Difference between revisions of "OpenDocument adoption"

From Encyc
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
(26 intermediate revisions by 18 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{ntnes}}
This following is an overview of governments and other organizations around the world that are evaluating the use of [[OpenDocument]], an [[open format|open]] [[document file format]] for saving and exchanging editable office documents.
This following is an overview of governments and other organizations around the world that are evaluating the use of [[OpenDocument]], an [[open format|open]] [[document file format]] for saving and exchanging editable office documents.


==United States==
'''[[NATO]]''' with its 26 members (Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the UK, and the USA) uses ODF as a mandatory standard for all members.<ref>[http://nhqc3s.nato.int/architecture/_docs/NISPv2/volume2/ch03s04.html 3.4. NNEC Core Enterprise Services]</ref>
===Massachusetts===
{{Wikify|date=September 2007}}
The US state of [[Massachusetts]] has been examining its options for implementing XML-based document processing. In early 2005, [[Eric Kriss]], Secretary of Administration and Finance in [[Massachusetts]], was the first government official in the [[United States]] to publicly connect open formats to a public policy purpose: "It is an overriding imperative of the American democratic system that we cannot have our public documents locked up in some kind of proprietary format, perhaps unreadable in the future, or subject to a proprietary system license that restricts access." [http://www.mass.gov/eoaf/open_formats_comments.html]


At a [[September 16]] [[2005]] meeting with the [http://www.masoftware.org Mass Technology Leadership Council] Kriss stated that he believes this is fundamentally an issue of sovereignty. [http://danbricklin.com/log/2005_09_07.htm#meetingphotos] While supporting the principle of private intellectual property rights, he said sovereignty trumped any private company's attempt to control the state's public records through claims of intellectual property. [http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wiki.pl?OpenFormatMeetingSept2005]
== Africa ==
=== South Africa ===
On [[October 23]], [[2007]], the Department of Public Service and Administration of the [[Government of South Africa|South African government]] released [http://www.oss.gov.za/modules.php?op=modload&name=Downloads&file=index&req=getit&lid=13 a report on interoperability standards] in government information systems. It specifies ODF as the standard for "working office document formats" (with UTF-8/ASCII text and comma-separated values data as the only alternatives).<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.tectonic.co.za/view.php?src=rss&id=1838
|publisher=Tectonic
|title=South Africa adopts ODF as govt standard
|date=2007-10-24
|accessdate=2007-10-24
}}</ref>


Subsequently, in September 2005, Massachusetts became the first state to formally endorse [[OpenDocument]] formats for its public records and, at the same time, reject [[Microsoft|Microsoft's]] proprietary [[Extensible Markup Language|XML]] format, now named [[Microsoft Office Open XML]] format (see [[WordprocessingML]]). This decision was made after a two-year examination of file formats, including many discussions with Microsoft, other vendors, and various experts. [[Microsoft Office]], which has a nearly 100% market share among the state's employees, does not currently support OpenDocument formats. Microsoft had indicated that OpenDocument formats will not be supported in new versions of Office, even though they support many other formats (including [[ASCII]], [[Rich Text Format|RTF]], and [[WordPerfect]]), and analysts believe it would be easy for Microsoft to implement the standard. If Microsoft chooses not to implement OpenDocument, Microsoft will disqualify themselves from future consideration. Several analysts (such as Ovum) believe that Microsoft will eventually support OpenDocument.  On [[6 July]] [[2006]] Microsoft announced that they would support the OpenDocument format and create a plugin to allow Office to save to ODF.
Since April 2008 ODF is a national standard too, not only the standard to be used by government departments. South African code for the ODF standard is "SANS 26300:2008/ISO/IEC 26300:2006" <ref>https://www.sabs.co.za/Business_Units/Standards_SA/WebStore/search/detail.aspx?id=18646&lang=EN</ref>. By September 2008 all departments will be able to read and write in the Open Document Format. In 2009, ODF will become the default document format for South African government departments.<ref>[http://www.tectonic.co.za/?p=2365 Tectonic » South Africa adopts ODF as a national standard]</ref>


After this announcement by Massachusetts supporting OpenDocument, a large number of people and organizations spoke up about the policy, both pro and con (see the references section).  [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]], [[Corel]], [[IBM]], and [[Sun Microsystems|Sun]] all sent letters to Massachusetts supporting the measure. In contrast, Microsoft sent in a letter highly critical of the measure.  A group named "[[Citizens Against Government Waste]]" (CAGW) also opposed the decision. The group claimed that Massachusetts' policy established "an arbitrary preference for open source," though both open source software and proprietary software can implement the specification, and both kinds of developers were involved in creating the standard (CAGW, 2005). However, [[InternetNews]] and [[Linux Weekly News]] noted that CAGW has received funding from Microsoft, and that in 2001 CAGW was caught running an [[astroturfing]] campaign on behalf of Microsoft when two letters they submitted supporting Microsoft in Microsoft's anti-trust case were found to have the signatures of deceased persons (Linux Weekly News). [[James Prendergast]], executive director of a coalition named "[[Americans for Technology Leadership]]" (ATL), also criticized the state's decision in a [[Fox News]] article ([http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170724,00.html Prendergast 2005]). In the article, Prendergast failed to disclose that Microsoft is a founding member of ATL. Fox News later published a follow-up article disclosing that fact ([http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172063,00.html FOX News, 2005]; Jones, [[September 29]] [[2005]]).
== Asia ==
=== India ===
Chandershekhar, [[India]]'s secretary of [[Ministry of Communications and Information Technology (India)|Ministry of Information and Technology]], said, "We are glad to note that with formation of a National ODF alliance, India too would be playing a pivotal role in spearheading the ODF revolution. Further, considering the huge potential of eGovernance in the nation as well as the need to adopt open standards to make our data systems more inter-operable and independent of any limiting proprietary tools, we feel that ODF is a great technological leap and a big boon to further propel IT right to India's grass root levels. I congratulate this initiative of leading private & public organisations and wish them all the best in this endeavor."<ref>http://www.ciol.com/content/search/showarticle1.asp?artid=85632</ref>


[[State Senator]] [[Marc R. Pacheco]] and [[Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth|State Secretary]] [[William F. Galvin]] have expressed reservations about  this plan. Pacheco held a hearing on October 31, 2005, on the topic of OpenDocument.  Pacheco did not want OpenDocument to be declared as the executive branch standard, primarily on procedural grounds.  Pacheco believed that the [[executive branch]] had to receive permission to set an executive standard from the multi-branch IT Advisory Board. In contrast, The Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD), and its general council, believe the Advisory board's role is to advise ITD, and ITD did discuss the issue with the IT Advisory Board, but ITD's Peter Quinn and Linda Hamel (ITD's General Counsel) asserted that there is no requirement that "ITD approach the Advisory Board for permission to adopt policies that will impact only the Executive Department." Hamel later filed a legal briefing justifying ITD's position (Hamel, 2005). Massachusetts' [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court|Supreme Court]] has ruled that the various branches of government are prohibited from mandating IT standards on each other; this ruling appears to support ITD's claim. Pacheco also did not like the process used to select OpenDocument. However, Pacheco appears to have had many fundamental
The Allahabad High Court of India has decided, as policy, to use OpenDocument format for its documents.<ref>http://yksingh.blogspot.com/2006/06/open-document-format.html</ref><ref>[http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/faq.htm Frequently Asked questions]</ref>
misunderstandings of the issues. Andy Updegrove said that at the time, "Senator Pacheco doesn't understand the difference between open source and open standards (and certainly doesn't understand the difference between OpenDocument and OpenOffice). More than once, he indicated that he thought that the policy would require the Executive Agencies to use OpenOffice.org, not realizing that there are other compliant alternatives. He also thought that this would act to the detriment of Massachusetts software vendors, who (he thinks) would be excluded from doing business with the Commonwealth." Pacheco also thought that OpenOffice.org was under the [[GNU General Public License|GPL]], but in fact it is released under the [[GNU Lesser General Public License|LGPL]] (Jones, October 31, 2005) (Jones, November 14, 2005). He attempted to halt implementation of OpenDocument in the executive branch via an amendment (to S. 2256), but the amended bill was never sent to the [[Governor of Massachusetts|governor]].


