Off the Beat: Bruce Byfield's Blog

One of the intriguing aspects of LibreOffice, the OpenOffice.org fork, is that everything is open to debate. However, this atmosphere also means that the old debate about supporting proprietary Microsoft formats -- specifically the newer OOXML format -- is being revived. The trouble with this debate is that it is endless, since it is a specific example of the longstanding conflict of convenience and ethics in free software, and strong arguments exist on both sides.

The latest round in this old debate seems to have been sparked by an article published by Groklaw on December 20, 2010, which documents Novell's involvement in promoting the OOXML format. Ten days later, a message on a LibreOffice mailing list cited the Groklaw article, threatening a boycott of LibreOffice and declaring, "There is absolutely no need to write in this proprietary format. To do so is contrary to the principle of using [Open Document Format] and open source formats."

A discussion of the pros and cons followed. It became lengthy enough that, a month later, The Document Foundation, the organization that develops LibreOffice, posted an FAQ in which it stated that, while it advocated using Open Document Format, it included OOXML support as a convenience for users. In effect, The Document Foundation left the dilemma of what to do up to each user -- just as distributions like Debian and Ubuntu provide proprietary drivers, but leave users to decide whether to install them. The decision is unlikely to satisfy those who threatened a boycott, although many might argue that it is simply realistic.

The case against

The arguments against including OOXML is little different from those against using traditional Microsoft formats. The main difference is that OOXML provokes a greater sense of outrage. A few years ago, advocates of open standards campaigned hard against OOXML being accepted as an international standard, eventually losing because of allegedly sharp practices by Microsoft. Since then, the outrage has been transferred partly to Novell, whose agreements for collaboration with Microsoft have been another focus for resentment among free and open source software advocates.

Possibly, too, the fact that OOXML has not proved particularly popular and is only now -- several years after its introduction -- showing any signs of widespread use encourages those who actively oppose the format that its use can still be prevented.

Otherwise, the case against using OOXML is the same one that Richard Stallman made in his essay "We Can Put an End to Word Attachments." All Microsoft formats are imperfectly supported by free software, and likely to remain so because of Microsoft's lack of cooperation, and should be avoided on principle as proprietary.

Instead, Stallman suggests refusing attachments that include Microsoft formats, and replying with an explanation in the hopes of educating the sender. Reasons to avoid using Microsoft formats include that they are proprietary, inconsistent, monopolistic, bloated, and discourteous -- all of which is impossible to disagree with.

The case for

Yet, despite the logic in the case against Microsoft formats, people continue to use them because, when the dominant office suite is Microsoft Office, you can be sure that people can read them, and no layout issues arise because of imperfect conversion from one format to another.

These arguments are exaggerated, since free file filters for Microsoft formats are good enough for the vast majority of documents that Internet users exchange. For example, when I have been doing technical reviews of books in progress, opening files in OpenOffice.org that will later be opened in Microsoft Office has caused next to no problems.

Still, most people have little experience with free software, so problems continue to exist in their minds. In effect, many people accept that because free software alternatives are less widely known, their users must acquiesce to what is common. Just as in the early 1990s, WordPerfect filters for Microsoft Office had to be better than Microsoft Office filters for WordPerfect, so today people often accept that the burden of compatibility must fall on free office suites instead of Microsoft.

Another problem is that refusing Microsoft formats can be difficult. If you are dealing with an equal, the refusal and explanation is easy, but, if people are in someway subordinate to the sender, they may not feel free to make any objections. Send a refusal to a manager, and you risk being branded as obstructive. Send a refusal to an employment agency, and your application could be rejected as too much bother. Worse, the agency, not understanding the issues you raise, might conclude that you are so non-technical that you don't know what formats are common -- and that you are therefore unfit for any technical or office position. These possibilities seem likely enough that people might easily decide that standing on principle is more trouble than it's worth.

Besides, even if a refusal works, and you receive the offending attachments in a free format like Open Document Format, or at least in an open standard like PDF, the exchange takes at least twice as long as it otherwise would.

This line of thought can be deplored as not only short-sighted, but defeatist. After all, if Microsoft formats are never questioned, how will their monopoly ever be broken? Such points are perfectly true, and people will nod in agreement -- then go and accept and send Microsoft formats because doing so is easier than taking a stand.

The project dilemma

If this dilemma is difficult for individuals, it is even harder for free software projects. On the one hand, by including OOXML filters, The Document Foundation is working against its own success.

On the other hand, if LibreOffice excludes the filters, it applications become less of a practical alternative, especially on the Windows platform, or among newer users who are trying to transition from free software. It also risks ceding a major advantage in the future to OpenOffice.org, although currently its rival only supports importing OOXML, not saving to it. Essentially, the project can't possibly satisfy everyone.

Part of me wishes that LibreOffice would take a firmer stand. Another part of me realizes that doing so would be impractical -- and, considering Novell's support of The Document Foundation and its coding, unlikely.

Under the circumstances, The Document Foundation has done all that it can, explaining its decision at length, re-stating its endorsement of Open Document Format, and even explaining in the FAQ how to disable OOXML support. Reluctantly, I have to conclude that it is hard to see how The Document Foundation could have acted in any other way.

Comments