PlexNex

Foundation Helping Microsoft

Respect for our esteemed ODF community friends & colleagues encourages me to take cover from today's anti-Foundation PR Blitzkreig in the nicest possible way.

************************
UPDATE: Florian's take on the anti-Foundation PR campaign is humorous and, typical of his incisive wit, guns down the contradictions in the ODF community's position.
************************

The message of the day -- give or take -- reads: 'OpenDocument Foundation is helping Microsoft and Microsoft OOXML by promoting the CDF format in lieu of ODF!' 'Great Rift Seen!' Whatever.

This is unfortunate for the ODF community because we, and CDF, relish a stage we were not intending to take. In short, if the ODF community is looking for who's helping Microsoft, they needn't look far.

You hardly need a link since most of y'all are already on these feeds...

Martin Lamonica | CNet
"Former OpenDocument advocates bolt for W3C Standard"

Elizabeth Montalbano
UPDATE: "OpenDocument Foundation abandons ODF"

Mary Jo Foley | blogger
"ODF infighting could help Microsoft's OOXML"

My comment to Mary Jo's piece ...

********************************
Mary- As we've pointed out to our colleagues & friends in the ODF community, both OOXML and ODF v1.2 are having (going to have) difficulty at ISO. ODF v1.2's problem is that it doesn't respect ISO's "JTC 1" directive mandating interoperability. Same OOXML.

So, the dream of a single universal document format (around which all applications have equal access) has, for the time-being, gone sideways. We tried really hard working within the standards process (for years) and our interoperability proposals were rejected by Sun (who leads the ODF OASIS TC by governing the schedule of what proposals will be discussed and what and when voting will or won't occur).

They read our whitepaper published in Spanish in Dec 2006 ... "Interoperability: Will the Real Universal File Format Please Stand Up?" ... where we first clearly articulated our vision for ODF v1.2 and the necessary changes to the ODF specification to align it with ISO interop directives as well as the high-level of document fidelity required by the enterprise market (simply installing OpenOffice is not enough).

Experts were able to grok that the OpenDocument Foundation's interop proposals were necessary also to make the Foundation's ODF Plug-in viable at the ODF format level. We knew it would take Sun's Hamburg engineers 2 to 3 years to catch the OpenOffice application up to our proposed changes in the ODF spec, but hey, that's life. Sun blocked the changes we believe to avoid embarrassment if the ODF spec should be able to do things that the application could not handle; and they did it also to honor their $2 Billion hardware & server commitment to Microsoft (in the 2004 pact, meaning to prevent or delay perfect interop with MS documents) and, therefore, to keep the Foundation's plug-in from the playing field.

All this is merely historical arcana to many observers, and the open source chorus seems to think it's a good idea to avoid extending the life of Microsoft's legacy applications with an EXCELLENT-QUALITY (**INTERNAL**) plug-in ... only weak plug-ins (Microsoft's, Novell's, Sun's) are wanted.

What seems missing from the discussion is that the market is going to give the de facto standard back to Microsoft, regardless of events at ISO. That is, unless we provide a clean way for enterprises to access their Microsoft formatted documents and play with an open document format standard within BUSINESS PROCESSES.

While part of the world is swallowing the ODF story, those enterprises who are testing ODF implementations and hitting the brick wall of business processes (Mass ITD [with whom I am under NDA], Denmark, Belgium) are finding it impossible to implement across autonomous networks of decentralized government agencies (each with its own CIO) for practical reasons. People wonder why the ODF policies are drifting back to ODF + OOXML. Wonder no more.

It's true -- I was a vociferous supporter of ODF, and among the most passionate and committed people to identify the importance of OpenOffice's file format back in 2002. But this year the vendors' tendency to use open standards and open source applications as a bargaining chip to extract (some would say 'extort') money from the deep-pockets Gorilla [that's your client, Microsoft] seems to have won out over good software that works for people.

CDF is better. It's governance is with the W3C: does anyone dare question the integrity of Sir Tim? And it is a format -- or I should say a framework for open formats -- which does something ODF can't do at all and OOXML can only do with Microsoft products -- it can go Mobile.
********************************

For one thing, it would be impossible to help Microsoft get the 1,000-odd unique comments through a five-day Ballot Resolution Meeting process in February at ISO. I'm not sure what force of nature could possibly help that, unless convener Alex Brown is seen along the quaint cobblestoned environs of the Bristol quays anytime soon driving an Aston Martin DB9. Microsoft will undoubtedly fail to get ISO approval for OOXML. They don't need my help, either way.

(And if by some sleight of hand they do get OOXML approved, ISO will go into such a spasmodic reform mode that there will never be another important standard from Microsoft.)

Among our difficulties with ODF is that ODF v1.2 is headed for failure at ISO, too. And if the ODF community is tone-deaf to the necessary enhancements (which the Foundation has proposed), then we can't help ODF either -- much as we would like to and much as we have dedicated years of our lives in order to influence. 

More to the point, it is our view that if you want to help Microsoft, you will do nothing to fix the interoperability problems of ODF; you will do nothing to help ODF address the enterprise market's requirements to work cleanly with the existing documents and business processes of almost a half-billion document authors; you will stop, obfuscate and delay the efforts or others to introduce the material to enable the ODF standard to interoperate with the installed base of MS Office documents. This is what one does to help Microsoft.

Back in the languid torpor of summer, Sun's John Bosak made the statement explaining Sun's puzzling vote at the American standards body, INCITS, a vote which benefitted OOXML's case in the run to the failing round in September ("Black September"). His confusing announcement can be read in its moment as a message to all NB's that they should follow Sun's lead to submit "Yes with Comments." Bosak made this declaration in full knowledge that only "No with Comments" can force ECMA to address the comments in the later ballot resolution phase. Bosak knew that a "Yes with Comments" was a piss in the wind.

We wish to make it completely clear that we support DIS 29500 [OOXML] becoming an ISO Standard and are in complete agreement with its stated purposes of enabling interoperability among different implementations and providing interoperable access to the legacy of Microsoft Office documents.

At the recent GOSCON panel on ODF, Sun's Doug Johnson joined Microsoft's oxymoronic argument in favor of multiple formats, including OOXML, because of the market requirement to interoperate perfectly with legacy Microsoft documents. (This left IBM's representative, Arnaud Le Hors, stunned as he was surprised to be caught between Sun's and Microsoft's bullshit sandwich.)

If you parse their actions in the development of ODF at OASIS, you would actually understand Sun's position is that full high-fidelity interoperability is "outside the scope" of the ODF specification. (I have links for this on the OASIS mailing list archive if you'd like.) IBM for reasons I grope hopelessly to understand has acquiseced in this deception.

That's helping Microsoft. With help like that, there's not much more rope left for us poor sods at the Foundation to pull on.

It is beyond question that no organization -- except perhaps SCO, Novell or Microsoft themselves -- has done more to help Microsoft than Sun Microsystems in their conduct of the leadership of the OASIS ODF TC and their failure to encourage the kinds of innovations at the file format specification level that would make ODF a legitimate universal document format. I'll leave you to speculate what connection the Sun-Microsoft pact of 2004 may be having here.

If the Foundation were on record, we are more into Microsoft being drummed out of town -- or beaten 500 million to nil in a boisterous market referrendum. Meanwhile -- while we wait for the Obama Administration to create the necessary political will to drop the RICO statutes on Microsoft -- we'll just have to go and Embrace & Extend the Microsoft installed base by going and getting those files and piping them into trustworthy open standards (standards with process & governance integrity) with unimpeachibly open business processes surrounding them.

We are a single-format shop. Our interests have shifted to the W3C's Compound Document Format. Our ideology, if you must, is for a universal document format about which any and all applications can work with equal rights. Jason Matusow says our actions tell that we are for multiple formats. Jason's full of shit.

We will of course support ODF whole-heartedly if the specification improves in the necessary ways, ways about which we have been clear and will be happy to be clearer in future if we have lacked a certain, shall we say, puissance of message. I am not sanguine, though: I don't expect ODF or ODF's governance environment to improve in the time-span necessary to stop Microsoft from cementing Exchange|Sharepoint and Sharepoint|Exchange Live Whatever across most of what's left of the Lotus Notes installed base.

No, I'm not encouraged that IBM has taken over OpenOffice.org's development. This merely means that Sun has just sold IBM a condo in Corral Gables with a 180 view of the parking lot of the Kingdom Hall Bowling Lanes, Barbecue & Pet Salon and Sun Microsystems is moving on to bigger business (business that actually has money) as a thinly disguised Microsoft subsidiary selling Windows-primed servers and killing Linux with "Solar-Ian" (Ian Murdock's Super Duper Linux Application Layer Embedded in openSolaris) Which-Interoperates-By-Design-With-Microsoft.

Accordingly, IBM better get busy acquiring Novell before Novell becomes a thinly disguised Microsoft subsidiary dedicated to implanting .Net and patent-encumbered dependencies -- or the idea of patent-encumbered dependencies -- in Free Software -- I say this much as IBM detests the GPL.

If helping half-a-billion souls get away from Microsoft is helping Microsoft, then I'll be darned.

CDF c'est moi!

The OOXML Scandal

There's no way to tell which way the voting will end up on Monday (48 hrs from now), September 2, 2007.

Upon John Gotze's good news that Denmark is a "No", Roy calls it a "fiasco" while Eric S. Raymond calls it a "scandal".

"September Second: The OOXML Scandal"...that rather trips off the tongue...

Swedish Spillover: OOXML's Cascading Failure

It looks from PJ's Groklaw report of fresh action in the Danish Parliament that Microsoft's mistakes in Sweden have spilled over to other countries.

Denmark's was a TWO STANDARDS position (paradoxical as that may be) for evaluating both OOXML and ODF; yet now in the echoes of Swedish standards process tampering by Microsoft, the Danish ministers are asking for a technical assessment of OOXML to be advised by the government technology ministry so that Standards Denmark may make its September 2nd (Monday) judgment on OOXML based upon OOXML's actual technical interoperability.

This is odd this late in the game. It suggests to me that the Danish government was taking Microsoft's word on OOXML's interop qualities at face value. Conversely that means the Danish government was taking our claims about OOXML's lack of fitness as rhetorical IBM-based corporate gamesmanship.

Now, the events in Sweden (Microsoft offering payment to partners to attend meetings and vote) puts OOXML's quality into question for those who have not read the technical specification yet or trusted the transparency of earlier analysis. Sweden illuminates that Microsoft has no faith in the technical merit of OOXML and feels the need to purchase its passage -- even with every other advantage attending its ISO Fast-Track.