Since then in 2007 Massachusetts has [http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=itdterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Policies%2c+Standards+%26+Guidance&L2=Drafts+for+Review&sid=Aitd&b=terminalcontent&f=policies_standards_etrmv4_etrmv4dot0revisions&csid=Aitd amended] its approved technical standards list to include [[Office Open XML]] which leds to notable ODF supporters stating that the progress of Opendocument would be halted. <ref> {{cite web
=== Japan ===
  + | url=http://www.linuxworld.com/news/2007/072307-opendocuments-grounded.html?page=1
On [[June 29]], [[2007]], the government of [[Japan]] published a new interoperability framework which gives preference to the procurement of products that follow open standards including the ODF standards.<ref>{{cite news
  + | title=Game over for OpenDocument?
|url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000546
  + | author=Gary Edwards and Buck "marbux" Martin
|publisher=Information Week
  + | date=2007-07-23 
|title=Office Software Formats Battle Moves To Asia
  + | accessdate=2007-07-27 }}</ref>  
|first=David
|last=Gardner
|date=2007-07-10
|accessdate=2007-07-27
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20070629014/20070629014.html
|publisher=Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan
|title=Interoperability framework for information systems (in Japanese)
|date=2007-06-29
|accessdate=2007-07-27
}}</ref> On [[July 2]] the government declared that they wouldn't stop from adopting alternative document formats, because they hold the view that formats like [[Office Open XML]] which other organizations such as [[Ecma International]] and ISO had also approved was, according to them, an open standard, too. Also, they said that it was one of the preferences, whether the format is open, to choose which software the government shall deploy.


====References====
=== Malaysia ===
In August, 2007, The Malaysian government announced plans to adopt open standards and the Open Document Format (ODF) within the country's public sector. The Malaysian Administration Modernization and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) issued a tender for a nine-month study to evaluate the usage of open standards. <ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62030781,00.htm
|publisher=ZDNet Asia
|title=Malaysia formally embraces Open Document Format
|first=Lynn
|last=Tan
|date=2007-08-13
|accessdate=2007-09-13
}}</ref>


Official Information Documents from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
From April 2008 on the use of ODF is mandatory within the public sector.<ref>[http://www.openmalaysiablog.com/2008/03/mampu-migrates.html Open Malaysia: MAMPU migrates to OpenOffice.org and ODF to increase freedom of choice and interoperability]</ref>
* [http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standards/etrmv4dot0/etrmv4dot0intro.rtf(RTF) Enterprise Open Standards Policy (ETRM) Version 4.0]


* [http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standards/etrmv4dot0/etrmv4dot0information.rtf (RTF) Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM) Version 4.0], effective [[juli]] [[2007]].
<!--
 
Adoption of OpenOffice.org does not implicate adoption of ODF - they could still set other formats as default file format -> need better references!
(to find the documents as HTML pages, go to [http://www.mass.gov http://www.mass.gov] and search for the documents, eg. "etrm")
=== Vietnam ===
 
In September 2007, more than 20,000 computers used at Party agencies nationwide will replace Microsoft Office with OpenOffice.org.<ref>{{cite news
===Other states and organizations in the US===
|url=http://english.vietnamnet.vn/tech/2007/09/739409/
In November, 2005, James Gallt, associate director for the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, said that a number of other state agencies are also exploring the use of OpenDocument (LaMonica, November 10, 2005).
|publisher=Vietnam Net Bridge
 
|title=Party agencies to no longer use Microsoft Office
In April, 2006, a bill was introduced in the Minnesota state legislature to require all state agencies to use open data formats. It is expected that the OpenDocument Format will be advanced as a way of meeting the proposed requirement. (Gardner, April 7, 2006).
|date=2007-09-11
 
|accessdate=2007-09-13
====References====
}}</ref>
* Gardner, W. David ([[April 7]] [[2006]]). [http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=184429732&subSection=Breaking+News "Minnesota Considers Mandatory Use Of ODF: It's another state battle that pits Microsoft's proprietary Office software on one side against supporters of the OpenDocument Format on the other"]. ''InformationWeek''.
-->
* LaMonica, Martin ([[November 10]] [[2005]]). [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed OpenDocument format gathers steam] ''CNET News.com'', published on ''ZDNet News''.


==Europe==
==Europe==


The [[European Commission]] has, since at least 2003, been investigating various options for storing documents in an XML-based format, commissioning technical studies such as the "Valoris Report" <ref>Valoris (2004). [http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=17982 Comparative Assessment of Open Documents Formats Market Overview] aka the "Valoris Report".</ref>. In March 2004, TAC asked an OpenOffice team and a Microsoft team to present on the relative merits of their XML-based office document formats <ref>Bray, Tim. ([[September 24]]-26 [[2004]]) [http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/09/24/SmartEC SmartEC] (Accessed on [[October 17]] [[2005]]. (Discussing Open Office XML ISO Certification).)</ref>.
The [[European Commission]] has, since at least 2003, been investigating various options for storing documents in an XML-based format, commissioning technical studies such as the "Valoris Report" <ref>Valoris (2004). [http://europa.eu.int/idabc/servlets/Doc?id=17982 Comparative Assessment of Open Documents Formats Market Overview] aka the "Valoris Report".</ref>. In March 2004, the Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC) asked an OpenOffice team and a Microsoft team to present on the relative merits of their XML-based office document formats <ref>Bray, Tim. ([[September 24]]-26 2004) [http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/09/24/SmartEC SmartEC] (Accessed on [[October 17]] [[2005]]. (Discussing Open Office XML ISO Certification).)</ref>.


In May 2004, the Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC) issued a set of recommendations, in particular noting that, "Because of its specific role in society, the public sector must avoid <nowiki>[a situation where]</nowiki> a specific product is forced on anyone interacting with it electronically. Conversely, any document format that does not discriminate against market actors and that can be implemented across platforms should be encouraged. Likewise, the public sector should avoid any format that does not safeguard equal opportunities to market actors to implement format-processing applications, especially where this might impose product selection on the side of citizens or businesses. In this respect standardisation initiatives will ensure not only a fair and competitive market but will also help safeguard the interoperability of implementing solutions whilst preserving competition and innovation." It then issued recommendations, including:
In May 2004, TAC issued a set of recommendations, in particular noting that, "Because of its specific role in society, the public sector must avoid <nowiki>[a situation where]</nowiki> a specific product is forced on anyone interacting with it electronically. Conversely, any document format that does not discriminate against market actors and that can be implemented across platforms should be encouraged. Likewise, the public sector should avoid any format that does not safeguard equal opportunities to market actors to implement format-processing applications, especially where this might impose product selection on the side of citizens or businesses. In this respect standardisation initiatives will ensure not only a fair and competitive market but will also help safeguard the interoperability of implementing solutions whilst preserving competition and innovation." It then issued recommendations, including:
* Industry actors not currently involved with the OASIS Open Document Format consider participating in the standardisation process in order to encourage a wider industry consensus around the format;
* Industry actors not currently involved with the OASIS Open Document Format consider participating in the standardisation process in order to encourage a wider industry consensus around the format;
* Microsoft considers issuing a public commitment to publish and provide non-discriminatory access to future versions of its WordML specifications;
* Microsoft considers issuing a public commitment to publish and provide non-discriminatory access to future versions of its WordML specifications;
Line 53: Line 77:
An official recommendation for a certain format was not issued however.
An official recommendation for a certain format was not issued however.


OpenDocument is already a standard by a recognized independent standards body (OASIS, in May 2005), and has been submitted to [[International Organization for Standardization|ISO]] for standardization.  The OpenDocument format was accepted as standard ISO/IEC 26300:2006 in November 2006. Microsoft submitted Office Open XML to the [[Ecma International|ECMA]] for standardization in November 2005 where it was accepted as standard in December 2006. Microsoft subsequently submitted Office Open XML to ISO.
OpenDocument is already a standard by a recognized independent standards body (OASIS, in May 2005), and has been submitted to [[International Organization for Standardization|ISO]] for standardization.  The OpenDocument format was accepted as standard ISO/IEC 26300:2006 in November 2006. Microsoft submitted [[Office Open XML]] to [[Ecma International]] for standardization in November 2005 where it was accepted as standard in December 2006.
Office Open XML was published as international standard ISO/IEC 29500:2008 in November 2008.


=== EU Definition of an open standard ===
===Belgium===
 
A memorandum on the use of open standards for creating and exchanging office documents was approved by [[Belgian federal government|Belgium's federal Council of Ministers]] on June 23, 2006. OpenDocument was proposed as the standard for exchanging office documents such as texts, spreadsheets, presentations within the federal civil service.<ref>Belgium's federal Council of Ministers. (2006) [http://presscenter.org/archive/20060623/432d0130470a88df1105dda38d1282b0/?lang=nl&prLang=en Open standards: Belgium's federal Council of Ministers approves ODF (Open Document Format)]. (Accessed on [[August 29]] [[2006]].)</ref>
 
From September 2007 on, every federal government department must be able to '''read''' OpenDocument documents. From September 2008 on, all '''exchanges''' of revisable documents (texts, presentations, spreadsheets) between federal government agencies must occur in ODF. This does not affect exchanges of documents with other government agencies (on regional, municipal or European level) and also does not affect exchanges of documents with citizens and companies.<ref>Techworld. (2006) [http://www.techworld.com/applications/news/index.cfm?newsID=6335&pagtype=all Belgium adopts OpenDocument]. (Accessed on [[August 29]] [[2006]].)</ref> However, Belgium is leaving the door open for Office Open XML.<ref>CNET News.com. (2006) [http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6087275.html Belgian government chooses OpenDocument]. (Accessed on [[August 29]] [[2006]].)</ref>
 
=== Bulgaria ===
Announced on 1 July 2016 that all software developed for the government must be open source.<ref name="Noisette">Thierry Noisette, "Chic le gouvernement choisit le logiciel libre. Zut, c’est en Bulgarie.", 6 July 2016</ref>
 
=== Finland ===
 
Finland's Ministry of Justice has chosen OpenOffice.org and thus the OpenDocument format as their main document format from the beginning of 2007. The decision was made after deep research of ODF possibilities. Other ministries may follow.<ref>[http://www.om.fi Oikeusministeriö - Justitieministeriet - Etusivu]</ref>
 
=== France ===
 
As of July 2016, only the gendarmerie had completely moved to LibreOffice.<ref name="Noisette" />
 
=== Germany ===
 
A large number of [[States of Germany|Bundesländer]], state and goverenmental offices and cities widely use products that support ODF (e.g. StarOffice, OpenOffice.org).{{Fact|date=December 2008}}
 
==== Federal ====
 
In December 2008 the governmental IT-Board of the [[Bundesregierung]] decided to make use of the ODF-Format in the Federal administration in order to improve IT-securtity and interoperability.<ref>Bundesministerium des Innern: [http://www.bmi.bund.de/cln_012/nn_122688/sid_E255A89BFD4FB3652A8B62532784B714/Internet/Content/Nachrichten/Pressemitteilungen/2008/12/ODF.html IT-Rat der Bundesregierung eröffnet den Einsatz offener Dokumentenformate (ODF)].</ref>


# The standard is adopted and will be maintained by a not-for-profit organisation, and its ongoing development occurs on the basis of an open decision-making procedure available to all interested parties (consensus or majority decision etc.).
The Federal Foreign Office has migrated totally to the use of ODF formats also in the 250 foreign offices abroad (it has reduced its IT costs to a third in comparison to other Ministries <ref>www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85977</ref>). In a message to the participants of the first international ODF-workshop in October 2007 <ref>www.odfworkshop.com</ref> the Federal Foreign Minister stated: "The Open Document Format, as a completely open and ISO standardized format, is an excellent vehicle for the free exchange of knowledge and information in the globalized age."<ref>http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/AAmt/071024-IT-ODFWorkshop,navCtx=23336.html</ref>
# The standard has been published and the standard specification document is available either freely or at a nominal charge. It must be permissible to all to copy, distribute and use it for no fee or at a nominal fee.
# The intellectual property - i.e. patents possibly present - of (parts of) the standard is made irrevocably available on a royalty-free basis.
# There are no constraints on the re-use of the standard. <ref name="EIF">EIF. (2004) [http://europa.eu.int/idabc/en/document/3761 European Interoperability Framework for pan-European eGovernment Services]. (Accessed on [[October 17]] [[2005]].)</ref>


More details about and the rationale for the EU's definition can be found in
The Federal office for security in IT (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik <ref>www.bsi.de/english/index.htm</ref>) uses with StarOffice on all computers the ODF format in a cast deployment.<ref>[http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85977 heise online - Auswärtiges Amt spart im IT-Bereich kräftig dank Open Source]</ref>
European Interoperability Framework for Pan-European eGovernment Services, Version 1.0 <ref name="EIF" />. Currently, OpenDocument fulfills all four of these requirements.


===Belgium===
Since September 2007 all communications with the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) and the [[Bundespatentgericht|Federal Patent Court]] (Bundespatentgericht) may be transmitted in the ODF format.<ref>[http://www.bundespatentgericht.de/bpatg/erv.html www.bundespatentgericht.de]</ref> The same has already applied for a while to other high courts (i.e. the Bundesarbeitsgericht<ref>[http://www.egvp.de/bearbeitung/bag/formate.htm Formatstandards / Versionen]</ref>, the Bundessozialgericht<ref>[http://www.egvp.de/bearbeitung/bsg/formate.htm Formatstandards / Versionen]</ref> and many other courts in the Bundesland of [[Nordrhein-Westfalen]] <ref>[http://www.egvp.de/bearbeitung/nordrhein-westfalen/ovg/formate.htm Formatstandards / Versionen]</ref> <ref>[http://www.egvp.de/bearbeitung/nordrhein-westfalen/fgduesseldorf/formate.htm Formatstandards / Versionen]</ref> and of the Free State of Saxony ([[Saxony|Sachsen]]) <ref>[http://www.egvp.de/bearbeitung/sachsen/registergerichte/formate.htm Formatstandards / Versionen]</ref>.


A memorandum on the use of open standards for creating and exchanging office documents was approved by Belgium's federal Council of Ministers on June 23, 2006. OpenDocument was proposed as the standard for exchanging office documents such as texts, spreadsheets, presentations within the federal civil service.<ref>Belgium's federal Council of Ministers. (2006) [http://presscenter.org/archive/20060623/432d0130470a88df1105dda38d1282b0/?lang=nl&prLang=en Open standards: Belgium's federal Council of Ministers approves ODF (Open Document Format)]. (Accessed on [[August 29]] [[2006]].)</ref>
==== Bundesländer ====


From September 2007 on every federal government department must be able to '''read''' OpenDocument documents. From September 2008 on, all '''exchanges''' of revisable documents (texts, presentations, spreadsheets) between federal government agencies must occur in ODF. This does not affect exchanges of documents with other government agencies (on regional, municipal or European level) and also does not affect exchanges of documents with citizens and companies. <ref>Techworld. (2006) [http://www.techworld.com/applications/news/index.cfm?newsID=6335&pagtype=all Belgium adopts OpenDocument]. (Accessed on [[August 29]] [[2006]].)</ref>. However, Belgium is leaving the door open for Office Open XML<ref>CNET News.com. (2006) [http://news.com.com/2100-7344_3-6087275.html Belgian government chooses OpenDocument]. (Accessed on [[August 29]] [[2006]].)</ref>.
The City of [[Freiburg]] uses OpenOffice.org and OpenDocument.<ref>[http://www.freiburg.de/servlet/PB/menu/1167453/index.html Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau: Offene Standards in der öffentlichen Verwaltung]</ref>
<!--
Adoption of OpenOffice.org does not implicate adoption of ODF - they could still set other formats as default file format -> need better references!
The City of [[Munich]] has already migrated 5000 desktops to OpenOffice.org (Oct. 2007, 10.000 will follow) while migrating as a whole to Linux.<ref>www.muenchen.de/limux</ref>
-->


=== Finland ===
=== Italy ===


Finland's Ministry of Justice has chosen Open Office and thus the OpenDocument format as their main document format from the beginning of 2007. The decision has been made after deep research of ODF possibilities. Other ministries may follow. [http://www.om.fi]
By 2020, the Italian Department of Defense is slated to have converted to LibreOffice.<ref name="Noisette" />


=== Netherlands ===
=== Netherlands ===


From beginning of 2009 onwards ODF will be the standard for reading, publishing and the exchange of information for all governmental organisations.
From the beginning of 2009 onwards, [[Open source|open source software]] and the ODF format will be the standard for reading, publishing and the exchange of information for all governmental organisations. Whenever the software used is not open source special reasons have to be given.<ref>[http://gotze.eu/2007/09/netherlands-picks-odf.html GotzeBlogged » Blog Archive » Netherlands Picks ODF]</ref><ref>[http://minez.nl/content.jsp?objectid=153176&rid=home Ministerie van Economische Zaken - Verplicht gebruik open standaarden bij overheid]</ref>


[http://gotze.eu/2007/09/netherlands-picks-odf.html]
===Norway===
[http://minez.nl/content.jsp?objectid=153176&rid=home]
[[Norwegian Ministry of Government Administration and Reform|Norway's Ministry of Government Administration and Reform]] decided in December 2007 that ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) '''MUST''' be used from 2009 when publishing documents that are meant to be changed after downloading, i.e. forms that are to be filled in by the user. So all website forums will use this format.<ref>[http://www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/fad/pressesenter/pressemeldinger/2007/Opne-dokumentstandardar-blir-obligatoris.html?id=494810 Open document standards to be obligatory for state information - regjeringen.no]</ref>
 
===Portugal===
The [[Portugal|Portuguese]] Parliament will discuss a bill (proposed in 2008 by [[Portuguese Communist Party|PCP]]) which determines that the adoption of open standard formats – namely ODF – shall be mandatory within all public administration agencies.<ref>[http://www.parlamento.pt/ActividadeParlamentar/Paginas/DetalheIniciativa.aspx?BID=34060 Projecto de Lei 577/X (Bill 577/X)]</ref>
 
=== Slovakia ===
In [[Slovakia]] all public authorities should be able to read ODF format since August 2006 and can use this format for electronic communication and for publication of documents.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.informatizacia.sk/ext_dok-vynos_o_standardoch_pre_isvs_1706/722c
|publisher=Ministry of Economy, Slovak republic
|title=Standards for IS (informations systems) in public authorities in Slovak republic no. 1706/M-2006
|date=2006-08-01
|accessdate=2006-08-01
}}</ref>
Since October 2008 public authorities must be able to read ODF format. <ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.informatizacia.sk/standardy-is-vs/596s
|publisher=Ministry of Economy, Slovak republic
|title=Standards for IS (informations systems) in public authorities in Slovak republic no. MF/013261/2008-132
|date=2008-10-01
|accessdate=2008-10-01
}}</ref>
In 2009, documents in ODF format will be allowed for use with electronic signature.<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.nbusr.sk/ipublisher/files/nbusr.sk/legislativa/docs_leg/lp080708/material.pdf
|publisher=National Security Authority, Slovak republic
|title=amandment to 542 DECREE of the National Security Authority of 9 September 2002 on the manner and procedure of using an electronic signature in commercial and administrative intercourse
|date=2009-01-01
|accessdate=2009-01-01
}}</ref>
 
=== Sweden ===
[[Sweden]] has published ODF 1.0 as a national in August 2008.<ref>http://www.sis.se/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabName=@DocType_1&Doc_ID=66727
</ref> This has not been announced officially.<ref>http://www.peterkrantz.com/2008/odf-approved-as-swedish-standard/</ref> The standards institute only added the prefix "SS" before the ISO number SS-ISO/IEC 26300:2008.


===United Kingdom===
===United Kingdom===


BECTA (British Education Communication Technology Agency) is the UK agency in charge of defining information technology (IT) policy for all schools in the United Kingdom, including standards for all the schools' infrastructure. In 2005 they published a comprehensive document describing the policy for infrastructure in schools.   
[[BECTA]] (British Education Communication Technology Agency) is the UK agency in charge of defining information technology (IT) policy for all schools in the United Kingdom, including standards for all the schools' infrastructure. In 2005 they published a comprehensive document describing the policy for infrastructure in schools.   


This document highly recommends the use of OpenDocument and a few other formats for office document data. BECTA explains this as follows: "Any office application used by institutions must be able to be saved to (and so viewed by others) using a commonly agreed format that ensures an institution is not locked into using specific software. The main aim is for all office based applications to provide functionality to meet the specifications described here (whether licensed software, open source or unlicensed freeware) and thus many application providers could supply the educational institution ICT market.".
This document highly recommends the use of OpenDocument and a few other formats for office document data. BECTA explains this as follows: "Any office application used by institutions must be able to be saved to (and so viewed by others) using a commonly agreed format that ensures an institution is not locked into using specific software. The main aim is for all office based applications to provide functionality to meet the specifications described here (whether licensed software, open source or unlicensed freeware) and thus many application providers could supply the educational institution ICT market.".
Line 95: Line 173:
</ref>
</ref>


=== Slovakia ===
==South America==
=== Argentina ===
In September 2007 the Argentinian Province of [[Misiones]] decided via decrete that the use of ODF shall be mandatory within the government.<ref>[http://www.misiones.gov.ar/egov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=144&Itemid=2 Gobierno Electrónico de la Provincia de Misiones]</ref> Around a million people live in this province, which is one of the 23 provinces of Argentina. 
 
=== Brazil ===
With the publication of "e-Ping Interoperability Framework"<ref>[https://www.governoeletronico.gov.br/acoes-e-projetos/e-ping-padroes-de-interoperabilidade/versoes-do-documento-da-e-ping e-Ping Interoperability Framework]</ref>, Brazil became the first South American country to officially recommend the adoption of OpenDocuments within the government.
 
As stated in the latest text (v3.0 of 2007): "Preferred adoption of Open Formats: e-PING defines that, whenever possible, open standards will be used in technical specifications. "Proprietary standards" will be accepted, in this transition period, with the perspective of replacement as soon as there are conditions for a complete migration. With no loss to these goals, are to be respected those situations when there is the need to consider security requisites and information integrity. When available, Free Software solutions are to be considered preferential, accordingly with the policy defined by the Comitê Executivo de Governo Eletrônico(CEGE)"
 
Since April 2008 ODF is a national standard in Brazil, coded as NBRISO/IEC26300.<ref>[https://www.abntnet.com.br/fidetail.aspx?FonteID=40911 NBR ISO/IEC 26300]</ref>


[http://www.telecom.gov.sk/index/open_file.php?file=infospol/standardy/Vynos_o_standardoch_ISVS.pdf]
=== Uruguay ===
Since June 2008 the "Agency for the Development of Government Electronic Management and Information and Knowledge Society of Uruguay" recommends that public documents use either ODF or PDF. ODF should be used for documents in the process of being edited and the latter for documents in final form.
<ref>http://www.agesic.gub.uy/Sitio/descargas/Estandares_de_Ofimatica_v08.pdf</ref>


== Other governments ==
==North America (esp. United States)==
===Australia===
===Massachusetts===
The [[US]] [[U.S. state|state]] of [[Massachusetts]] has been examining its options for implementing [[XML]]-based document processing. In early 2005, [[Eric Kriss]], Secretary of Administration and Finance in [[Massachusetts]], was the first [[government]] official in the [[United States]] to publicly connect open formats to a public policy purpose: "It is an overriding imperative of the American [[democratic]] system that we cannot have our public documents locked up in some kind of proprietary format, perhaps unreadable in the future, or subject to a proprietary system license that restricts access."<ref>[http://www.mass.gov/eoaf/open_formats_comments.html Administration and Finance]</ref>


