open standards? What groups can be engaged that are not yet part of this important dialogue? What are your thoughts?

Peter Quinn speaks

For those of you interested in reading the first full interview with Peter Quinn, former CIO of the State of Massachusetts, here is his interview with Groklaw.

In it, he discusses the politics of ODF in Massachusetts very frankly as well as offers some predictions on fate of ODF as public policy.

Carpe Consumers

One thing that the battle in Massachusetts over open standards and OpenDocument Format shows is the importance and power of consumers. Politicians listen when large consumer and citizen groups speak out. It is no accident that one of the main arguments used against ODF was its use would create new barriers to access by disabled citizens. This is a serious concern, and must be addressed quickly. The issue also highlights a larger problem . . .

Consumers and user groups are often little engaged in the open standards debate. They often feel that these are "techie" issues of no concern to them. This needs to change. The value and benefits of open standards need to be presented in ways that speak directly to the needs of real people. Advocates of open standards need to do a much better job of this.

In my presentations on the Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems, I begin with a discussion of how the lack of open standards caused real problems in bringing emergency relief to tsunami victims in Thailand. If you are interested, the audio of my most recent presentation at an Open Standards Conference in Denmark is available here.

Next month, I will speak to several major U.S. consumer groups about the importance and value of open standards. The lunch meeting is being organized by the Consumer Project on Technology. Representatives from the Computer and Communications Industry Association, U.S. Public Interest Research Group and the Consumers Union will join us.

So here's my question: how can you get consumer groups interested in open standards?

How about you readers in Denmark? I see you checking this blog. So . . .
What consumer and public interest groups can you bring into the discussion?
How can you convince them to support open standards and ODF?

Local Governments Go Open

Here is the latest EU FLOSSpols survey reporting on the use of open source software by local governments in the European Union

Open source usage by local governments in the EU:

Spain 97.5%
Austria 96.4%
Italy 95.7%
Germany 89.9%
Sweden 83.6%
Belgium 83.3%
AVERAGE 78.7%
France 76.3%
Netherlands 55.3%
UK 32.1%
Greece 29.7%

Other interesting findings include:

Open source users administer 35% more PCs per IT administrator than non-users – its use appears to reduce administrator workload per PC. More proof of the TCO advantage of open source.

49% of local government authorities knowingly use some open source.

An additional 30% report using open source (such as GNU/Linux, MySQL or Apache) but did not know that these were open source.

Licence fees account for 20% of IT budgets. Half of all respondents find this too high.

Open Standards Hit the Airwaves

Denmark's Hard Disk radio program will air an interview by Anders Høeg Nissen with me and John Gotze, a member of the Open ePolicy Group, this weekend. We will talking about open standards, ODF and the openization of ICT ecosystems.

The program is already available online here. The show is mainly in Danish, but my comments are in english.

Also available is fhe full audio for last week's Open Standards Conference in Copenhagen. My presentation on the Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems starts about 5 minutes into the program. Have a listen here!

Google Steps into Open (Again)

Google just announced its latest push for openness -- interoperability among IM and VoIP services -- on its official blog. If it's good enough for email, why not messenging and internet telephony?

In this instance, Google's "open federation" approach will rely on an XML-based standard controlled by an open source foundation. If only other companies were willing to leave control over standards to others and not push their own proprietary agenda.

Google and AOL will support this push for interoperability. Expect Microsoft and Yahoo to sign on shortly.

Openness -- and the interoperability and access it brings to users and industry -- are catching on.

Something Open in the State of Denmark

An open standards conference was held at the Danish Parliament on Friday, January 13th. But there was nothing unlucky about the day. Indeed, there is definitely a movement afoot for openness in Denmark.

Open standards have become a serious political issue. One Danish MP, Morten Helveg Petersen, has introduced a draft motion in Parliament (english translation available here) calling for open standards to be required by the Danish government. The buzz at the conference included an expectation that open standards might soon be made public policy by the City of Copenhagen as well as Norway, the neighbor to the north.

