And Oregon Makes Five for ODF – With a Twist
In what is beginning to seem like a legislative drumbeat, Oregon has become the fourth US state this year to see an open document format bill introduced in its legislature (the others, in order of bill introduction, are Minnesota, Texas and California). Taken together with pioneer Massachusetts, which led the way with an administrative rule adopted in 2005, this means that individual legislators in10% of all US States have thus far taken steps to require that governments must be responsible stewards of public records. The text of the bill is here. As usual, I am also including the complete text of the bill, in its current form, at the end of this entry for long term-archival reference and ease of word-search based research using this site.
While the Oregon bill falls into a current trend, it is in some ways less similar to the bills introduced earlier this year than they are to each other. Most notably, it would establish a clear preference for open formats that are deployed in the greatest variety of programs and services that are available as "free ware," which it defines as " computer software made available or distributed to the public for use free of charge for an unlimited time." Through this and other provisions, it is clear that only ODF, and not OOXML, would pass muster for the foreseeable future in Oregon. The bill was introduced by State Representative Peter Buckley as House Bill 2920.
Looking first to the central definition of an "open format," we see that the Oregon definition is more detailed than that which is found in most of the other bills. For example, while the California formulation is very high level and would provide more flexibility in interpretation, the Oregon text is more precise, and often provides examples of what would be required in order to comply with the bill. Here is a direct comparison of the definitions found in these two bills: