ISO + ODF + Brazil = A Tide Turning

The acceptance by ISO of the OpenDocument Format (ODF) as an international document standard is finally having a tangible effect on government policy. Or rather, it has given ODF a gravitational pull that is now turning the tide on government policies on document formats.

Today, Brazil officially announced the release of a new version of its national interoperability framework -- e-PING Interoperability Framework 2.0. In it, the e-PING recommends use of the OpenDocument Format for archives of documents, spread sheets, presentations, and graphical diagrams.

The e-PING 2.0 was the subject of a three-month public consultation. It applies to the exchange of information between systems of Brazil's federal government and other levels of government, cities, the judiciary, companies, international organizations and other countries.

And Brazil is not the only government on the ODF move. Italy and Switzerland are considering ODF as a national standard in light of its acceptance by ISO.

By the way ... this Open ePolicy blog has hit the century mark! This is my 100th posting. And a good day it is for ODF.

Thailand v. Philippines: Open Source Opposites?

When it comes to open source software, Thailand and the Philippines are heading in opposite directions. A change in government in Thailand has led to open hostility and backpedaling by the new Minister of ICT toward open source. At the same time, in the Philippines, Congress will begin hearings on mandating government use of open source.

In his first press conference as Thailand’s new ICT Minister, Sitthichai Pokaiudom referred to open source as buggy and useless. He added, "With open source, there is no intellectual property. Anyone can use it and all your ideas become public domain. If nobody can make money from it, there will be no development and open source software quickly becomes outdated."

Minister Sitthichai’s views on open source are 10 years out of date, and ignore or misconstrue a few basic realities:

o Open source and intellectual property are not incompatible. Open source simply involves a different approach to the use of IP, not its abandonment. It does not consign everything to the public domain; it is simply governed by a different kind of license. It offers a different balance between creators and users.

o Open source is not the enemy of profit. There are open source companies making money, lots of it. The fact is that open source requires new business models, ones that emphasize services over products. Entrepreneurs, enterprises and investors will struggle to learn what business models work. Some will learn the hard way. Open source’s creative destruction brings both innovations and business failures. In this way, open source is no different than other industries. Revolutions are usually messy, disruptive and divisive.

o All software is buggy, regardless of the software development model used. One need only consider the millions (or billions) of dollars and hours spent on Microsoft Windows over the past 20 years. It’s the nature of the beast. And here is another hard truth: software projects fail. The volume of proprietary software built that has failed surely exceeds the number of open source projects that have stagnated. That is hardly the basis for condemning either model.

o Open source offers more than just financial gain. As emphasized by the author of the FOSS legislation in the Philippines, open source gives small and medium-size enterprises greater access to ICT, enabling them to compete in new ways and new sectors. It allows for local customization that is often impossible with off-the-shelf, proprietary software. It gives organizations greater control over their ICT decision-making.

And yes Minister, open source sometimes saves money.

Is China Pulling a Bill Gates on ODF?

China is hot for open technologies, but on its own terms. So, does news that China has its own document format threaten prospects for the OpenDocument Format (ODF)?

The danger is a competing standard that might stall ODF's progress in Asia, but that risk seems low. Unlike Microsoft's OpenXML, China's UOF is not intended to compete with or stall ODF's acceptance.

Yes, China's Uniform Office Document Format (UOF) is the product of a broad public-private partnership among Chinese vendors, users and government-backed research institutes. Yes, key agencies--the Information Office of the State Council, Ministry of Information Industry, and Ministry of Science & Technology--support UOF.

However, China is not trying to kill or marginalize ODF. China is trying to solve a problem plaguing government procurement and its software industry -- the lack of compatability among Chinese office software is contributing to their unpopularity and difficulties in application integration.

The Chinese Working Group involved in UOF's development recommended an effort to harmonize UOF and ODF. OASIS will create a technical committee to collaborate with China on this. If China and OASIS are both serious about compatibility, this will be good news for ODF and China. UOF will be a truly open standard like ODF.

If they are successful, document formats will cease to be a barrier to innovation and interoperability. It will be a win-win situation that will increase choices for Chinese users, increase competition in office applications, strengthen the global competitiveness of Chinese IT companies, and drive open standards in a major IT market.

Lessons from the Open Source Frontier

For governments and companies seeking to use open source software to drive a national ICT strategy or company profits, China offers a few open source lessons.


Lesson #1: If you’re in the open source business, you’re in the business of communities.

Chinese companies learned this the hard way. Initially, only foreign software companies invested in building communities in China around their products. Now, both the government and Chinese companies are in the community building business.

Is open source community building really a big deal? The Chinese government thinks so. It regards open source communities as key to its software industry and is committing more public resources toward them in its eleventh Five-Year-Plan (2006-2010).

What is the upside for companies? Mainly they seek (a) to identify and develop the open source talent needed to speed product development; and (b) to promote their products in the local market.

Lesson #2: The long-term success in open source rests on talent, not mandates.

In real estate, the rule is “location, location, location.” The open source mantra is “talent, talent, talent.” Talent is the key to the long-term viability of open source communities (and businesses). But talent – that is, people – takes time to develop.

The Chinese government is not replacing market incentives. However, in some places the market is not enough. Chinese programmers find that earning their daily bread (or rice) leaves them little time to contribute to open source communities. And so, the communities languish with scant resources and few core participants.

Education, incentives to entrepreneurs, the competitive landscape for open source solutions all contribute to the long-term development of human resources for open source.

China is adding another option for governments to encourage the maturation of the open source industry. Not by procurement mandates, but by providing resources needed for communities to grow. Money is no guarantee, but support by a public-private partnership gives new open source communities a leg up. Not every country faces the same problems. However, in countries with a dearth of open source talent, governments can play a positive role in supporting the development of open source talent, both in their schools and online communities.

Ubuntu Rising

Ubuntu is everywhere, suddenly. It’s a phenomenon. Bill Clinton promotes it at the Labor Party conference. Nobel laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu made it the heart and soul of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

It is also the name of popular software championed by Mark Shuttleworth, the first African in space.

What is it? A Bantu word that roughly translates into "I am because you are.” It expresses the idea that a common bond links us all, the reality that my humanity is bound to yours.

Ubuntu is what makes us human. It reminds us that we are all in it together.

Which brings me to open source software. Open source is important – not only to technologists, but to everyone. Not as a business (which it is). Not as a religion (as some espouse it). Not as a bogeyman (for tech companies defending monopolistic profits).

Open source represents a bold statement that technology need not further divide people into “haves” and “have nots.” It expresses the combined power of ubuntu (the small “u” version) and technology to connect people. It is not about lines of code; it is about the collaborative effort of people to build something together … and to share it.

Open source says that we are not simply customers and salesmen, invoices and IP.

iPods, cellphones, laptops, Blackberries, portable DVD players – they are wonderful and addictive … connective and isolating. Open source is a different technological proposition. It allows total strangers to collaboratively create. It is both visionary and pragmatic, transforming dreams into code, passions into products.

Ubuntu is the most human of ideas, and open source is that beautiful idea in action.

YouTube, iPods and Internet Artistry

Unlike most teenagers for whom virtual interaction with strangers via MySpace is as natural as, well, speeding tickets, I am still amazed when I find myself interacting with someone who I only “met” on the Internet – could be someone who commented on this blog … or even someone I “know” only from the cover of a music CD.

I had 2 separate but similar experiences with this recently.

Two weeks ago, I was trying to create a music video playlist on YouTube to mimic my favorite iPod playlist.

I was searching for a video of Pagode do Maracanã by Kátia Moraes, a phenomenal Brasilian singer now living in LA. You can hear the song (and others) here.

So, I was searching for her video, and failing.

But I did discover a backstage video of Katia and her fellow bandmembers in Pure Samba rehearsing. Among the comments below the video was a poster named “katiamoraes.” Right, so I emailed her. And soon found myself enjoying an ongoing exchange with an artist who up until that moment I had only admired silently from afar. Weird, and wonderful.

My first encounter with Internet artistry was even stranger.

I had lost a cassette tape with one of my all-time favorite albums by a now defunct reggae/ska band called the Blue Riddim Band.

The tape I lost was "Alive in Jamaica” – a live recording of their 1982 concert at Jamaica’s annual (and legendary) Reggae Sunsplash.

A brilliant musical moment under a full moon. And I only had an empty cassette box as a painful reminder of it.

