[CS-FSLUG] OpenDocument in Massachusetts: War of the Words

[Stephen J. McCracken]

Don Parris wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 12:17 +0800, Alan Trick wrote:
>> On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 21:56 -0400, Don Parris wrote:
>>> On 5/22/06, Alan Trick <alantrick at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 2006-05-22 at 14:01 -0400, Don Parris wrote:
> 
> <snip>
>>> My follow-up response is coming out tomorrow or Thursday.  Probably
>>> tomorrow. I'm calling him a glutton for embarrassment.  Well, it's
>>> getting to be really entertaining. ;-)
>>>
>>> Don
>> Maybe you should be a bit less sensationalist next time. Most of his
>> rebuttal was taking advantage of that in order to beat around the bush. 
>>
> Thanks.  You make a good point.  Hopefully, my upcoming response will
> bring it home quite well.  I'm still picking at him though. ;-)

Picking is sometimes considered "fun", but doesn't get you anywhere.
Just like I've heard here a few times about others not engaging the
argument, but turning to personal attack, "picking" can be a form of
that.  We need to be careful in this as Christians to not bring a bad
light on our Lord.

>> You also might want to bring up the fact that they're are OpenDocument
>> plugins for MS Office and that it's quite likely that much of the Mass.
>> government will still be using MS Office after this switchover.
>>
>> And you should let him know that open source has nothing to do with any
>> of this and neither does money – it's about freedom. His central point
>> – "that it’s bad policy to mandate open source procurement" is wrong.

The main thing I've seen wrong with both his articles is that he argues
about open source.  It seems most of his diatribe is against "shutting
out" Microsoft and mandating "open source" (which to him equates to
IBM).  Teach him that the fundamental premise in his argument is
flawed--that Open Document Format, though OpenOffice supports it, is an
open *standard*.  Standards are necessary in any business.  The decision
in Massachusetts is about a *standard* and doesn't mandate anything
about the product that produces it.  One has the choice to use whatever
program one chooses to produce the document.  Only the final document
format is dictated as Open Document Format.  It's not dictating *open
source*, but an *open standard*.

If you want to drive the point home, you might even take up the argument
that for Massachusetts to dictate the use of OpenOffice would be just as
bad (or even worse for the fact that it is still not as usable in some
aspects as other options) as dictating MS Office.  The situation isn't
about dictating the means, just the end.  Dictating any means would be
wrong.  The end, though, is another matter.

If we want the documents to be available to all, dictating an *open*
standard as the end is necessary.  Then all are freely able to use any
means possible to reach the openly defined end.  An end that is not
openly defined (the definition of the end is freely available) would be
wrong in that it effectively shuts out two groups.  The first would be
those wanting to enter into the competition in the production end
without access to the definition of the standard. The second group would
be those who wanted to be on the receiving end (i.e. those wanting to
read the documents) without access to the select group of programs
(those that had access to the standard's definition) to produce a means
to decode the format.

If you want, you could even pull in the related area of Free Trade
versus trade barriers.  Mostly, the US has stood for free trade and not
for artificial barriers thinking that free trade promotes good
competition and progress.  This whole thing in Massechusetts is
basically knocking down artificial trade barriers by giving everyone
access to the goal.  How many would think it fair to hold a competition
(race) where only half of those who entered would know the exact
definition of the goal (the finish line)?  This whole thing is about
giving everyone free access to know the finish line of the race.

I, personally, wouldn't go much farther in my rebuttal.  Leave all the
rest as periphery.  The rest isn't necessary to the argument, because it
comes from a flawed premise.

My thoughts.

sjm