I'd like to hear John Gotze's view from Denmark...unless that's what's up on Groklaw ;-)

John?

News: Denmark, Microsoft to Merge

Big news in the merger space this week: Denmark -- the one just north of Germany -- has given over its government to an American corporation.

Countries have been co-opted more or less whole by corporations before -- notably the USA by Haliburton, Chinese weapons manufacturers in Sudan, de Beers & South Africa, The East India Company and the whole world east of Mauritius -- but what's new is that Denmark, what we had assumed was an advanced Northern European country with a more or less open & democratic mode of government, is paying Microsoft in what appears to be a reverse-acquisition for the privilege of having that corporation take over Denmark's national policies.

Commenting (evidently in a Norse dialect, precursor to Anglo-Saxon) from Denmark, Microsoft's Stephen McGibbon said...

"It's in fast track at the moment | and that's a process | you know we must be | we have to now | we've given | Microsoft has given | the business leaders in the company understand -- okay? -- that the control of the file format has been given from Microsoft to Ecma International."

This will be the first policy out-sourcing and the brilliant new technique looks likely to cascade throughout the European Union. Despite attempts by the EU to fine Microsoft hundreds of millions of Euros for not complying with its requirements of honest corporate behavior, it looks as though Microsoft will be able to fund indefinitely those fines through sales of its new Office software because Europeans like to buy new shiny things (with difficult packaging) from America -- even if they do not offer anything actually new.

See John Gotze's blog entry, Dual Standards?..., for more...

OOXML: More than Just a File Format

Joe Wilcox over at Microsoft Watch is the first media analyst to offer clear insight  -- "When is 'Open' More Open for Microsoft?" -- as to why the MS OOXML file format is driving Microsoft so insane to get approval from the International Standards Organization (ISO)...

OOXML has already received Ecma standards certification, but needs ISO approval, too. Approval would bring OOXML on a standards level with competing ODF and could help advance the Microsoft format's customer adoption.

The latter objective is similar to VC-1 and Silverlight: OOXML would be more open for Microsoft than other developers. ISO certification is important to Microsoft because:

• OOXML is the default for Office 2007
• OOXML is important for the advancement of other Microsoft strategies, such as business intelligence.
• The format will plug into some of Microsoft's future work around enterprise informational and Web services, collaboration and content archival

OOXML is much more than a file format; it's being groomed for a platform role, similar to VC-1 and Silverlight.

This will explain in part why the 6,000 pages of the OOXML specification is such a strange read. Good get, Joe!

OOXML is really an insertion strategy -- a Trojan Horse -- for a proprietary XML platform on which much of Microsoft's next generation product catalog will depend.

Denmark? NOW do you want to sanction both ODF and OOXML for government business processes? If so, you will be falling into a trap. When a government approves a document format, it wants to approve a document format, not a Swiss Army Knife.

Open Standards Mandatory in Denmark

John Gøtze kindly brings to our attention a new development in the Danish government's progress toward open software standards.

Now, having gotten past the preliminaries of whats, wherefores, hows & whys, the Danes have progressed to the question of implementations. This always reflects a watershed moment for government leaders, staffs & citizens who will be effected. It reflects a body of people coming through a process of understanding and it shows their confidence.

This reminds me of nothing more than Peter Quinn's meeting of vendors in the Massachusetts State House in June of 2005 where he said,

"Open document formats: I get it! But how do I get there? Discuss."

The difference now is that we are dealing with a whole country, Denmark, which according to scale is something like the size of Massachetts within the larger body, the European Union. In contrast to the Massachusetts situation, other parts of the EU are already migrating ahead of whatever policies or regulatory guidelines are being established. These include agencies in France, the UK, Germany and Belgium among others.

There is an interesting similarity to Massachusetts. The policy memorandum, ETRM 3.5, which fostered the ODF debate there was similar to this Danish plan in its underlying motivations and intent.

When a government gets past identifying the ideal scenarios that are possible, those which exist and are ready to implement -- in this case they include open standards like XHTML, CSS, ODF -- and moves on to the questions of how to get them used, there is always a large number of impediments to the final result. These include recalcitrant software monopolies (who are constantly trying to undo good policy work), general inertia against change, decentralized structure of multiple agencies with different ICT systems, leadership and beliefs about what works, and the difficulty in establishing an authoritative, credible but also flexible recipe for pushing change without increasing cost, stress & disruption.

That's why these policy frameworks look so alike: every bureaucracy gets to this same difficult place eventually -- 'How do we get there?'.

Says John Gøtze...

The implementation plan is presented in a report which suggests that “open standards should be implemented gradually by making it mandatory for the public sector to use a number of open standards when this becomes technically feasible”.

What has happened?

The existing Danish Interoperability Framework (in Danish) has become mandatory. Separately, the report lists a number of open standards which should be implemented by Jan 1, 2008, through the normal course of system upgrading (unless the transition is deemed disruptive).  Gøtze mentions a few...

• Standards for data interchange between public authorities
• Standards for electronic file and document handling
• Standards for exchanging documents between public authorities (Open Document Format and Office OpenXML)
• Standards for electronic procurement in the public sector
• Standards for digital signatures
• Standards for public websites / homepages
• Standards for IT security (only within the public sector)

Around a dozen standards: Compliant XHTML or HTML, complaint CSS, WAI Level 2, OCES (digital signature), XML 1.0, XML Schema 1.0, NDR 3.0, FESD (docuument management), OIOUBL, UNSPSC, and DS484 (ISO 17799).

