Replies

Call it a ban, prohibitted, resrticted, whatever else you want, but they all do the same thing, and that is foolishly limit what types of technology the government can use to perform its duties.

They already do this now. Microsoft would not have grown so large, if it were not for the government using it's power to commit violence on individuals and the power to take money in the form of taxes. Instead of telling use your tax money to prosecute people doing nothing but using the common law right to dispose of property that they purchased, the government should have been telling MS that they can't sue people for selling things they bought from them. It is like a author rescinding a book from me, that I gave to a friend.

All that aside, there is no ban. The feds have done the same thing, and told vendors to use particular formats/products/software for computer data, and they have been doing this since the 60s. Massachusetts picked a format that was developed to be non-proprietary, as they saw that XML was not a functional file format.

Your characterization of this in hysterical terms is ill founded in technology, as the Federal Government has been doing this for years. State governments being users of computer data is new, and up to recently, many were using outdated VT220 terminal mainframes. MS can complete easily with a filter, and the market will decide.

I would love to hear that using ADA as we had to some years ago for Defense contracts, and how RS-232 is a communist/socialist plot. Those are specified every day in specifications published in PDF (another open format) form, that cost you as a taxpayer a chunk of money to produce.

If anything the nonsense with patents is anti-conservative, as it chokes the free market and gives government a great amount of power to enforce the right to control ideas. It is important to note, without patents that are meant by our founding fathers to protect a owner for a limited time, the technology business would not be profitable. With patents that run forever, technology will stagnate as the free exchange of ideas envisioned by the Framers, will end in a flurry of lawsuits. Obviously, there is a balance to the length of time someone should enjoy patent protection.

The government should be limited, in fact as conservatives thats why we are here. If we want to give away software tools, and consumers, even government consumers, want to use it, using the power of law to prevent this is wrong. To tell a consumer, even a government consumer, that they can't make demands on the type of tools they want, is an abuse of the principles of limited government, which is one of the cornerstones of conservatism.

Call it a ban, prohibitted, resrticted, whatever else you want

lol, its called an IT acquisition policy and every serious organization has one. MA is merely saying that part of their software standards include support for ODF and that any vendor (open or closed) needs to support that standard. Nothing is banned, prohibited, or restricted save the final format of a document. If the software acquisition policy stated doc/xls/ppt (as the policy at my office does) the ramifications would be the same, any software that supported that software could be considered.

By mandating an open document format that no individual can limit MA has not limited the types of technology they have, in fact, expanded them. By sticking with a proprietary format you are *BY DEFINITION* limiting what technology can be used, by picking an open one you are giving every software vendor in the world a shot at filling your needs, and that includes Microsoft!

...that is foolishly limit what types of technology the government can use to perform its duties.

You claim to work for the DoD, yet you don't see any "limiting" of technology in RFQ from the gov't? Nothing about ADA must be used? Nothing about technical specs? Are you honestly trying to convey the impression that the gov't merely asks for a product and accepts whatever is delivered?

You're either lying about working for the DoD, or your whole argument about Mass. is just to get people riled up and you don't believe it yourself.