Enter the Internet. I googled the band and sent “out of the blue” emails to anyone who had mentioned them online. Crazy … but not useless. I found someone on MySpace who has mp3 versions of all the songs on "Alive in Jamaica," as well as an earlier album. Jackpot! In celebration, I posted a favorite Blue Riddim song on my blog (where it remains).

Hit play and enjoy Nancy Reagan …


Not long after that, I received my own “out of the blue” email from someone named Howard -- he was the original guitarist in Blue Riddim Band. We exchanged a bunch of emails about the band, their Sunsplash concerts and how on earth I ended up so obsessed with their music and a lost tape. Even got me hooked up with some underground concert tapes of Blue Riddim.

Cool ... and totally unimaginable without the Internet.

Why Do Militaries Love Open Source?

National security agencies seem to understand what most government agencies do not yet – open technologies (open standards, open architecture and open source software) must figure prominently in mission critical systems and solutions.

Proprietary tech companies frequently argue that open source is unsuitable for military and security agencies. Clearly, defense agencies around the world disagree. And their actions speak louder than vendor words. Then again, their words speak pretty loudly too …

U.S.: A recent Department of Defense report entitled Open Technology Development Roadmap Plan says it plainly: “[Open source] and open source development technologies are important to the National Security and National Interest of the United States.” Specifically, open standards and targeted use of open source are vital for:

o Enhancing the military’s agility to adapt to changing needs and capabilities.
o Securing infrastructure and increasing security by having greater technical visibility into software in defense networks.
o Enabling rapid response to changes in technology and the actions of adversaries.
o Facilitating more efficient use of resources through collaboration and code sharing.

True, defense agencies study everything. However, this is not just an academic exercise. Defense agencies around the world – friend and foe alike – are moving from study to adoption of open technologies faster than most other government agencies. This is true despite (or rather BECAUSE of) security concerns. They are leaders in open technologies.

Open source will be core to the U.S. Army's Future Combat System of robotic reconnaissance; mobile command and control platforms; ground and air missile platforms; and advanced targeting systems.

The U.S. military is not alone.

China: Its military was an early adopter of open source to guard against “back door” access and malicious code putting vital military information at risk.

Russia: Its Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Internal Affairs depend on a domestically developed, Linux-based operating system, not only to provide greater network security but also to end Russia’s dependence on foreign software production.

South Korea: Its military is investing some $400 million won to build an education center for open source software and establish systems to run war-game simulations and other defense exercises.

France: Ministry of Defense and Ministry of Interior are both open source users, to gain security-through-diversity in technology and avoid dependencies on any one technology (or vendor). Today, while 80% of French gendarmes use OpenOffice for daily work, the Ministry of Defense is funding a project to boost the security certification of Linux.

Finland: The Ministry of Defense, to ensure stability and security in key operational processes, uses open source to handle messaging, its intranet and other core services.

Vietnam: Under a directive from the Prime Minister, the Ministry of Defense is directly engaged in the experimental application and development of open source software for defense purposes.

You might expect open source to be a tough sell to national security agencies. After all, it provides you and your enemies access to source code. But it is not. What attracts militaries to open source?

o The transparency of open source builds trust in the software.

o It enables an agency to break lock-in and regain control over software maintenance, upgrades and costs.

o It helps build self-reliance in software needed for critical weapon system development.

o Open source is ideal for militaries because it is technically flexible and customizable, giving them tactical agility.

National security agencies often have advantages over other agencies – they usually have substantial IT security expertise and resources in house. Still, less endowed public agencies have options. They can invest in long-term training for personnel. They can use public - private partnerships to access expertise.

What do defense agencies know that others have yet to learn? Organizations of any real size need to integrate open source into their technical architecture and overall business strategy.

Free Highways : 20th Century as ...

Cheap cars and free highways transformed America in the 20th Century. $100 laptops and free wi-fi broadband can do the same thing for the 21st Century.

It is a simple analogy ...

Free highways : 20th Century as Free Wi-Fi : 21st Century.

The Internet is our new national highway, or it should be. Like the original highway system, it is fundamental to both our national economic and security future. There will be a direct correlation between levels of broadband penetration and a nation's capacity for innovation and growth rates. That correlation probably exists already.

It's all about highways. Asphalt highways are about getting from here to there (a far away "there") quickly. Broadband is about the same thing, only you are moving across cyberspace, and moving much faster.