We're interested here in ODF. Here's what the report says about document formats...

With regard to standards for exchanging documents between public authorities, the report proposes that “it should be mandatory to use at least one of the document standards Open Document Format or Office OpenXML”, and that it is up to the individual agency to decide what they want. The report explains that a study will be conducted this year with “the purpose of obtaining the necessary experience with these standards before 1 January 2008″.

So, the Danes are looking at a mandatory shift to either or both of the two XML-based document formats. You say ODF AND MSOOXML BOTH! EEEEEEK!

This gives me no anxiety whatsoever. MSOOXML has already been thoroughly de-bunked vis a vis its repudiation of other existing standards; it is in perhaps a perpetual deep-freeze at ISO (from which Microsoft will not seek or wish to remove it, since "ISO status pending" is all they need to sell it; the alternative is to re-wire their entire new catalog of software); under further use testing and scrutiny in Denmark, its repudiation of the basic intentions of XML will be highlighted; and under scrutiny in Denmark the thorough dependency of MSOOXML documents upon the Microsoft stack (Vista, Exchange, Sharepoint, Outlook, MS SQL Server, IE7, Office 2007, Groove, etc.) and their lack of interoperability & compatibility outside the new Microsoft stack will be underscored and well understood. The Danes will find that MSOOXML is no solution.

Regarding document interoperability the Danes will learn on their own about the three possible solutions, two of which are free and one still requiring funding...

1) the Microsoft-Clever Age-Novell "MCAN" Translator (at sourceforge and being integrated into only Novell's version of OpenOffice.org)

2) the Sun Microsystems Plugin (still in development and promising document exchange fidelity equivalent to OpenOffice.org, which Massachusetts originally deemed inadequate for its decentralized migration)

3) the OpenDocument Foundation's Interoperability Suite (not funded but promising 100% document fidelity delivered through a) Plugin [Windows client], b) InfoSet API [server] and c) OpenOffice feature-set governor [OOo-side client])

ODF Alliance Membership List

ODF Alliance membership passed 300 in recent months, not 9 months from the start of the lobbying and communications group. An analysis of the mix would indicate the proportion of ICT vendors, professional services providers, software development groups and end user agencies and organizations.

These are people with a view toward supporting ODF in software or establishing ODF policies or moving forward on migration. They may be entities who are already using OpenOffice.org -- and thereby ODF -- already. They are united by a confidence in a singular idea: common sense will prevail in the electronic document standards fight.

There are 50 countries represented in the list (and all continents but Antarctica).

