Again through ConsortiumInfo: Minnesota is introducing a bill that will require the state CIO to chose products that support open standards over those that feature proprietary ones. This is definitvely good news, particularly when looking at the extensive definition of “open” in the text (H.F. 3971, 1.1 (f)):
Wow – this goes definitively far beyond RAND and comes pretty close to my understanding of what ‘open’ really means.
It seems noteworthy that as per provision (6) in this list, the ‘openness’ of a data format is quite viral in the sense that it requires all descendants to be ‘open’ as well. One problem that I have with this provision is that the standard itself cannot gurantee that any descendants will be open – if there is an extension point, any implementator could choose to extend without documenting. This should be clarified in the text, maybe to the extend that it should reference the implementation, not the standard.