Open Standards: Through the Looking Glass

If Lewis Carroll were here, I suspect he might have written this about Alice encountering Microsoft’s proposed Office Open XML specification . . .

"There was documentation lying near Alice on the table, and while she sat watching the Redmond King (for she was still a little anxious about him), she turned over the leaves, to find some part that she could read, ` -- for it's all in some language I don't know,' she said to herself.

"It was like this.

YKCODNEPO

sedoloponom eht dna ,gillirb sawT`
yfrutortsa eht ni rebbalf dna mulf diD
,sedocytfos eht erew orcim llA
.yfruteirpoprp sdradnats eht dnA
"I puzzled over this for some time, but at last a bright thought struck me. `Why, it's a Looking-glass standard, of course! And if I hold it up to a glass, the words will all go the right way again."

"This was the poem that Alice read.

OPENDOCKY

`Twas brillig, and the monopolodes
Did flum and flabber in the astroturfy;
All micro were the softycodes,
And the standards proprieturly.

`Beware the Opendoc, my son!
It's Socializy! And balderdash!
Beware the Armonky bird, and shun
The netty Googlesnatch!'

He took his FUDdle sword in hand:
Long time the bizzy foe he sought --
So rested he in an Ecma haven,
And stood awhile in balmery thought.

And in procurable mood he stood,
The Opendoc, with specs royalty free,
Came whiffling through the govy wood,
Bringing interoperability!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The FUDdle blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its quinny head
He went galumphing back.

`And has thou slain the Opendoc?
Come to market, my encumbered boy!
It's formaty Confusionism and lockety lock!
He chortled in his RANDy joy.

`Twas brillig, and the monopolodes
Did flum and flabber in the astroturfy;
All micro were the softycodes,
And the standards proprieturly.
"It seems very open,' Alice said when she had finished it, `but it's RATHER hard to understand!

"Somehow it seems to fill my head with ideas -- only I don't exactly know what they are! However, SOMEBODY is trying to kill SOMETHING: that's clear, at any rate -- "

And Now for Something Completely Different

I just spent a relaxing 3 days in Amagansett with friends living well above my rung on the economic ladder (read: multi-million beach house on the dunes) and while basking in the glow of a crackling fire, I succumbed to a sudden obsession with the TV show "24." In a desperate effort to exercise my demons and still pay tribute to our hosts (and video renters) Ken and Susie, I share the latest hot TV commercial from Japan.

Keifer's big in Japan!

Click the photo above and check it out.

Open Standards & RAND

I was asked to write briefly on the connection between open standards and RAND ("reasonable and non-discriminatory" conditions). Here's what I have so far. Anyone care to comment?
______________________________

Open standards are the subject of increasing public attention and debate. But what makes a standard open?

Open standards must be royalty-free, but the discussion does not end there. The harder question is whether open standards can have other conditions if they are “reasonable and non-discriminatory” (known as RAND). Despite its appealing rhetoric, RAND is not an objective benchmark. “Reasonable” is in the eye of the beholder; it is an undefined criteria only a lawyer could love. Worse, RAND can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing, bringing new forms of lock-in under the guise of “openness.”

Standards have degrees of openness, mainly due to restrictions and encumbrances placed upon them by vendors. The fact that a standards organization labels a standard open is not determinative. Its effect in the marketplace is a better guide.

At a minimum, open standards must allow all possible competitors to operate on a basis of equal access to the ability to implement the standard. They should not drive others to follow any specific proprietary path or effectively foreclose any software development model. A standard that in effect blocks open source developers from its implementation is not an open standard.

Any conditions (RAND or otherwise) that have the effect of limiting competition, leaving control in the hands of a single vendor, or hindering interoperability—for example, proprietary extensions of a standard—are incompatible with open standards. Ultimately, open standards must allow for self-directed innovation.

The Empire Strikes Back

Microsoft responded to the European Commission's threat of $2.4 million per day sanctions over its interoperability ruling in an unusually public manner.