The U.S. -- indeed every government -- should treat broadband Internet access as priority public infrastructure. Investing in building broadband networks is as important today as construction of the national highway system was in the 1940s.

The highway system would not have worked if only most people could drive on it. It would not have worked if a few companies controlled the on ramps, or bundled packages of roads together for a fixed access price. Anything like that would have only one effect: fewer users and less economic activity. It is the same for broadband Internet.

The debate over "net neutrality" is important. But, honestly, it is in some ways a "high class" problem, as FCC Chairman William Kennard notes in his op-ed article in today's NY Times. The bigger debate is whether government should invest in broadband Internet as public infrastructure and a national priority?

Let's face the reality that Lawrence Lessig so perfectly describes ... "U.S. broadband sucks — it is too slow, it is too expensive, and it is too unavailable." His FT piece is here.

Chairman Kennard makes some excellent points, but misses the mark in his final words. As he put it, policymakers should focus on "getting affordable broadband access to those who need it." Actually, we should focus on getting affordable broadband access to EVERYONE.

Government is Own Worst Enemy for Open ICT

Side note: Please take the poll over here!!! -------------->

At last week's GOSCON conference, Andy Stein, CIO for the City of Newport News, Virginia, hightlighted the fact that governments are often their own worst enemies when it comes to openizing their ICT ecosysems.

The traditional procurement system does not work when it comes to open source. Even worse, it prevents innovative public - private technology partnerships and even agency-to-agency collaboration. Policies on open standards, open source and open ICT that are not directly incorporated into procurement rules and practices are destined to fail.

These are points that I make in every conference at which I speak about open technologies. It is also emphasized in the Open ePolicy Group's Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosystems. Governments that want to "openize" their ICT ecosystems and drive innovation need to re-write their procurement rules.

This requires not only ending the practice of naming specific products, vendors and technologies in RFPs. The whole RFP process needs to be altered, or scrapped entirely. Criteria for selection of bids needs to change. Due diligance and contract management need to account for the fact that open source licenses, communities and companies work differently than proprietary vendors.

News Item of Note: Loss of Data by U.S. Agencies is Widespread.

SOA is the future ... or is it?

Vendors are pumping the idea of service-oriented architecture (SOA) like there is no tomorrow, and for good reasons. But to businesses, SOA sounds like some hyper-techie thing that normal people cannot understand, and do not want to try.

According to a new survey, more than 50% of business people have no idea what SOA is about.

And that is good news! Really.

SOA is a good thing, but it focuses on the IT layer of a business. It is a concept by and for IT architects, not business people. So it is no suprise that business doesn't get it, or buy it yet.

SOA is the future of IT architecture. In simple terms, it aims to add flexibility to your technology infrastructure. As an approach to design, it allows you to replace components without replacing all the hardware and software you already bought or built. It allows you to "re-use" components, or allow others to use them as a shared service or system. It gives you business flexibility so your back office processes and front-end services can evolve without needing to entirely replace your installed base of IT. SOA helps you extend the life of your existing infrastructure, increasing the ROI of your capital investment in IT.

Sounds good, right? So, what's the problem?

The problem is SOA makes a bad situation worse within many companies. The problem is IT driving business decisions. It should be the opposite. Business needs driving IT decisions. The focus should be the "SO" not the "A."

A better approach is to integrate a clear service-orientation into all levels of a business, not just its IT. SOA needs to move up "the stack" -- defining "design" of services, business processes and information management, in addition to the technology layer. We need to talk about SOA without mentioning IT or architecture or any other technology lingo. Service orientation is a business proposition. And that is a converation that CEOs, CFOs and business managers can engage in.

If you need an enterprise architect in the room to translate, the discussion is on the wrong track.

Open ePolicy Group in Wikipedia

Just wanted to share this. The Open ePolicy Group is now an entry in Wikipedia available here. I expect the entry to evolve as the OeG enters into its second phase (More on OeG 2.0 later).

France Says: Vive le ODF! Vive Open Source!

The French government has taken another small step toward open standards, open source choices, and the full-scale adoption of the OpenDocument Format (ODF). This builds upon its earlier publication for comment of an Interoperability Framework that included the use of ODF.

The Prime Minister's Office commissioned a study on how European businesses could do more to develop industrial standards. Part of that answer is ODF. And part is building a critical mass of open source in its ICT ecosystem.

