OpenDocument and OpenOffice.org: Make It Yours 


There are four things that make OpenOffice.org important.

First is that it is Free and Open Source (FOSS). That means that its source—the human-readable code making up the application—is open for inspection, modifcation, distribution.

Third is that OpenOffice.org 2.0 is as capable a suite as any and interoperable with Microsoft Office, WordPerfect, StarSuite (which uses the code), and many others.

Fourth is that OpenOffice.org uses the OASIS standard OpenDocument file format.

We know why the others are important but why is this last so important? The OpenDocument format (ODF for short) is something that is now very appealing to governments and enterprises; it's more appealing even than open source. Why? Because it does not demand any change in production techniques while promising many of the same benefits of FOSS: democracy, civil participation, an open future. It promises these things because it is an open standard.

But what is an open standard? It is a protocol that is agreed upon by the international community and which is open for examination and implementation by any application. To repeat: Any application, free or not, can use the standard. A closed set of protocols (not sure if “standard” really makes sense if it is closed) in contrast is only available for use under license. The Web uses open standards and is globally popular and usable because it uses them, despite the best efforts of some companies. In the case of ODF, the OASIS standardising technical committee for office suites has agreed upon a set of specifications for an XML file format--the standard--and any equipped application can use this standard. OpenOffice.org, KOffice, both uses this standard, with OpenOffice.org being the best supporter of it. In theory, Microsoft Office could also use it, but it would take serious engineering effort for it to do so, on the order of 18 months, and so far there has been no indication that Microsoft is interested in investing this amount of work. In fact, Microsoft has repeatedly indicated it is not interested.

Now as to the point of the standard. Because any application can use the ODF, it is therefore resistant to the effects of time and space. A file saved using ODF today will be legible, in all likelihood, by an application using the standard years, even decades from now, for it does not depend for its existence on the market. In contrast, a proprietary standard depends for its continued existence on the luck of the market. If the company goes out of business or decides to arbitrarily change its standard--and both have happened--then everything created by that application becomes illegible and is lost. And to personalise it: If I created work using such an obsolete application my intellectual property, my property, is now lost. What seemed to be my property is now revealed not to be mine at all. Rather, it turns out I had only been leasing the space on which I wrote my thoughts and when it came time, the owner took it away.

Not so with an open standard. What is mine stays mine, is mine. For now, forever.

You can begin to see how this relates to civil and governmental institutions interested in preserving their intellectual property. Such institutions have a responsibility to posterity (the future) and to present citizens to ensure that the nation's intellectual wealth stays available to the nation's citizens: the people making up that nation now and in the future. Using an open standard like ODF to preserve the wealth is thus a responsible act. Using proprietary formats is irresponsible, at best.

But that's only part of the story. For an open standard does not specify open source. The creators could use whatever application they choose, even costly ones, though again, it would be financially irresponsible of government agencies to waste tax payer money on an application that does precisely what a free one does. It makes for good politics, I think, to say: I will save taxpayers millions by using FOSS applications like OOo and not proprietary ones. And not only will I save money, but I'll be also investing in applications with a future. And not only do these have a future but that future, I would argue, is the people's: For the great thing about FOSS if not open standards, is that FOSS encourages local development and local economies.

The story of OpenOffice.org then, is a compelling one: It not only utilises an open standard that ensures open access for now and forever but it also is built using open source, which promotes local enterprise and local economies while engaging in global development. With OpenOffice.org, the future is yours. With its proprietary alternative, the future is Bill's. Make it yours. 

There are four things that make OpenOffice.org important.

First is that it is Free and Open Source (FOSS). That means that its source—the human-readable code making up the application—is open for inspection, modifcation, distribution.

Second is that OpenOffice.org is supported by enterprises such as Sun, local companies such as Good-Day, Inc.

Third is that OpenOffice.org 2.0 is as capable a suite as any and interoperable with Microsoft Office, WordPerfect, StarSuite (which uses the code), and many others. It also runs on Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, FreeBSD, and so on.

Fourth is that OpenOffice.org uses the OASIS standard OpenDocument file format.

We know why the others are important but why is this last so important? The OpenDocument format (ODF for short) is something that is now very appealing to governments and enterprises; it's more appealing even than open source. Why? Because it does not demand any change in production techniques while promising many of the same benefits of FOSS: democracy, civil participation, an open future. It promises these things because it is an open standard.

But what is an open standard? It is a protocol that is agreed upon by the international community and which is open for examination and implementation by any application. To repeat: Any application, free or not, can use the standard. A closed set of protocols (not sure if “standard” really makes sense if it is closed) in contrast is only available for use under license. The Web uses open standards and is globally popular and usable because it uses them, despite the best efforts of some companies. In the case of ODF, the OASIS standardising technical committee for office suites has agreed upon a set of specifications for an XML file format--the standard--and any equipped application can use this standard. OpenOffice.org, KOffice, both uses this standard, with OpenOffice.org being the best supporter of it. In theory, Microsoft Office could also use it, but it would take serious engineering effort for it to do so, on the order of 18 months, and so far there has been no indication that Microsoft is interested in investing this amount of work. In fact, Microsoft has repeatedly indicated it is not interested.

Now as to the point of the standard. Because any application can use the ODF, it is therefore resistant to the effects of time and space. A file saved using ODF today will be legible, in all likelihood, by an application using the standard years, even decades from now, for it does not depend for its existence on the market. In contrast, a proprietary standard depends for its continued existence on the luck of the market. If the company goes out of business or decides to arbitrarily change its standard--and both have happened--then everything created by that application becomes illegible and is lost. And to personalise it: If I created work using such an obsolete application my intellectual property, my property, is now lost. What seemed to be my property is now revealed not to be mine at all. Rather, it turns out I had only been leasing the space on which I wrote my thoughts and when it came time, the owner took it away.

Not so with an open standard. What is mine stays mine, is mine. For now, forever.

You can begin to see how this relates to civil and governmental institutions interested in preserving their intellectual property. Such institutions have a responsibility to posterity (the future) and to present citizens to ensure that the nation's intellectual wealth stays available to the nation's citizens: the people making up that nation now and in the future. Using an open standard like ODF to preserve the wealth is thus a responsible act. Using proprietary formats is irresponsible, at best.

But that's only part of the story. For an open standard does not specify open source. The creators could use whatever application they choose, even costly ones, though again, it would be financially irresponsible of government agencies to waste tax payer money on an application that does precisely what a free one does. It makes for good politics, I think, to say: I will save taxpayers millions by using FOSS applications like OOo and not proprietary ones. And not only will I save money, but I'll be also investing in applications with a future. And not only do these have a future but that future, I would argue, is the people's: For the great thing about FOSS if not open standards, is that FOSS encourages local development and local economies.

The story of OpenOffice.org then, is a compelling one: It not only utilises an open standard that ensures open access for now and forever but it also is built using open source, which promotes local enterprise and local economies while engaging in global development. With OpenOffice.org, the future is yours. With its proprietary alternative, the future is Bill's. Make it yours. 

Posted: Sat - October 29, 2005 at 10:50 AM          

©