It was announced on 31 March, 2006, that the [[National Archives of Australia]] had settled on OpenDocument as their choice for a cross-platform/application document format.
At a [[September 16]] [[2005]] meeting with the [http://www.masoftware.org Mass Technology Leadership Council] Kriss stated that he believes this is fundamentally an issue of sovereignty.<ref>[http://danbricklin.com/log/2005_09_07.htm#meetingphotos Starting September 7, 2005]</ref> While supporting the principle of private intellectual property rights, he said sovereignty trumped any private company's attempt to control the state's public records through claims of intellectual property.<ref>[http://www.softwaregarden.com/cgi-bin/oss-sig/wiki.pl?OpenFormatMeetingSept2005 MTLC Open Source SIG Wiki: OpenFormatMeetingSept2005]</ref>


=== India ===
Subsequently, in September 2005, Massachusetts became the first state to formally endorse [[OpenDocument]] formats for its public records and, at the same time, reject [[Microsoft|Microsoft's]] new [[Extensible Markup Language|XML]] format, now standardized as ISO/IEC 29500:2008 — [[Office Open XML]].  This decision was made after a two-year examination of file formats, including many discussions with Microsoft, other vendors, and various experts, plus some limited trial programs in individual communities like [[Saugus, Massachusetts|Saugus]] and [[Billerica, Massachusetts|Billerica]]. [[Microsoft Office]], which has a nearly 100% market share among the state's employees, does not currently support OpenDocument formats. Microsoft had indicated that OpenDocument formats will not be supported in new versions of Office, even though they support many other formats (including [[ASCII]], [[Rich Text Format|RTF]], and [[WordPerfect]]), and analysts believe it would be easy for Microsoft to implement the standard.  If Microsoft chooses not to implement OpenDocument, Microsoft will disqualify themselves from future consideration.  Several analysts (such as Ovum) believe that Microsoft will eventually support OpenDocument.  On [[6 July]] [[2006]] Microsoft announced that they would support the OpenDocument format and create a plugin to allow Office to save to ODF.


Chandershekhar, India's secretary of Ministry of Information and Technologysaid, "We are glad to note that with formation of a National ODF alliance, India too would be playing a pivotal role in spearheading the ODF revolution. Further, considering the huge potential of eGovernance in the nation as well as the need to adopt open standards to make our data systems more inter-operable and independent of any limiting proprietary tools, we feel that ODF is a great technological leap and a big boon to further propel IT right to India's grass root levels. I congratulate this initiative of leading private & public organisations and wish them all the best in this endeavor." [http://www.ciol.com/content/search/showarticle1.asp?artid=85632]
After this announcement by Massachusetts supporting OpenDocument, a large number of people and organizations spoke up about the policy, both pro and con (see the references section). [[Adobe Systems|Adobe]], [[Corel]], [[IBM]], and [[Sun Microsystems|Sun]] all sent letters to Massachusetts supporting the measure.  In contrast, Microsoft sent in a letter highly critical of the measure.  A group named "[[Citizens Against Government Waste]]" (CAGW) also opposed the decision. The group claimed that Massachusetts' policy established "an arbitrary preference for open source," though both open source software and proprietary software can implement the specification, and both kinds of developers were involved in creating the standard (CAGW, 2005). However, [[InternetNews]] and [[Linux Weekly News]] noted that CAGW has received funding from Microsoft, and that in 2001 CAGW was caught running an [[astroturfing]] campaign on behalf of Microsoft when two letters they submitted supporting Microsoft in Microsoft's anti-trust case were found to have the signatures of deceased persons (Linux Weekly News). [[James Prendergast]], executive director of a coalition named "[[Americans for Technology Leadership]]" (ATL), also criticized the state's decision in a [[Fox News]] article.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,170724,00.html Prendergast 2005]</ref> In the article, Prendergast failed to disclose that Microsoft is a founding member of ATL. Fox News later published a follow-up article disclosing that fact.<ref>[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172063,00.html FOX News, 2005]; Jones, [[September 29]] [[2005]]</ref>


The Allahabad High Court of India has decided, as policy, to use OpenDocument format for its documents. [http://yksingh.blogspot.com/2006/06/open-document-format.html] [http://www.allahabadhighcourt.in/faq.htm]
[[State Senator]] [[Marc R. Pacheco]] and [[Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth|State Secretary]] [[William F. Galvin]] have expressed reservations about  this plan. Pacheco held a hearing on October 31, 2005, on the topic of OpenDocument.  Pacheco did not want OpenDocument to be declared as the executive branch standard, primarily on procedural grounds.  Pacheco believed that the [[executive branch]] had to receive permission to set an executive standard from the multi-branch IT Advisory Board. In contrast, The Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD), and its general council, believe the Advisory board's role is to advise ITD, and ITD did discuss the issue with the IT Advisory Board, but ITD's Peter Quinn and Linda Hamel (ITD's General Counsel) asserted that there is no requirement that "ITD approach the Advisory Board for permission to adopt policies that will impact only the Executive Department." Hamel later filed a legal briefing justifying ITD's position (Hamel, 2005). Massachusetts' [[Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court|Supreme Court]] has ruled that the various branches of government are prohibited from mandating IT standards on each other; this ruling appears to support ITD's claim.  Pacheco also did not like the process used to select OpenDocument. However, Pacheco appears to have had many fundamental
misunderstandings of the issues. Andy Updegrove said that at the time, "Senator Pacheco doesn't understand the difference between open source and open standards (and certainly doesn't understand the difference between OpenDocument and OpenOffice). More than once, he indicated that he thought that the policy would require the Executive Agencies to use OpenOffice.org, not realizing that there are other compliant alternatives. He also thought that this would act to the detriment of Massachusetts software vendors, who (he thinks) would be excluded from doing business with the Commonwealth." Pacheco also thought that OpenOffice.org was under the [[GNU General Public License|GPL]], but in fact it is released under the [[GNU Lesser General Public License|LGPL]] (Jones, October 31, 2005) (Jones, November 14, 2005). He attempted to halt implementation of OpenDocument in the executive branch via an amendment (to S. 2256), but the amended bill was never sent to the [[Governor of Massachusetts|governor]].


=== Japan ===
Since then in 2007 Massachusetts has [http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=itdterminal&L=3&L0=Home&L1=Policies%2c+Standards+%26+Guidance&L2=Drafts+for+Review&sid=Aitd&b=terminalcontent&f=policies_standards_etrmv4_etrmv4dot0revisions&csid=Aitd amended] its approved technical standards list to include [[Office Open XML]].


On [[June 29]], [[2007]], the government of [[Japan]] published a new interoperability framework which gives preference to the procurement of products that follow open standards including the ODF standards.<ref>{{cite news
====References====
|url=http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000546
|publisher=Information Week
|title=Office Software Formats Battle Moves To Asia
|first=David
|last=Gardner
|date=2007-07-10
|accessdate=2007-07-27
}}</ref><ref>{{cite news
|url=http://www.meti.go.jp/press/20070629014/20070629014.html
|publisher=Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan
|title=Interoperability framework for information systems (in Japanese)
|date=2007-06-29
|accessdate=2007-07-27
}}</ref>


=== Malaysia ===
Official Information Documents from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:
In August, [[2007]], The Malaysian government announced plans to adopt open standards and the Open Document Format (ODF) within the country's public sector. The Malaysian Administration Modernization and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) issued a tender for a nine-month study to evaluate the usage of open standards. <ref>{{cite news
* [http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standards/etrmv4dot0/etrmv4dot0intro.rtf(RTF) Enterprise Open Standards Policy (ETRM) Version 4.0]
|url=http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/software/0,39044164,62030781,00.htm
* [http://www.mass.gov/Aitd/docs/policies_standards/etrmv4dot0/etrmv4dot0information.rtf (RTF) Enterprise Technical Reference Model (ETRM) Version 4.0], effective July 2007.
|publisher=ZDNet Asia
|title=Malaysia formally embraces Open Document Format
|first=Lynn
|last=Tan
|date=2007-08-13
|accessdate=2007-09-13
}}</ref>


=== Peru ===
(to find the documents as HTML pages, go to [http://www.mass.gov http://www.mass.gov] and search for the documents, eg. "etrm")
In [[2002]], [[Dr. Edgar David Villanueva Nuñes]], a [[lawyer]] and [[Congressman]] of the Republic of [[Perú]], [http://www.gnu.org.pe/resmseng.html wrote a letter] to Microsoft Peru raising questions about free and permanent document access with proprietary formats.