As the Open ePolicy Group has recommended, governments do not need to mandate open source in order to generate greater software choices and control over decision-making. Other policy options exist. The French report, authored by French National Assembly Deputy Bernard Carayon, offers a few examples when it suggests that government:

* fund a research center dedicated to open-source software security

* set up a system for exchanging best practices on open source for national and local government agencies

* allowing officials to choose among proprietary and open source software for their own workstations.

The rest of Europe should expect to hear from France about this ... The Report recommends that France start pressing its EU partners about ODF. Let the lobbying begin!

ASEAN Pushes a Few Open ICT Buttons

The IT Ministers of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) issued a joint Brunei Action Plan for enhancing the ICT competitiveness of their economies and societies. When it comes to technology, ASEAN is making "open" its theme.

The Action Plan focuses on capacity building -- not surprising since most ASEAN members are developing countries keen to strengthen their knowledge and skill base. What may surprise some people are the things that this ICT capacity building is focused upon, such as free/open source software, open standards and the OpenDocument Format (ODF).

ASEAN directly links the realization economic and social benefits with ICT by specifically committing to "exploring open standards and open source technologies to increase ICT access and interoperability." ASEAN is clearly walking an open ICT path toward economic and social development.

And among the list of priority projects ASEAN offers: a training workshop on OpenDocument Format (ODF) and Free/Libre Open Source Software (FLOSS) Distribution Kiosks.

If open is as open does, then we should expect to see more open ICT efforts emerging from the ASEAN region over the coming years.

Mr. Gates, Tear Down This Wall

Criticism of Microsoft is fashionable. It is also easy, fun and often justified -- as in the case of its dealings toward the OpenDocument Format or its blind hostility to open source software.

Everyone loves to hate Darth Vadar, the Borg, Hannibal Lecter, Saruman, lawyers, Starbucks, Bill Gates, or even better Steve Ballmer.

But, the enemy is not any one company or person. Walls are the enemy. Walls that suppport silos. Walls that prevent the sharing of information, documents, ideas and innovations. The genius of open source software is not the code but the collaboration -- its removal of walls.

Open ICT ecosystems are not fortresses, and should not be managed with the same fortress mentality that sadly characterizes many organizations and companies. This applies equally to Microsoft, Red Hat, open source communities, CIOs and governments.

Open technologies-- like open standards and open source--are a fact of life. Open approaches to innovation and business are increasingly tranforming economies and enterprises.

And yet, sometimes dramatic steps are needed to re-shape an ICT ecosystem that remains under competitive, for example when it comes to technology choices ...

... which brings us to the Phillipines.

A bill called the Free/Open Source (FOSS) Software Act of 2006 will be presented on Tuesday, September 12th requiring government agencies to use open standards and open source software. The bill is serious about preventing vendor lock-in:

"Under no circumstances are ICT goods and services to be acquired by the State restricted for use in a single vendor environment only. All prospective ICT investments of the government shall comply with open standards, and existing ICT systems will be reviewed for open standards compatibility."

The legislation will allow government use of proprietary software only when no open standards-based alternatives are available, or when a proprietary system is already widely in use and no open standards-based technology exists that interoperates with it. Oddly enough, that last exception may create a disincentive for major proprietary vendors NOT to interoperate if their products are already widely used within the Phillipine public sector.

Laws requiring open source have been a cause of controversy in recent years. In the Open ePolicy Group's Roadmap for Open ICT Ecosytems, we recommended that people focus less on the software development model and more on actions that increase choice and competition.

Why? Because open ICT ecosystems are neither 100% open or closed; they are a mixed environment. With open standards as a foundation, specific software procurement should be driven by the business case and clear public policy needs.

From that perspective, much of the draft Phillipine legislation seems designed to build a critical mass of open ICT in its ecosystem. It will promote research in open source software, incorporate open source into the computer science curriculum in schools, and provide legal recognition for open source licenses. These are all important ways to even the playing field for open source without mandating its procurement.

Do Patents Threaten Open Source and Innovation?

It is impossible to separate innovation from access to information, ideas and invention. But what happens when ownership of a broadly defined idea prevents its future use by a larger community of creators?