1	.riess applications gmbh
2	1dok.org
3	2shape GmbH
4	3BView Ltd
5	60AT6
6	Abshoff, Agricola, Prager & Venn GbR - freaque.net
7	Adullact
8	Advanced Information and Communication Technology
9	Aero Systems Corp.
10	AFUL
11	agelis Energieberatung
12	Alfresco
13	Alka France
14	All Stars s.r.o.
15	All Stars Sp. z o.o.
16	Alma Technology
17	Altar sp. z o.o.
18	American Library Association
19	Amphora Research Systems
20	Anaska Formation
21	APITUX
22	APPS Global Pty Ltd
23	APRIL
24	Ark Linux
25	ARKNUS
26	Ars Aperta
27	Asia OSPA Forum
28	Asociación Mexicana Empresarial de Software Libre
29	ASS2L
30	Association Lune Rouge
31	Associazione Culturale Revolutionary Mind
32	ATR, Inc.
33	Atviras kodas Lietuvai
34	Auton Rijnsburg BV
35	Avanquest UK ltd
36	Axiros GmbH
37	Bangladesh Linux Users Alliance
38	Beijing Co-Create Open Source Software Co.,Ltd.
39	Beijing Jiaotong University
40	Beijing Redflag CH2000 Software Co., Ltd
41	BellCom Open Source A/S
42	Bicocca.NET
43	BiZwiKi.CN
44	Blue Ferret Communications
45	Bristol City Council
46	British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)
47	BrOffice.org
48	BsOOo.Nl - Business Support OpenOffice.org Nederla
49	Bull
50	Bureau van Dijk Electronic Publishing
51	Caixa Mágica Software
52	CELEPAR
53	Center for System Administration
54	Centre for Development of Advanced Computing
55	Centrum Tlumaczen Specjalistycznych
56	ChannelWeb S.r.l.
57	China Standard Software Co.,Ltd. (CS2C)
58	ChinaSoft Resource Corporation
59	CIGNEX Technologies, Inc.
60	City of Bloomington
61	City of Largo
62	City of Vienna - ICT
63	Clark Marketing Ltd
64	Coeusoft SA
65	Cognitran Ltd.
66	Compro Computer Services, Inc.
67	CompUnite South Africa
68	Computer & Communications Industry Association
69	Comsultia, Ltd.
70	consultores GmbH
71	Corel
72	Corrilan IT Consultancy Ltd
73	COSPA
74	COSS - The Finnish Centre for Open Source Software
75	Cowichan Valley Linux Users Group
76	CSW Group Ltd.
77	CulTrim
78	Dagda Team
79	Danish Open Source Society (DOSS)
80	De Bortoli Wines Pty Limited
81	Deep Vision, Inc.
82	Den danske UNIX-systembrugergruppe, DKUUG
83	Development InfoStructure (Devis)
84	DIDASCA - The First Italian Cyber Schools for Life
85	DigiUtopikA Lda.
86	DLPS Desktop Linux Projects and Services GmbH
87	Docvert
88	Dougan Consulting Group
89	dri - consultoria informática LDA
90	DynaWerx Inc.
91	e:volve computers & technology
92	EasyLink Services Corporation
93	Economie Numérique Conseil
94	EDL Systems
95	EDS
96	Egressive Limited
97	Elevated Technology
98	EMC Corporation
99	Endoc AB
100	enomaly
101	Essential Information
102	European Committee for Interoperable Systems (ECIS
103	EXÉRCITO BRASILEIRO
104	Exinit
105	eZ systems as
106	FEB Radebeul
107	Foundation for a Free Information Infrastructure
108	Free and Open Source Software Foundation of Pakist
109	Free Software Macedonia
110	Free Standards Group
111	Freedows Consortium Tecnologia S.A.
112	Friends of OpenDocument, Inc.
113	Fullmoon Software
114	Fusebox Inc
115	Gardien Virtuel
116	GENICORP
117	Genii Software Ltd.
118	Geseidl Euro Finance Consulting SRL
119	GIAHSA
120	GNOME
121	Golden Planet
122	Google Inc
123	Gordon College
124	Green Banana, Inc.
125	Haselfre Solutions
126	HDSI
127	Humanetrix Foundation Inc.
128	i2rs
129	IBM
130	iDPARC AG
131	IFILP-TEC — Área Técnica do Instituto de Forma
132	iHorizons
133	Illuminance Technologies
134	Indian Institute of Technology (IIT)
135	Indy Associates
136	Informatica.Com.Md
137	Infra-Resource, Ltd.
138	Infrae
139	Institute for Information Industry
140	Institute of Software, Chinese Academy of Sciences
141	Instituto Nacional de Tecnologia da Informação
142	Integra Soluciones Avanzadas, S.L.
143	Internet Society Netherlands
144	Internet Vision Technologies
145	Interunix Networking Solutions Sdn. Bhd., Malaysia
146	Intraneia - Sistemas de Informação, Lda.
147	IP Justice
148	IT-Politisk Forening, IT-POL
149	itemis GmbH & Co. KG
150	ITIJ
151	iZone Development
152	Izy CG, s.r.o.
153	Jamma IT
154	Jena Technologies LLC
155	JM Field Marketing
156	Junta de Andalucía
157	Junta de Extremadura - CIDT
158	Justsystem Corporation
159	KDE
160	KLID - Linux trade association of Denmark
161	Kreawit
162	Kyrgyzstan National Information Technology Center
163	Leonardo Communications
164	Liberix
165	LINAGORA
166	Linda Hall Library
167	Linpro AS
168	Linux Australia
169	Linux Industrial Association (LIPSZ) - Hungary
170	Linux Users Group Belgrade
171	Linux Users Group, Singapore
172	linuxNUS - National University of Singapore Linux
173	Local Government Computer Services Board
174	Login, Inc.
175	LUGOS (Linux User Group Of Slovenia)
176	LynuxSolutions
177	Magnate IT
178	Mandriva
179	Mark Watson Consulting Services
180	Massachusetts High Technology Council
181	Massachusetts Network Communications Council
182	Mediasoft Solutions Private Limited
183	Metztli Information Technology
184	MIG AB
185	MIKFF
186	Ministry of Finance -- Republic of Macedonia
187	MNCC ODF Special Interest Group, Malaysia
188	MNCC Open Source Special Interest Group
189	MobilityGuard AB
190	Mountain Linux Users Group
191	Movimento Software Livre Paraná - MSLPR
192	MultiRacio
193	MySQL AB
194	National Institute for Smart Government
195	NC LUG - North Caucasus Linux User Group
196	ncode solutions gmbh
197	Nebtrex
198	Nederlandse Linux Gebuikers Groep
199	Neosystems
200	Neutech.dk
201	Nimble Services, Inc
202	Nitin Goyal
203	Norfello Oy
204	Norwegian Mission Alliance Philippines
205	Notes CS
206	Nou&Off
207	NovaGlobal Pte Ltd
208	Novell
209	NOVOVIA
210	Nowe Leki
211	Nuxeo / inDesko
212	O3spaces
213	Odendahl SEPT-Solutions
214	Open Design Alliance
215	Open Enterprise Solutions
216	Open Interoperative Document Initiative
217	Open Legal Practice Standards Collaboration Org
218	Open Office Technology, Inc.
219	Open Society Archives of the Central European Univ
220	Open Society Institute
221	Open Source Industry Australia
222	Open Source Law
223	Open Systems Management Ltd.
224	Open-Xchange, Inc.
225	Open@work
226	OpenAdvantage
227	OpenApp
228	OpenContent s.n.c.
229	OpenDocument Fellowship
230	OpenForum Europe
231	OpenIreland
232	OpenLX (Indserve Infotech Pvt. Ltd.)
233	OpenOffice Polska
234	OpenOffice.org
235	OpenOffice.org MEXICO
236	Openpower Information Co.,ltd
237	OpenSesame ICT
238	OpenSkills
239	OPENTIA
240	Opera Software ASA
241	OPS! Consulting
242	Optaros
243	Optio Software, Inc.
244	Oracle
245	Orion eServices Private Ltd
246	OSDL (Open Source Development Lab)
247	OSS Alliance
248	OSS Integral Institute Co., Ltd. ( OSSII )
249	Oxford Archaeology
250	Østjyllands Linux-brugergruppe
251	Paradigma
252	Parinux
253	Paul Snijders Automatisering
254	PersonnelWorks, LLC
255	phpMyAdmin
256	Pilot Systems
257	Pixart SRL
258	Planeta Olea SL
259	Powiatowy Urzad Pracy w Brzesku
260	PRESTO - PŘEKLADATELSKÉ CENTRUM s.r.o.
261	Prezencia Web Services
262	Prodigentia
263	Project Kalpa
264	Propylon Ltd
265	PSIL
266	Public Knowledge
267	Puzzle ITC
268	QCM, s.r.o.
269	Qindel
270	QubeConnect Sdn Bhd
271	Radio Popular, Electrodomesticos, S. A.
272	Red Hat, Inc.
273	Redlaunch
274	Relational Semantics, Inc.
275	Reliable Information Systems
276	Resolvo Systems PTE Ltd
277	Rixstep.com
278	Ruffdogs, Inc.
279	SafeDesk
280	SalePlane Ltd.
281	Saturn Laboratories
282	SCIDERALLE
283	SeeOpen
284	Servizi Informatici
285	Skaitmeninio sertifikavimo centras, UAB
286	Skåne Sjælland Linux User Group, SSLUG
287	SKOSI (Slovak Open Source Initiative)
288	sn@p consulting
289	SoftMaker
290	Software & Information Industry Association SIIA
291	Software AG
292	Software Competence Center of the Hungarian Govern
293	Software602
294	Southwest Jiaotong University
295	Sp-Process SPA
296	Sploodle
297	Spoleènost pro výzkum a podporu (Open SourceOSS
298	Squirrel Consultancy
299	StarXpert
300	Sun Microsystems, Inc.
301	Sustainable Software Pty Ltd
302	Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Zurich
303	Szabad Szoftver Intézet - Hungary
304	Tankeboks
305	tarent GmbH
306	Technetra Corporation
307	Technical University of Denmark - Copenhagen
308	TESI Tècnica del So i la Imatge S.L.
309	Tetra Information Services Pvt. Ltd
310	Thales
311	The Association of Open Source Suppliers and Vendo
312	The ICT & Security Company (ICTSC LTD)
313	The Knowledge Trust
314	The New Zealand Open Source Society
315	The Open Source Technology Alliance
316	The OpenDocument Foundation, Inc.
317	Torchlight Technologies
318	TorLUG - Tor Vergata Linux User Group
319	Transtronics, Inc.
320	Tuxum Secure Systems
321	Tycho Softworks
322	uberOffice, Inc.
323	Ubiquitech
324	UNDP-APDIP International Open Source Network
325	Unisys Corporation
326	University of the Philippines Java Research & Deve
327	Uptime Computing
328	USARSD.org
329	Ux Systems
330	Vacorama.com
331	Vadesta B.V.
332	Van Bussel Document Services
333	Varico
334	VersusMind
335	Victoria Linux Users Group (VLUG)
336	Virtual Angle B.V.
337	VNOSS
338	Warpspace IT
339	Workmode, Inc.
340	Worldlabel.com Inc.
341	Woven Thorns Productions
342	Wyona
343	YACME Srl
344	Zindep