=== Vietnam ===
===Other states and organizations in the US===
In September [[2007]], more than 20,000 computers used at Party agencies nationwide will replace Microsoft Office  with OpenOffice.org.
In November, 2005, James Gallt, associate director for the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, said that a number of other state agencies are also exploring the use of OpenDocument (LaMonica, November 10, 2005).
<ref>{{cite news
|url=http://english.vietnamnet.vn/tech/2007/09/739409/
|publisher=Vietnam Net Bridge
|title=Party agencies to no longer use Microsoft Office
|date=2007-09-11
|accessdate=2007-09-13
}}</ref>


=== Other ===
In April, 2006, a bill was introduced in the Minnesota state legislature to require all state agencies to use open data formats. It is expected that the OpenDocument Format will be advanced as a way of meeting the proposed requirement. (Gardner, April 7, 2006).


According to OASIS' OpenDocument datasheet, "Singapore's Ministry of Defence, France's Ministry of Finance and its Ministry of Economy, Finance, and Industry, Brazil's Ministry of Health, the City of Munich, Germany, UK's Bristol City Council, and the City of Vienna in Austria are all adopting applications that support OpenDocument." (OASIS, 2005b).
In late 2007 and early 2008, New York State issued [http://www.oft.state.ny.us/oftnews/erecords-study.htm a Request for Public Comment concerning electronic records policy].


== See also ==
====References====
[http://mass.gov/open Massachusetts Open Initiatives]
* Gardner, W. David ([[April 7]] [[2006]]). [http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=184429732&subSection=Breaking+News "Minnesota Considers Mandatory Use Of ODF: It's another state battle that pits Microsoft's proprietary Office software on one side against supporters of the OpenDocument Format on the other"]. ''InformationWeek''.
* LaMonica, Martin ([[November 10]] [[2005]]). [http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5942913.html?tag=zdfd.newsfeed OpenDocument format gathers steam] ''CNET News.com'', published on ''ZDNet News''.


== References ==
== Other regions ==
===Australia===
It was announced on [[31 March]], [[2006]], that the [[National Archives of Australia]] had settled on OpenDocument as their choice for a cross-platform/application document format.


{{reflist|2}}
=== Other ===
According to OASIS' OpenDocument datasheet, "Singapore's Ministry of Defence, France's Ministry of Finance and its Ministry of Economy, Finance, and Industry, Brazil's Ministry of Health, the City of Munich, Germany, UK's Bristol City Council, and the City of Vienna in Austria are all adopting applications that support OpenDocument." (OASIS, 2005b).


== References ==
{{reflist|3}}
{{refbegin}}
* OASIS (2005b). [http://www.oasis-open.org/who/data_sheets/OASIS-opendocument-datasht-a4-05-06-20.pdf OASIS OpenDocument datasheet]. Accessed on [[October 17]] [[2005]].
* OASIS (2005b). [http://www.oasis-open.org/who/data_sheets/OASIS-opendocument-datasht-a4-05-06-20.pdf OASIS OpenDocument datasheet]. Accessed on [[October 17]] [[2005]].
{{refend}}
== External links ==
*[http://mass.gov/open Massachusetts Open Initiatives]


[[Category:OpenDocument]]
[[Category:OpenDocument]]


[[sk:Prijatie ODF v Európe]]
[[sk:Prijatie ODF v Európe]]

Latest revision as of 22:49, 24 February 2017

This following is an overview of governments and other organizations around the world that are evaluating the use of OpenDocument, an open document file format for saving and exchanging editable office documents.

NATO with its 26 members (Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey, the UK, and the USA) uses ODF as a mandatory standard for all members.[1]

Africa

South Africa

On October 23, 2007, the Department of Public Service and Administration of the South African government released a report on interoperability standards in government information systems. It specifies ODF as the standard for "working office document formats" (with UTF-8/ASCII text and comma-separated values data as the only alternatives).[2]

Since April 2008 ODF is a national standard too, not only the standard to be used by government departments. South African code for the ODF standard is "SANS 26300:2008/ISO/IEC 26300:2006" [3]. By September 2008 all departments will be able to read and write in the Open Document Format. In 2009, ODF will become the default document format for South African government departments.[4]

Asia

India

Chandershekhar, India's secretary of Ministry of Information and Technology, said, "We are glad to note that with formation of a National ODF alliance, India too would be playing a pivotal role in spearheading the ODF revolution. Further, considering the huge potential of eGovernance in the nation as well as the need to adopt open standards to make our data systems more inter-operable and independent of any limiting proprietary tools, we feel that ODF is a great technological leap and a big boon to further propel IT right to India's grass root levels. I congratulate this initiative of leading private & public organisations and wish them all the best in this endeavor."[5]

The Allahabad High Court of India has decided, as policy, to use OpenDocument format for its documents.[6][7]

Japan

On June 29, 2007, the government of Japan published a new interoperability framework which gives preference to the procurement of products that follow open standards including the ODF standards.[8][9] On July 2 the government declared that they wouldn't stop from adopting alternative document formats, because they hold the view that formats like Office Open XML which other organizations such as Ecma International and ISO had also approved was, according to them, an open standard, too. Also, they said that it was one of the preferences, whether the format is open, to choose which software the government shall deploy.

Malaysia

In August, 2007, The Malaysian government announced plans to adopt open standards and the Open Document Format (ODF) within the country's public sector. The Malaysian Administration Modernization and Management Planning Unit (MAMPU) issued a tender for a nine-month study to evaluate the usage of open standards. [10]

From April 2008 on the use of ODF is mandatory within the public sector.[11]


Europe

The European Commission has, since at least 2003, been investigating various options for storing documents in an XML-based format, commissioning technical studies such as the "Valoris Report" [12]. In March 2004, the Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC) asked an OpenOffice team and a Microsoft team to present on the relative merits of their XML-based office document formats [13].

In May 2004, TAC issued a set of recommendations, in particular noting that, "Because of its specific role in society, the public sector must avoid [a situation where] a specific product is forced on anyone interacting with it electronically. Conversely, any document format that does not discriminate against market actors and that can be implemented across platforms should be encouraged. Likewise, the public sector should avoid any format that does not safeguard equal opportunities to market actors to implement format-processing applications, especially where this might impose product selection on the side of citizens or businesses. In this respect standardisation initiatives will ensure not only a fair and competitive market but will also help safeguard the interoperability of implementing solutions whilst preserving competition and innovation." It then issued recommendations, including:

  • Industry actors not currently involved with the OASIS Open Document Format consider participating in the standardisation process in order to encourage a wider industry consensus around the format;
  • Microsoft considers issuing a public commitment to publish and provide non-discriminatory access to future versions of its WordML specifications;
  • Microsoft should consider the merits of submitting XML formats to an international standards body of their choice;
  • Industry is encouraged to provide filters that allow documents based on the WordML specifications and the emerging OASIS Open Document Format to be read and written to other applications whilst maintaining a maximum degree of faithfulness to content, structure and presentation. These filters should be made available for all products;
  • The public sector is encouraged to provide its information through several formats. Where by choice or circumstance only a single revisable document format can be used this should be for a format around which there is industry consensus, as demonstrated by the format's adoption as a standard. [14]

An official recommendation for a certain format was not issued however.

OpenDocument is already a standard by a recognized independent standards body (OASIS, in May 2005), and has been submitted to ISO for standardization. The OpenDocument format was accepted as standard ISO/IEC 26300:2006 in November 2006. Microsoft submitted Office Open XML to Ecma International for standardization in November 2005 where it was accepted as standard in December 2006. Office Open XML was published as international standard ISO/IEC 29500:2008 in November 2008.

Belgium

A memorandum on the use of open standards for creating and exchanging office documents was approved by Belgium's federal Council of Ministers on June 23, 2006. OpenDocument was proposed as the standard for exchanging office documents such as texts, spreadsheets, presentations within the federal civil service.[15]

From September 2007 on, every federal government department must be able to read OpenDocument documents. From September 2008 on, all exchanges of revisable documents (texts, presentations, spreadsheets) between federal government agencies must occur in ODF. This does not affect exchanges of documents with other government agencies (on regional, municipal or European level) and also does not affect exchanges of documents with citizens and companies.[16] However, Belgium is leaving the door open for Office Open XML.[17]

Bulgaria

Announced on 1 July 2016 that all software developed for the government must be open source.[18]

Finland

Finland's Ministry of Justice has chosen OpenOffice.org and thus the OpenDocument format as their main document format from the beginning of 2007. The decision was made after deep research of ODF possibilities. Other ministries may follow.[19]

France

As of July 2016, only the gendarmerie had completely moved to LibreOffice.[18]

Germany

A large number of Bundesländer, state and goverenmental offices and cities widely use products that support ODF (e.g. StarOffice, OpenOffice.org).[citation needed]

Federal

In December 2008 the governmental IT-Board of the Bundesregierung decided to make use of the ODF-Format in the Federal administration in order to improve IT-securtity and interoperability.[20]

The Federal Foreign Office has migrated totally to the use of ODF formats also in the 250 foreign offices abroad (it has reduced its IT costs to a third in comparison to other Ministries [21]). In a message to the participants of the first international ODF-workshop in October 2007 [22] the Federal Foreign Minister stated: "The Open Document Format, as a completely open and ISO standardized format, is an excellent vehicle for the free exchange of knowledge and information in the globalized age."[23]

The Federal office for security in IT (Bundesamt für Sicherheit in der Informationstechnik [24]) uses with StarOffice on all computers the ODF format in a cast deployment.[25]

Since September 2007 all communications with the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) and the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) may be transmitted in the ODF format.[26] The same has already applied for a while to other high courts (i.e. the Bundesarbeitsgericht[27], the Bundessozialgericht[28] and many other courts in the Bundesland of Nordrhein-Westfalen [29] [30] and of the Free State of Saxony (Sachsen) [31].

Bundesländer

The City of Freiburg uses OpenOffice.org and OpenDocument.[32]

Italy

By 2020, the Italian Department of Defense is slated to have converted to LibreOffice.[18]

Netherlands

From the beginning of 2009 onwards, open source software and the ODF format will be the standard for reading, publishing and the exchange of information for all governmental organisations. Whenever the software used is not open source special reasons have to be given.[33][34]

Norway

Norway's Ministry of Government Administration and Reform decided in December 2007 that ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) MUST be used from 2009 when publishing documents that are meant to be changed after downloading, i.e. forms that are to be filled in by the user. So all website forums will use this format.[35]

Portugal

The Portuguese Parliament will discuss a bill (proposed in 2008 by PCP) which determines that the adoption of open standard formats – namely ODF – shall be mandatory within all public administration agencies.[36]

Slovakia

In Slovakia all public authorities should be able to read ODF format since August 2006 and can use this format for electronic communication and for publication of documents.[37] Since October 2008 public authorities must be able to read ODF format. [38] In 2009, documents in ODF format will be allowed for use with electronic signature.[39]

Sweden

Sweden has published ODF 1.0 as a national in August 2008.[40] This has not been announced officially.[41] The standards institute only added the prefix "SS" before the ISO number SS-ISO/IEC 26300:2008.

United Kingdom

BECTA (British Education Communication Technology Agency) is the UK agency in charge of defining information technology (IT) policy for all schools in the United Kingdom, including standards for all the schools' infrastructure. In 2005 they published a comprehensive document describing the policy for infrastructure in schools.

This document highly recommends the use of OpenDocument and a few other formats for office document data. BECTA explains this as follows: "Any office application used by institutions must be able to be saved to (and so viewed by others) using a commonly agreed format that ensures an institution is not locked into using specific software. The main aim is for all office based applications to provide functionality to meet the specifications described here (whether licensed software, open source or unlicensed freeware) and thus many application providers could supply the educational institution ICT market.". [42]

Bristol City Council

Bristol City Council has adopted the StarOffice suite and with it the OpenDocument format across 5500 desktop computers. [43]

South America

Argentina

In September 2007 the Argentinian Province of Misiones decided via decrete that the use of ODF shall be mandatory within the government.[44] Around a million people live in this province, which is one of the 23 provinces of Argentina.

Brazil

With the publication of "e-Ping Interoperability Framework"[45], Brazil became the first South American country to officially recommend the adoption of OpenDocuments within the government.

As stated in the latest text (v3.0 of 2007): "Preferred adoption of Open Formats: e-PING defines that, whenever possible, open standards will be used in technical specifications. "Proprietary standards" will be accepted, in this transition period, with the perspective of replacement as soon as there are conditions for a complete migration. With no loss to these goals, are to be respected those situations when there is the need to consider security requisites and information integrity. When available, Free Software solutions are to be considered preferential, accordingly with the policy defined by the Comitê Executivo de Governo Eletrônico(CEGE)"

Since April 2008 ODF is a national standard in Brazil, coded as NBRISO/IEC26300.[46]

Uruguay

Since June 2008 the "Agency for the Development of Government Electronic Management and Information and Knowledge Society of Uruguay" recommends that public documents use either ODF or PDF. ODF should be used for documents in the process of being edited and the latter for documents in final form. [47]

North America (esp. United States)

Massachusetts

The US state of Massachusetts has been examining its options for implementing XML-based document processing. In early 2005, Eric Kriss, Secretary of Administration and Finance in Massachusetts, was the first government official in the United States to publicly connect open formats to a public policy purpose: "It is an overriding imperative of the American democratic system that we cannot have our public documents locked up in some kind of proprietary format, perhaps unreadable in the future, or subject to a proprietary system license that restricts access."[48]

At a September 16 2005 meeting with the Mass Technology Leadership Council Kriss stated that he believes this is fundamentally an issue of sovereignty.[49] While supporting the principle of private intellectual property rights, he said sovereignty trumped any private company's attempt to control the state's public records through claims of intellectual property.[50]

Subsequently, in September 2005, Massachusetts became the first state to formally endorse OpenDocument formats for its public records and, at the same time, reject Microsoft's new XML format, now standardized as ISO/IEC 29500:2008 — Office Open XML. This decision was made after a two-year examination of file formats, including many discussions with Microsoft, other vendors, and various experts, plus some limited trial programs in individual communities like Saugus and Billerica. Microsoft Office, which has a nearly 100% market share among the state's employees, does not currently support OpenDocument formats. Microsoft had indicated that OpenDocument formats will not be supported in new versions of Office, even though they support many other formats (including ASCII, RTF, and WordPerfect), and analysts believe it would be easy for Microsoft to implement the standard. If Microsoft chooses not to implement OpenDocument, Microsoft will disqualify themselves from future consideration. Several analysts (such as Ovum) believe that Microsoft will eventually support OpenDocument. On 6 July 2006 Microsoft announced that they would support the OpenDocument format and create a plugin to allow Office to save to ODF.

After this announcement by Massachusetts supporting OpenDocument, a large number of people and organizations spoke up about the policy, both pro and con (see the references section). Adobe, Corel, IBM, and Sun all sent letters to Massachusetts supporting the measure. In contrast, Microsoft sent in a letter highly critical of the measure. A group named "Citizens Against Government Waste" (CAGW) also opposed the decision. The group claimed that Massachusetts' policy established "an arbitrary preference for open source," though both open source software and proprietary software can implement the specification, and both kinds of developers were involved in creating the standard (CAGW, 2005). However, InternetNews and Linux Weekly News noted that CAGW has received funding from Microsoft, and that in 2001 CAGW was caught running an astroturfing campaign on behalf of Microsoft when two letters they submitted supporting Microsoft in Microsoft's anti-trust case were found to have the signatures of deceased persons (Linux Weekly News). James Prendergast, executive director of a coalition named "Americans for Technology Leadership" (ATL), also criticized the state's decision in a Fox News article.[51] In the article, Prendergast failed to disclose that Microsoft is a founding member of ATL. Fox News later published a follow-up article disclosing that fact.[52]

State Senator Marc R. Pacheco and State Secretary William F. Galvin have expressed reservations about this plan. Pacheco held a hearing on October 31, 2005, on the topic of OpenDocument. Pacheco did not want OpenDocument to be declared as the executive branch standard, primarily on procedural grounds. Pacheco believed that the executive branch had to receive permission to set an executive standard from the multi-branch IT Advisory Board. In contrast, The Massachusetts Information Technology Division (ITD), and its general council, believe the Advisory board's role is to advise ITD, and ITD did discuss the issue with the IT Advisory Board, but ITD's Peter Quinn and Linda Hamel (ITD's General Counsel) asserted that there is no requirement that "ITD approach the Advisory Board for permission to adopt policies that will impact only the Executive Department." Hamel later filed a legal briefing justifying ITD's position (Hamel, 2005). Massachusetts' Supreme Court has ruled that the various branches of government are prohibited from mandating IT standards on each other; this ruling appears to support ITD's claim. Pacheco also did not like the process used to select OpenDocument. However, Pacheco appears to have had many fundamental misunderstandings of the issues. Andy Updegrove said that at the time, "Senator Pacheco doesn't understand the difference between open source and open standards (and certainly doesn't understand the difference between OpenDocument and OpenOffice). More than once, he indicated that he thought that the policy would require the Executive Agencies to use OpenOffice.org, not realizing that there are other compliant alternatives. He also thought that this would act to the detriment of Massachusetts software vendors, who (he thinks) would be excluded from doing business with the Commonwealth." Pacheco also thought that OpenOffice.org was under the GPL, but in fact it is released under the LGPL (Jones, October 31, 2005) (Jones, November 14, 2005). He attempted to halt implementation of OpenDocument in the executive branch via an amendment (to S. 2256), but the amended bill was never sent to the governor.

Since then in 2007 Massachusetts has amended its approved technical standards list to include Office Open XML.

References

Official Information Documents from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts:

(to find the documents as HTML pages, go to http://www.mass.gov and search for the documents, eg. "etrm")

Other states and organizations in the US

In November, 2005, James Gallt, associate director for the National Association of State Chief Information Officers, said that a number of other state agencies are also exploring the use of OpenDocument (LaMonica, November 10, 2005).

In April, 2006, a bill was introduced in the Minnesota state legislature to require all state agencies to use open data formats. It is expected that the OpenDocument Format will be advanced as a way of meeting the proposed requirement. (Gardner, April 7, 2006).

In late 2007 and early 2008, New York State issued a Request for Public Comment concerning electronic records policy.

References

Other regions

Australia

It was announced on 31 March, 2006, that the National Archives of Australia had settled on OpenDocument as their choice for a cross-platform/application document format.

Other

According to OASIS' OpenDocument datasheet, "Singapore's Ministry of Defence, France's Ministry of Finance and its Ministry of Economy, Finance, and Industry, Brazil's Ministry of Health, the City of Munich, Germany, UK's Bristol City Council, and the City of Vienna in Austria are all adopting applications that support OpenDocument." (OASIS, 2005b).

References

  1. 3.4. NNEC Core Enterprise Services
  2. "South Africa adopts ODF as govt standard". Tectonic. 2007-10-24. Retrieved 2007-10-24.
  3. https://www.sabs.co.za/Business_Units/Standards_SA/WebStore/search/detail.aspx?id=18646&lang=EN
  4. Tectonic » South Africa adopts ODF as a national standard
  5. http://www.ciol.com/content/search/showarticle1.asp?artid=85632
  6. http://yksingh.blogspot.com/2006/06/open-document-format.html
  7. Frequently Asked questions
  8. Gardner, David (2007-07-10). "Office Software Formats Battle Moves To Asia". Information Week. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
  9. "Interoperability framework for information systems (in Japanese)". Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, Japan. 2007-06-29. Retrieved 2007-07-27.
  10. Tan, Lynn (2007-08-13). "Malaysia formally embraces Open Document Format". ZDNet Asia. Retrieved 2007-09-13.
  11. Open Malaysia: MAMPU migrates to OpenOffice.org and ODF to increase freedom of choice and interoperability
  12. Valoris (2004). Comparative Assessment of Open Documents Formats Market Overview aka the "Valoris Report".
  13. Bray, Tim. (September 24-26 2004) SmartEC (Accessed on October 17 2005. (Discussing Open Office XML ISO Certification).)
  14. Telematics between Administrations Committee (TAC). (May 25 2004) TAC Approval on Conclusions and Recommendations on Open Document Formats. (Accessed on October 17 2005.)
  15. Belgium's federal Council of Ministers. (2006) Open standards: Belgium's federal Council of Ministers approves ODF (Open Document Format). (Accessed on August 29 2006.)
  16. Techworld. (2006) Belgium adopts OpenDocument. (Accessed on August 29 2006.)
  17. CNET News.com. (2006) Belgian government chooses OpenDocument. (Accessed on August 29 2006.)
  18. 18.0 18.1 18.2 Thierry Noisette, "Chic le gouvernement choisit le logiciel libre. Zut, c’est en Bulgarie.", 6 July 2016
  19. Oikeusministeriö - Justitieministeriet - Etusivu
  20. Bundesministerium des Innern: IT-Rat der Bundesregierung eröffnet den Einsatz offener Dokumentenformate (ODF).
  21. www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/85977
  22. www.odfworkshop.com
  23. http://www.auswaertiges-amt.de/diplo/en/AAmt/071024-IT-ODFWorkshop,navCtx=23336.html
  24. www.bsi.de/english/index.htm
  25. heise online - Auswärtiges Amt spart im IT-Bereich kräftig dank Open Source
  26. www.bundespatentgericht.de
  27. Formatstandards / Versionen
  28. Formatstandards / Versionen
  29. Formatstandards / Versionen
  30. Formatstandards / Versionen
  31. Formatstandards / Versionen
  32. Stadt Freiburg im Breisgau: Offene Standards in der öffentlichen Verwaltung
  33. GotzeBlogged » Blog Archive » Netherlands Picks ODF
  34. Ministerie van Economische Zaken - Verplicht gebruik open standaarden bij overheid
  35. Open document standards to be obligatory for state information - regjeringen.no
  36. Projecto de Lei 577/X (Bill 577/X)
  37. "Standards for IS (informations systems) in public authorities in Slovak republic no. 1706/M-2006". Ministry of Economy, Slovak republic. 2006-08-01. Retrieved 2006-08-01.
  38. "Standards for IS (informations systems) in public authorities in Slovak republic no. MF/013261/2008-132". Ministry of Economy, Slovak republic. 2008-10-01. Retrieved 2008-10-01.
  39. "amandment to 542 DECREE of the National Security Authority of 9 September 2002 on the manner and procedure of using an electronic signature in commercial and administrative intercourse" (PDF). National Security Authority, Slovak republic. 2009-01-01. Retrieved 2009-01-01.
  40. http://www.sis.se/DesktopDefault.aspx?tabName=@DocType_1&Doc_ID=66727
  41. http://www.peterkrantz.com/2008/odf-approved-as-swedish-standard/
  42. BECTA. (2005) Technical specification for institutional infrastructure. (Accessed on August 29 2006.)
  43. Open Source Academy Bristol City Council. (Accessed on April 4 2007.)
  44. Gobierno Electrónico de la Provincia de Misiones
  45. e-Ping Interoperability Framework
  46. NBR ISO/IEC 26300
  47. http://www.agesic.gub.uy/Sitio/descargas/Estandares_de_Ofimatica_v08.pdf
  48. Administration and Finance
  49. Starting September 7, 2005
  50. MTLC Open Source SIG Wiki: OpenFormatMeetingSept2005
  51. Prendergast 2005
  52. FOX News, 2005; Jones, September 29 2005

External links

sk:Prijatie ODF v Európe