As Jim Moore at Harvard put it, "The patent process provides legal protection to inventors, so that when they take their ideas to companies for possible commercialization, the inventors are not cheated out of the intellectual assets they have created." True. Moore compares patents to home ownership. "The rights of a patent are analogous to the real estate title to a home or land. You have the exclusive rights to use your home or land -- within some limits (zoning, etc.)."

The problem, especially with technology patents, is that title often claimed by patent applicants includes a broad and vague description of its boundaries. To borrow Moore's analogy, they often describe the building vaguely AND fail to define the zoning. This is not by accident. Intellectual property rights are valuable, and there is a huge economic incentive to occupy as much "real estate" as possible, including land that does not yet exist. Securing pre-emptive ownership of land created in the future is a big part of patent strategies for many companies. This has turned patents -- an important shield for inventors -- into a profitable sword.

Software is an especially difficult area for intellectual property. And even more difficult now that open source approaches to collaboration and software development are proliferating, and accelerating software innovation globally. Complex software by definition addresses a wide range of concepts. It is no surprise that more and more software (developed in house in a proprietary way or as open source) is subject to claims of patent infringement, when more and more patents include very loosely described concepts. The result: more lawsuits.

Open source software is especially vulnerable to the patent sword given its approach to development based on collaboration, sharing of concepts and re-use of code. Although well suited to today's high speed, networked world, it does not fit comfortably with our 19th Century rules on intellectual property, or the monetary imperative of many companies to use them.

Indeed, there are companies designed purely as litigation factories. They don't make anything, except lawsuits.

Case in point: FireStar Software v. Red Hat. FireStar is suing Red Hat in court arguing that it patented the entire concept of object/relational mapping, not merely a specific method or software for using it. Such lawsuits are increasingly common, and may have a real chilling effect on open source developers and projects. Put another way, the enforcement of today's vague patent risks tomorrow's big innovation.

The challenge is to create an intellectual property regime better suited to a digital, networked world where the re-use of ideas is more rapid, more disruptive, and more closely linked to tomorrow's innovation.

Public - Private Partnerships for Open Source

Public-private partnerships (PPPs) are much discussed these days by governments everywhere. The connection between innovation, growth of IT industry and PPPs will be one focal point for the work of the Open ePolicy Group 2.0.

In addition to my work on PPPs, I have been looking for examples of governments with PPP initiatives related to open technologies (open source, open standards, open architectures).

Today's example: Vietnam.

Vietnam's Central Committee for Science and Education has signed an MOU with Intel to jointly set up an OpenLab for the development and testing of open source software. Testing laboratories are nothing new, for Intel or other global IT companies. Labs focused on open source software are less widespread, but a growing trend. By partnering with the private sector, such PPPs can help governments overcome common concerns about the security and reliability of open source. And this PPP will produce the goods. In the end, Vietnam expects to install open source on 27,000 of its public sector PCs.

If you think this is simply about Vietnam luring a big investment from Intel, think again. Vietnam's government is intent on accelerating growth of its domestic IT industry and its e-government efforts. Vietnam is a government with a plan -- an official plan -- a National Plan for Open Source Software Development and Application. It is investing $20 million of its own money to develop open source locally.

What is driving this effort? As an official from Vietnam's Ministry of Science and Technology put it, "We are trying step by step to eliminate Microsoft."

Do you know of other PPPs focused on open ICT? The Open ePolicy Group would love to hear about them. Post a comment here to share it.

Denmark to ODF: Show Me the Money

... and it will. As a new report completed for the Danish government says, switching to OpenDocument format will save money. Big money. $94 million over five years, according to the Open Source Business Association.

The report examined the costs of various options for document formats when implementing a new Danish law that requires use of open standards by January 1, 2008.

Over time, we will see more quantitative cost assessments and business cases on decisions related to document formats. This will be important to convince governments and other high-volume document creators of the wisdom in moving to ODF and other open standards.

Choices exist. Microsoft Office and its developing Office Open XMLA. OpenDocument Format. But the real obstacle, as noted by Morten Helveg Petersen, one of the key architects behind the Danish Parliament's decision on open standards, is indecision.

Facing choices, governments often have trouble making a decision, especially if the cost implications are unknown. The availability of detailed cost evaluations and business cases will go a long way to overcoming indecision and accelerating the adoption of ODF. Money talks.

[All credit to John Gotze for publicizing this development in Denmark.]