J Love's Special Sauce

I attended the Harvard Berkman Center discussion on Friday with the usual ODF suspects -- who it is always good to see...like following Phish -- and with the addition this time of a whole host of interested parties from the Consumer side from places like Norway, Denmark, Belgium, Yale. You know, foreign places, where in most cases the commitment to the concept of a universal, portable document format is more palpable than in the pecuniary, milque-toast USA.

The conference was assembled with skill by CPTech together with the TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD). And it produced this extraordinary entry by Jamie Love on Huffington Post: "When Standards Are Political -- ODF". This is a high-water mark for speaking normal to the normal folks.

During the day full up with panel discussions, it was Jamie who prostrated himself with the dumbest of dumb questions in order to bring the conversation to a level that at least XML experts could understand. I'm sorry to say we geeks didn't take the hint and continued for most of the morning to ramble on quite beside the basic points that would orient people who don't spend all day steeped in ODF. (I know Jamie knows ODF better than his questions indicated, and his article proves it.) Only in the afternoon did the ole policy veterans from the EU inject a bit of sanity and common sense.

It was a long day, to be honest. But I still want more of these.

Why?

Why? Because the consumer groups and the highly intelligent and well-networked people there are key to getting the ODF story out on multiple fronts, on all of which we need to make our seven impressions...and then, btw, deliver better software.

The best & brightest in that room including Jamie and Laura DeNardis (of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School) are headed to Athens, Greece, next month to the Internet Governance Forum which comes under the auspices of the UN. There, at the IGF, there will be a proposal for global norms to support open standards for key aspects of info-tech -- including file formats.

Jamie intends to propose a sort of multi-national declaration of policy intent toward a universal file format standard (like ODF). Wish him luck, since we can use PR like that...as well as a few more policy adoption cases. How about Argentina? Canada? UK schools? South Africa? Singapore? Jeff -- how about another saki-bet?