Full statement by Microsoft's General Counsel, Brad Smith, is here

The situation shows how true interoperability requires not only the spread of open standards but getting into the "weeds," getting documentation fully disclosed, and preventing conditions that lead to new forms of proprietary lock-in.

Interoperate Until It Hurts

How much does interoperability cost?

About $2.4 million per day, for Microsoft at least.

Here's a BBC story today about the fine levied by the European Commission against Redmond until it provides full interface documentation that will assure broader interoperability with non-MS systems.

Who said getting interoperability is painless?

"Houston, We Have Open Source"

Not to pimp any one company's products (and I have no connection at all with them), but here's a new study, The Growth of Open Source Software in Organizations, that surveyed a large number of organizations in the U.S. -- enterprises and public agencies -- on their use of open source software.

Key findings of the survey:

* A clear majority of U.S. companies and government institutions already use open source software, and bigger companies are even more likely to be open source users. All of the 156 companies surveyed with at least $50 million in annual revenue use open source.

* According to the survey, the main drivers for adoption of open source are: lower costs, faster deployment and better security.

* Key continuing barriers: lack of understanding among decision-makers about benefits of open source; legal/licensing issues; support after installation; and corporate policies that do not create incentives to lower costs of commercial software.

As I have been saying in all my presentations on our Roadmap, an important step in better managing ICT environments is to acknowledge the presence of open source already in your ecosystem.

It's like the first step in AA -- admission.

Or, put another way, "Houston, we have open source."

As this study shows, the vast majority of enterprises and governments already have open source in their ecosystem. From awareness comes wisdom.

Also, here's a new article on public sector use of open source from ComputerWorld Singapore (which includes a nice photo of my friend Tom Rabon from RedHat).

Economic Impact of Open Standards

To date, there has been little analysis of the economic impact of open standards. In fact, there has been scant attention to the economics of standards generally. Worse still, most public agencies are unaware of the economic effects of their procurement policies and practices -- which not only impact government but can have anti-competitive, downstream effects in the marketplace.

Fortunately, a new report, An Economic Basis for Open Standards, by the FLOSS Project at the University of Maastricht examines open standards from an economic perspective.

A few key points from the report:

* Open standards must allow all possible competitors to operate on a basis of equal access to the ability to implement the standard.

* The public sector should never require citizens to purchase systems from specific vendors in order to access public services.

Its key policy guidelines on standards and interoperability are:

1. Open standards should be defined in terms of a desired economic effect: supporting full competition in the market for suppliers of a technology and related products and services, even when a natural monopoly arises in the technology itself.

2. Open standards for software markets should be defined in order to be compatible with FLOSS licenses, to achieve this economic effect.

3. Compatibility with proprietary technologies should be explicitly excluded from public procurement criteria and replaced by interoperability with products from multiple vendors.

4. Open standards should be mandatory for eGovernment services and preferred for all other public procurement of software and software services.

A few comments of my own:

Any argument that a covenant not to sue helps show that a standard is "open" is totally specious, especially if it does not apply to all future versions or extensions of the standard.

Open standards are a spectrum; standards can have degrees of openness, mainly due to the existence of anti-competitive controls, conditions and encumbrances placed upon them. Royalty-free licensing is necessary but not sufficient for an open standard. And complicated covenants, encumbrances and licenses are a sure sign that a standard will not be very open on the open standards spectrum.

Open standards should allow for self-directed innovation. They should not drive others to follow any one technology path, especially one that effectively binds innovation to a single proprietary system.

The FLOSS report puts it nicely:

If the holder of rights covering a standard is also a supplier of products and services based on the standard, it has strong incentives to set licensing conditions that disadvantage the strongest potential competing suppliers. Thus, the natural monopoly that the standard creates in terms of technology may come along with competition in the market for products and services, but this competition may be limited by the control by rights-holders of the access to the standard technology.

Go back to the tsunami story that opens the Open ePolicy Group's Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems.

In a crisis, what encumbrances do you want on the standards for data and systems related to emergency relief operations? Answering that question will help indicate the proper starting point for public policy on standards.