Goods News for ODF in Mass. (Despite Delay)

Full implementation of ODF adoption in Massachusetts has, it seems, been delayed six months until June 2007. But this minor slippage in execution is good news, not bad. Why? ODF adoption will begin in January 2007 as planned. And a plugin to allow Microsoft users in the public sector to save in ODF format, as a temporary "fix," will allow a smoother evolution to complete ODF implementation.

And who will be one of the early users of this plugin beginning in January? The Massachusetts Office on Disability. With a more realistic schedule for implementation, it seems clear that Massachusetts is on track for full ODF rollout with the support (even leadership) of the community of users with disabilities.

This is an important development, in both political and technological terms. The implementation schedule is still ambitious and will surely face difficulties. However, it means that a major political obstacle has been cleared. It also means that support and engagement by the disability community will drive further innovations in assistive technologies. It is fair to ask: would this have happened if ODF never arrived on the scene?

Open ICT in Eastern Europe, and a Hint of ODF

There has been speculation about the likelihood that open technologies --- open standards and open source -- will take root in Eastern Europe. I noted before that the ODF Alliance has over 30 members from Eastern European countries. In general Europe is showing leadership in the evolution of open ICT ecosystems, including adoption of open source and the OpenDocument format.

Now there is specific news about open ICT in Eastern Europe, and it comes from Croatia.

The government has announced a broad policy to adopt open source software across the public sector, together with guidelines on the development and procurement of software. Although the "open source" element of the policy is making all the headlines, it is misleading to think that Croatia has issued a requirement that all software be open source. Rather, the government is taking a more balanced approach.

Open source will be preferred over closed source solutions. Closed source software is not shut out entirely. The government intends to support local development of closed source software that meets open standards and, interestingly, open file formats. Schools will present both open and closed software to students, thus equipping them to work and innovate in a world of mixed technologies.

Why the big move in Croatia? Three factors compelled the government:

* Control: The desire to break its dependency on vendors and escape the rigid commercial conditions imposed on them is strong among governments. Freedom from external limitations will allow the government--i.e., the user--to modify, extend or link software as needed. It also creates greater transparency and interoperability not only in terms of its technology but also for public information and services.

* Growth: The importance of promoting innovation and market alternatives in technology cannot be understated. Growth is both an economic and a political issue. Governments seek to build domestic ICT markets, and see open technologies as one strategy to lower market barriers for new innovators.

* Money: Money matters. Open ICT enables more rational distribution of budgets by creating an ecosystem in which there is greater collaboration (and cost sharing) in the development, maintenance, and use of ICT. This helps reduce the total public expenses of providing public services.

And the hint of things to come for ODF in Croatia? Consider what Domagoj Juricic, leader of the Central State Administrative Office's e-Croatia project, said:

The state administration bodies create and exchange a lot of electronic documents. There is a great danger that documents cannot be opened and presented in readable form after a certain time, because we don't have the licence anymore of the proprietary software, or the vendor can seize support of the old types of documents. Therefore we require the state administration bodies to use open standards for creating electronic documents.

Do I hear the sound of ODF knocking on the door in Croatia?

Open policies are an important step, but policies are only paper. Translating these policies into actual procurement will be key to actually changing how services, technology and people act.

A side note: Sam Hiser, who predicted an ODF move in Croatia, is well positioned to take the silver medal for ODF predictions. (I had guessed a possible move in Malaysia who announced official consideration of ODF in July.)

ODF Delayed in Massachusetts?

The State of Massachusetts will release its mid-term assessment of OpenDocument. Apparently, recent discussions with disability rights groups have had an impact.

As blogged here previously, the issue of how ODF will affect accessability by people with disabilities is a political deal-breaker for ODF, not just in Massachusetts but for all levels of governments in the U.S.

At least one news source is reporting that CIO Louis Gutierrez will announce a delay in the scheduled January 1, 2007 implementation of ODF until an adequate plug-in can be developed.

One other notable news on open standards:

* Open Standards & RAND: In case you doubted my previous objections to the use of "reasonable and non-discriminatory" (or RAND) as a sound element of open standards, look no further than this story. In a legal battle between Nokia and Qualcomm, the fight is over the meaning of RAND. To repeat my view on this: RAND is not an objective standard and will only generate endless litigation. It is something only lawyers could love. It should not be part of any definition of an open standard.