Windows IT Pro is the leading independent community for IT professionals deploying Microsoft Windows server and client applications and technologies.
  
  
  Advanced Search 


January 17, 2005

Microsoft, Massachusetts Reach Accord on Office 2003

RSS
Subscribe to Windows IT Pro | See More News and Analysis Articles Here | Reprints | Or get the Monthly Online Pass—only $5.95 a month!

Microsoft has reached an agreement with Massachusetts that will result in the software giant easing its license restrictions for its Office 2003 document formats in return for the state dropping a previous requirement to only use document formats based on open standards. In early 2004, Massachusetts announced that it would require all state agencies to create and store information in document types based on open standards like HTML.

The goal of the format requirement was to ensure that the state could read digital documents in perpetuity and not have to worry about document conversions down the road if they adopted a format that was later abandoned by its maker. However, under terms of its agreement with Microsoft, Massachusetts has revised its requirement to include so-called "open formats" such as the XML-based document types supported by Office 2003 applications such as Word and Excel.

"[Microsoft has told] us recently [that] they're planning to modify [the Office 2003 document] license," said Eric Kriss, the secretary of administration and finance for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. "If they're to do so, it is our expectation that when we issue the next iteration of standards, then Microsoft's proprietary formats will deemed to be open formats because there are no longer restrictions on use."

In addition to Microsoft's XML-based document formats, Massachusetts will also use the PDF format, which is owned and controlled by Adobe, as well as other common document words such as TXT and RTF. The change is a huge blow to open source advocates, who saw last year's Massachusetts open standards requirement announcement as a win for open source solutions such as Linux and OpenOffice.org. Worldwide, open source solutions have been gaining traction in many country and local governments, but they have yet to see much success in US governmental bodies.

End of Article



Reader Comments
"The change is a huge blow to open source advocates, who saw last year's Massachusetts open standards requirement announcement as a win for open source solutions such as Linux and OpenOffice.org"

This reasoning is flawed and stupid. It's not because a program is open source, that the file formats it uses are necessarily STANDARDS. And a program can be closed source and still support open standard document formats.


Anonymous User January 18, 2005 (Article Rating: )


Right on, 'open source' is distinct in its defintion from 'standards based'. Why business software companies or open source organizations would see the Massachusetts decision as good or bad I don't see why. Heck, Massachusetts could define it's own file format standard to which software companies and open source organizations could design their software to comply with. Anonymous User, you are one smart cookie.

msgstephen January 18, 2005


fs

Anonymous User January 19, 2005


yeah, go MS

Anonymous User January 19, 2005


What's with the lame? Microsoft is just a company of people with hopes and dreams trying to make livings from selling software. I don't see what's wrong with that.

msgstephen January 21, 2005


What a lot of trype from 'msgstephen'; clearly he has never had to support IT&T in a complex work environment. Document format is one of the key issues in a successful archiving strategy. Does msgstephen what his government to loose his title deeds to his property because they no longer have the software to read the electronic document? I think not! Open document standards (as opposed to open software) is a very important issue. HTML is a 'lowest common denominator' that can support complex document layouts. If you don't have Office 2003, try and find a reader/viewer for Office XML documents (the Microsoft one does not work in my experience).

Contributors should think some of these issues through before they follow vendor passions blindly.

Anonymous User January 24, 2005


You must be a registered user or online subscriber to comment on this article. Please log on before posting a comment. Are you a new visitor? Register now




Top Viewed ArticlesView all articles
Command Prompt Tricks

One reader shares his tip for setting up the command prompt to reflect a remote path. ...

WinInfo Short Takes: Week of November 9, 2009

An often irreverent look at some of the week's other news, including some more Windows 7 sales momentum, some Sophos stupidity, Microsoft's cloud computing self-loathing, more whining from the browser makers, Zoho's "Fake Office," and much, much more ...

Understanding File-Size Limits on NTFS and FAT

A general confusion about files sizes on FAT seems to stem from FAT32's file-size limit of 4GB and partition-size limit of 2TB. ...


Related Events Check out our list of Free Email Newsletters!

News and Analysis eBooks Getting Maximum Performance from Your Web-based Applications

Business Process Automation - Managing Cost in Your Enterprise

Related News and Analysis Resources Introducing Left-Brain.com, the online IT bookstore
Looking for books, CDs, toolkits, eBooks? Prime your mind at Left-Brain.com

Discover Windows IT Pro eLearning Series!
Clear & detailed technical information and helpful how-to's, all in our trademark no-nonsense format


Windows IT Pro Home Register FAQ for Windows WinInfo News
Europe Edition About Us Contact Us/Customer Service Media Kit Affiliates / Licensing  
SQL Server Magazine Office & SharePoint Pro DevProConnections IT Job Hound
Left-Brain.com Technology Resource Directory asp.netPRO ITTV Windows SuperSite 
 
 Windows IT Pro is a Division of Penton Media Inc.
 © 2009 Penton Media, Inc. Terms of Use | Privacy Statement