New subject: [SLE] MS Word, Federal standards, and Linux

18 Jun 2001

      And therein lays the rub.  The DMC act protects media formats and precludes 
any legislation related to that mandates uniformatey to Publically accessable 
documents in the government data bases and records.  But the side step here 
could be a convertion process in light of public interests and rights.  
Remember that copyrights, more over third party contracts (e.g. EULA), can 
not violate a citizens rights (especially Consitiutional - Good Luck with the 
Supreme Courts).  The real problem with any possible solution is, given the 
overall lack of knowledge and foresight that most legislators have on this 
issue, is the perception that this has no bearing to access to information in 
the public (not private) domain.  Due to the present level of involvement 
that many of the House and Senate commitees have shown in this area, the only 
way I can see to bring it to the forefront is via a corporate level.  If a 
consortium of industry leaders in the market were to approach this issue and 
the then follow this up with efforts by the consumer advocacy and other 
organizations like the ACLU (I know, I know), then the pressure would force 
the legislators to realistically address the issue.  How this would come 
about is unknown to myself.  

Just MHO.  Curtis

On Sunday 17 June 2001 02:26 pm, peter hollings wrote:
...
I agree that the critical issue is "public access to document formats".  It
doesn't matter that the Word format is technically inelegant, "bloated,"
etc.; the fact that so many people use it and have saved their documents
exclusively in this format creates a widespread dependency.  Microsoft's
EULA going back to at least Office 97 contains a clause prohibiting
"reverse engineering".  Suppose this were construed to prohibit anyone from
accessing the contents of (or creating) a Word "doc" file by any means
other than Microsoft-supplied software?
I'll attempt to partially answer this question:  I don't think that this
threat is very real on a retroactive basis - - there are just too many
converters in place and Microsoft would have to go against end users.  But
should a new "doc" format be developed, Microsoft would then be in a
position to sue the developers of any software capable of reading (or
creating) files in the new format.  Well, what about reverse engineering
the new format, GPL-ing it, and making it widely available like DeCSS? 
Might help, but mainstream corporate and non-technical users would be put
off by the need to locate and install a converter of questionable legality.
 And Microsoft might frustrate such a possibility by employing encryption
in the new "doc" format.  Also, Microsoft might address the concerns about
"access to information" mentioned by Curtis (see below) by distributing a
"doc" reader (like Adobe Acrobat).
Virtually every purchaser of Microsoft's products has to accept the
licensing terms as dictated by Microsoft.  Thus, there is little
possibility of a revolt against a potential new "doc" format and
enforcement of the anti-reverse engineering provisions.  I think the best
hope is the US government:  either through legislatively  placing critical
formats in the public domain, or, through its role as a very large
purchaser of software by dictating that all sellers of software to the
Government must place in the public domain the formats in which the
Government's information will be stored.  One obstacle here is the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act which, seemingly, pursues a solution in completely
the wrong way by legally protecting formats rather than the (intellectual
property) contents stored in those formats.
Peter Hollings
----- Original Message -----
From: "Curtis Rey" 
To: "Paul Abrahams" ; "SuSE listserve"

Sent: Sunday, June 17, 2001 1:04 PM
Subject: Re: [SLE] MS Word, Federal standards, and Linux
...
I think the key here is to bring the question of public access to
document formats into question.  I have to agree that Word format is the
de facto standard due to it's ubiquitous nature in the public domain. 
Remember
that
...
politicians pass the laws and in this case would only take action if the
public perceive that the government has an ulterior motive for allowing a
proprietary format to become the standard format.  In other words, If by
not
...
utilizing an M$ product a "citizen" is denied access to official local,
state, and federal documents and data bases that fall under the "freedom
of
...
information act" and "equal access" provisions of the law then It can be
perceived as an illigetimate and illegal use of government revenue to
support
...
this.   If a politician is put in the light of supporting or favoring a
proprietary product that benefits a private sector corporation (e.g. M$)
and
...
in doing so is denying any citizen access merely due to the product that
he/she has purchased then it can be vicariously interpreted as negative
with
...
connotations of collusion and or special interest activities.  Until you
get
...
the legislators to address an open "standard" then M$ products will
always have in unfair advantage and will unduly control the market by
developing formats that discludes others.  By passing legislation that
mandates that
all
...
governemt documents in digital media must adhere to a format that is
accessible to any product or technology that adheres to said proposed
standard the public is assured of access.  It can either come in the form
of
...
mandating M$ to give access to source for the Word format, or to adopt a
format that is standard on an international basis.  Given that M$ Word
formats are so ubiquitious in the public and private domain it would be
much
...
more concievable to mandate the source be opened.  The alternative to an
international standard adoption would follow in course due to the fact
the other competing software developers would be able to conform to the
Word format. This would allow any existing documentation to remain in
place
with
...
out have to convert massive amount of data at a substaintial cost to the
tax
...
payers and unduly using needed government resources and time.
IMHO.  Curtis
On Saturday 16 June 2001 11:13 am, Paul Abrahams wrote:
...
peter hollings wrote:
...
A great idea!  Why should our tax dollars go into any proprietary
technology?  Why not have a requirement that applied at the time of
purchase that said that the purchased software must save its
information
...
...
...
in open formats?  Why should our government buy software that stores
information (e.g., word processing documents) in a proprietary format
that not only is non-public, but under the terms of the purchaser's
license cannot be reverse engineered?  The public has a strong
interest
...
...
...
here and it seems that it's not being exercised for some reason,
perhaps
...
...
...
ignorance.
Well, the Word format is, I suppose, de facto proprietary, but that
could
...
...
be changed.   I doubt if the format itself is patentable.   What I'm
proposing is to open up a closed format but not discard it.
Paul
--
To unsubscribe send e-mail to suse-linux-e-unsubscribe@suse.com
For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com
Also check the FAQ at http://www.suse.com/support/faq and the
archives at http://lists.suse.com

Re: [SLE] MS Word, Federal standards, and Linux

Curtis Rey

Tor Sigurdsson

Anders Johansson

Paul Abrahams

Curtis Rey

Paul Abrahams

tags

participants (4)