I was thinking about AGPL. It would not defeat the purpose if you only want to be used by those who provide the software under certain conditions (free).
“An open format is one that is platform independent, machine readable, and made available to the public without restrictions that would impede the re-use of that information”.
Anyway, saying that a format is not open because of restrictions on its use is in my opinion (some what) equal to saying that something is not FOSS because of the license they use. For example if you use GNU General Public License v3 (GPL-3), anyone copying your work must also use the same license.
It would not be an open format if I had to pay for its use. It would be open if I can use it without cost but have to provide what I use it for with the same restrictions.
Open as far as I know is not defined by law anywhere, it will be up to opinion in the end. Having a different opinion and thus having a different definition of a word makes communications more difficult, so agreeing on the meaning is preferred.
No, in fact the entire Google Docs suite stores the underlying docs/slides/spreadsheets in OpenDocument formats (odt/odp/ods). Apple is just being Apple.
Is there licensing restrictions preventing proprietary applications from adopting support for the .odt format?
That would be the opposite of open.
Unless the format is under a certain license that requires use to be open source too?
Again, that would really beat the purpose of open data format.
I was thinking about AGPL. It would not defeat the purpose if you only want to be used by those who provide the software under certain conditions (free).
It still wouldn’t be an open format.
TIL there are definitions for what constitutes an open format, at least in the US (US government).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_file_format
Anyway, saying that a format is not open because of restrictions on its use is in my opinion (some what) equal to saying that something is not FOSS because of the license they use. For example if you use GNU General Public License v3 (GPL-3), anyone copying your work must also use the same license.
It would not be an open format if I had to pay for its use. It would be open if I can use it without cost but have to provide what I use it for with the same restrictions.
Open as far as I know is not defined by law anywhere, it will be up to opinion in the end. Having a different opinion and thus having a different definition of a word makes communications more difficult, so agreeing on the meaning is preferred.
What do you think?
MS Word opens .odt files though.
so does google docs iirc. it can even export to odt
So Apple decided to only support the most popular formats. Good to know.
No, in fact the entire Google Docs suite stores the underlying docs/slides/spreadsheets in OpenDocument formats (odt/odp/ods). Apple is just being Apple.
I open odt files on my MacBook all the time.
Not that I’m aware, no.