The Nexus of Competition

Anyone serious about affecting balance in the software markets in the last ten years has had to address the need for another office suite to compete with Microsoft's Office franchise. Anyone, by turns, who is really serious in this objective has naturally and rightly gone one step further, to address the need for another format for documents to compete with Microsoft's .doc, .xls, .ppt and other formats.

Sun Microsystems rose to the challenge in acquring Star Division and in (almost) open sourcing the code to OpenOffice (the project has never been open enough to solve some of the more vexing technical problems of document interoperability). And everyone who has pitched in on OpenOffice, for better or worse between 1999 and the present, has risen in their own modest way to the call. Similarly true of KOffice and, now, of the AJAX-driven office suite services.

In the last few years the battleground, or rather the emphasis, has shifted away from the software applications themselves to where it should be. The XML-based file format originated in the early versions of OpenOffice/StarOffice got a name change -- to "OpenDocument" -- and got into the ISO ratification process in May 2005 and was ratified as an ISO standard a year later. ISO ratification generated a surge of interest in the format, fresh belief that an alternative could exist, and kicked off IT policy conversations in government offices around the world. These conversations have borne fruit in places like Massachusetts, Minnesota, Denmark, France, Belgium, the United Kingdom, South Korea, Malaysia, Norway, Germany -- to name the ones who have permitted their processes to be public -- and such conversations have successfully and naturally drifted into actual policies as well as plans for implementation of ODF where it counts on the desktops PCs throughout the offices of governmental agencies.

These are extremely positive developments for renewing competive balance in software markets, particularly since a year ago not a soul predicted such a level of rising interest in something as arcane as a document file format standard. And the trend is more likely to expand than contract -- even despite the possibility that Microsoft's upcoming XML-based file formats may get ISO approval, too. (IBM's Bob Sutor -- a mathematician by background -- said deep in his blog somewhere that the Standard Deviation of our year-ago expectations for ODF versus reality has been exceedingly wide; and it will likely to continue to widen even as we ratchet up our expectations.)

Looking back on where we were, where we've been, what we thought and said, I'm still surprised that it has taken so long for the emphasis to shift to the file format -- where the market control-points actually reside. However, I take solace in the reminder that we are talking about real Diffusion of Innovation. If we consult Rogers, Moore & Christensen on the topic, then we recognize that we are in the midst of a historical shift in the way people do things. Populations, particularly large populations in the hundreds of millions, take time to absorb new methods, new habits, new customs and new ideas.

Looking back, as I was doing, I found an article from Spring 2002 by Aaron Rouse in the Inquirer; that online journal was early to recognize the meaning of OpenOffice and of what OpenOffice and its format meant. (The OpenOffice 1.0 launch came only two months after this article, which you might say was three or four years ahead of its time.)

The Rouse article is really worth reading because even in 2002 Mr Rouse was sensitive to the importance of the file format, and the article walks the reader briefly through his experiences of particular software dependencies which drove his offices in certain directions. Business processes, he said in 2002, are at the heart of how Microsoft engineered a form of behavioral control over the wide market. And it will serve us well today to recognize how the mechanism works if we are going to unwind this particular Equilibrium.

The nexus of competition in the software markets is the common document format. Eyes are on the prize.

Microsoft "Supports" ODF

The headlines should read instead, "Microsoft Supports Self with ODF".

The entire press of the world -- including CNet, ZDNet, Financial Times, The Wall Street Journal and others -- have consumed this whole, almost at face value. It demonstrates at once how obscure the file format topic is and how desperate the press are to read into the scene now another ODF win. But they're getting the real and the visionary all twisted up in a bunch. Even technology analysts who have demonstrated a basic understanding of file formats in the past are getting this quite turned around.

Everyone -- to a man -- is saying that Microsoft has caved in to ODF. It's simply not the case if anyone examines the facts.

The Microsoft press release talks about this as "...developing bidirectional translation tools..." If anyone takes the time to go to SourceForge, where this project is posted for development and download, they will notice the project consists of a single Office add-on for Word 2007, a product that does not yet exist on the market. They will further notice that the tool -- singular, so far -- is in fact uni-directional.

Open XML Translator provides tools to build a technical bridge between the Open XML Formats and Open Document Format(ODF). As the first component of this initiative, the ODF Add-in for Microsoft Word 2007 allows to Open & Save ODF documents in Word. [emphasis added]

 

And scratching the surface a bit more, the curious observer will note that the tool consists of a few eXtensible Stylesheet Language Transformation (XSLT) scripts which change ODF's open XML content into MSECMAXML's corrupted, tokenized, non-expressive & non-human-readable XML. That means Office 2007 -- a product not in circulation -- will one day be endowed with the ability to open an ODF file and save it as the Microsoft "Open XML" format. XSLT is nothing special: it is a common way to transform data in ODF to just about any other format, including HTML, XHTML, DocBook, what have you.

The translator project does not yet EXPORT to ODF, demanding a shaded interpretation of "interoperability" here. What's more, questions will persist if this "open source" project will ever be open in spirit (that is, attended by individuals driven by practical self-interest)...or interoperable. Chances are, not, if we interpolate from past Microsoft behavior (Microsoft's contrived rejection of PDF export | Groklaw). Eyes of the cognoscenti are peeled.

