In democracies, private companies and citizens are of course free to choose between products and services based on proprietary standards or open standards. Governments on the other hand have a responsibility to ensure that all citizens have equal and perpetual access to the state’s digital infrastructure. In other words, citizens should not be forced to pirate or purchase software in order to interact with the state. This is only possible if the state employs open standards thus giving equal access to users of proprietary and free software. In the last couple of years, many countries have formalised this preference for open standards in various policy pronouncements.
These policy developments and the rise of a competing open standard finally convinced Microsoft to develop and adopt Office Open XML (OOXML) as the default format for Office 2007. The competing open standard for electronic documents is Open Document Format (ODF) originally developed by Sun Microsystems.
Since ODF had already been approved by the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) in May 2006, Microsoft moved quickly.
First, it had OOXML approved as an Ecma standard on December 7, 2006. Then Ecma, with Microsoft’s support, submitted OOXML to the ISO for fast-track approval. In September 2007, OOXML missed its first chance for ISO approval because it secured only 17 out of 32 votes, five votes short of what was necessary. As per ISO procedure, a ballot resolution meeting was held this February to give the national board an opportunity to apply changes to the standard and also change the September voting positions. The final outcome of the fasttrack process will be announced by the end of this month.
There are technical, legal and ethical reasons behind the global opposition to OOXML. Only some of the technical reasons are real showstoppers while the rest can be fixed by the ISO, given adequate time. Many developers question the need for developing a new standard when ODF already exists. Some say that a lengthy standard (over 6000 pages) like OOXML should not have been fasttracked. Others complain that it lacks support for non-Latin and nonWestern needs and contains errors in the computational functions. The lack of adequate documentation in some areas and the facility to include proprietary Microsoft binary codes for backward compatibility are the real issues. This prevents both competing proprietary software and free software developers from fully implementing the standard.
The software patents associated with the standard are the main legal reason for opposing OOXML. Software patents are incompatible with free software licences. Microsoft has tried to address this by publishing an Open Specifications Promise. However, the Software Freedom Law Centre has recently issued a white paper which concludes that “the OSP does not provide any assurance to” free software developers. Additionally in the past, Microsoft has threatened to hit developing countries with patent suits for their use of Linux and has referred to the free software community as “communists” and Linux as “cancer”. As a consequence, most free software developers take their promises with a pinch of salt.
Finally and most importantly, on the ethical front, anti-OOXML campaigners question Microsoft’s lobbying in the national and international electronic standards setting process. They say that there are several instances where Microsoft has stuffed the national committees with their business partners and also coaxed national boards to join as voting members or upgrade their voting status at the ISO. Interestingly, of the 12 new national boards that joined the ISO after the OOXML process started, 10 voted “Yes” in the September ballot. According to The Wall Street Journal, the European Commission, which has already fined Microsoft $2.57 billion for anti-competitive behaviour, is currently investigating these allegations of committee stuffing.
It is good to see India providing policy leadership in this space. Just last week, the national board voted 13 to 5 to confirm its “No” vote against OOXML. Infosys, Wipro and TCS sided with Microsoft.
Those voting “No” included the Department of Information Technology (DIT), National Informatics Centre (NIC), Centre for the Development of Advanced Computing (CDAC), IIT-Mumbai, IIMAhmedabad, Red Hat, IBM and Sun Microsystems.
Regardless of which way the ISO vote on OOXML goes, there are two reasons to celebrate. One, policy-makers across the globe are increasingly aware of the importance of open standards in ensuring vendor independence, interoperability and healthy competition in the marketplace. And two, the overall march towards openness in electronic documents seems almost irreversible.
The writer is a Delhi-based free software campaigner sunil@mahiti.org
URL: http://epaper.indianexpress.com/Default.aspx?selpg=1392&selDt=03/27/2008&BMode=100