It takes pause. Think a minute. ODF files are being shifted into MSECMAXML, possibly the most proprietary format ever proposed in the history of standards. MSECMAXML is a private implementation of open XML so clogged with binary flotsam & jetsam, to which only Microsoft customers will ever gain access, that the attempt to pass the translator off as a good thing should raise further questions about Microsoft's intentions.   

Through the obscurity of arcane, black-art file format techniques, Microsoft have made something beneath trivial into a revelation of interoperability with the intention to freeze the balance of the global public sector from following in the footsteps of Massachusetts, Munich, France, Denmark & Brussels. It's a skillful (even creative) bit of PR but in software terms, a cypher. So powerful is the ODF concept to the business of government that I don't believe California, Minnesota, Bristol, Podgorica, Rome, Kuala Lampur, Tokyo, or even Beijing would be deterred by this whafer-thin gossamer of FUD.

Revealed then is Microsoft's intention to avoid -- it seems at any cost -- actively supporting the OpenDocument Format in its software. This is the true message to take home.

 

Bob Sutor on Thursday compiled a useful mix of early reactions which were each mistaken in tone, emphasis, proportion and fact. 

Arrogance in Denmark

Groklaw has translated some Danish press on ODF & Microsoft that supports what we have been saying about the Microsoft strategy of pushing its MSECMAXML as a redundant standard file format for documents.

Translated on Groklaw from the Danish...

Microsoft is about to overestimate their significance in the IT market place. This is how one of Denmark's leading IT analysts bluntly puts it, executive director in the analyst house IDC, Per Andersen. He believes that Microsoft is isolating itself by its support of the Open XML format... "Obviously Microsoft will certainly not support a format driven by the open source movement. It would rather isolate itself and bet their money on their ability to convince the rest of the world that the Microsoft standard is just as good and open as the standard used by the other significant vendors," says Per Andersen.

This is doomed to failure, opines the director, who remains critical of Microsoft's strategy. "The biggest threat to a successfull IT company is arrogance and ignoring new market trends and the resulting attitudes in the market" he says. "If Microsoft closes it's eyes to the developments and isolates itself, it will be left behind. And just as to many others before Microsoft, this means big strategic challenges in the long term -- and even survival itself" says Per Andersen. [emphasis added]

The arrogance described here is historically common; it has a connection to innovation theory and the research work done in the disk drive industry by Clayton Christiansen The Innovator's Dilemma: when new technologies cause great firms to fail (HBS Press, 1997).

According to Christiansen, great firms overlook disruptive technologies because they get caught in the trap of listening only to the feedback and opinions of their most profitable customers. New technologies tend to emerge with smaller companies in less-profitable market segments. By the time the large customers are evaluating the new technologies, it's too late for the established vendor to penetrate the new market. I fleshed this out a bit before on PlexNex: "Sustaining v. Disruptive Innovation".

Microsoft's MSECMAXML strategy is not necessarily fatal in itself if it should fail to produce a competive and dominant file format for office documents. But the potential time wasted (years!) while the company's next-gen software stack -- Vista -- becomes technically tied and dependent upon a file format which customers may reject could precipitate revenue declines. This itself isn't fatal, but it will be a shock to stockholders. Single-digit MSFT shares would signal new information about Microsoft to software markets -- that they haven't a clue how to cope with Free Software, the GPL or open standards which compete with their proprietary methods.

We know with Ray Ozzie, the opposite is true: that Microsoft has some very creative solutions pending. But an MSFT stock collapse would signal for a while a Microsoft Existential Crisis, which should feed back positively to the credibility of the open standard file format, OpenDocument. It will also help the software designed to interoperate with ODF in the messaging (Zimbra) and collaboration (Plone, Writely) spaces. 

ODF's Momentum & the Coming Referrendum

OpenDocument Format ("ODF") gained this week new momentum from national governments in Europe and Asia who are committing to the open standard file format for documents with confident statements of direction toward owning the data in their documents. Now Belgium and India join The Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the State of Minnesota, Bristol City Council, Denmark and some state agencies in France as Early Adopters of ODF policies or legislation. (All organizations who have already adopted Linux and OpenOffice are also in this group by default.)

There is nothing surprising in this, coming about a year after ODF's initial ratification as an ISO standard. (A year is the time it takes to mend a broken heart, and to get your smarter IT standards policies lined up.)

Now, with each new declaration for ODF, MSECMAXML will face a more Syssiphaean process getting votes next year at ISO. If Microsoft fails to establish a credible alternate set of purposes for their feaux "open" file formats which distinguish them from ODF, ISO approval will faulter and 1/3 of the global document format space (associated with state and municipal governments) will cede to ODF.

Outside the public sector, MSECMAXML has half a chance with the spendthrift Fortune 10,000. This lot are accustomed to outsourcing their corporate management to their very best and most respected IT vendor. They have already let Exchange in the house and will have little problem with SharePoint: these will appear to tie such awesome feature-sets for Global Computing Collaboration that managements will have a hard time rejecting the Vista file format (MSECMAXML) unless they are somehow made aware of the trade-off they are making...it is like nothing more than letting your 13-year-old daughter travel on the Led Zeppelin tour bus.

Flowering before our eyes is the coming market referrendum on monopolistic IT. Bend over and tell them who's your daddy.

Denmark is Important Because...

The Danish Parlimentary Resolution (June 2, 2006) in favor of open software standards, while it doesn't call out ODF by name, is critical to the accel