This is the full text of the essay I wrote for the O'Reilly Open Government book, in which I discuss what open file formats and other digital standards really mean for us, why they are often even more important than Free Software and why Government must lead the way when it comes to their adoption.

Supported by its own press and advanced by other regular allies, Microsoft comes equipped with required marketing themes to inject proprietary software into governments, under the guise of "open"

In Australia, the government and Microsoft rub each other's back and in the United Kingdom Free software is still discriminated against

Some government entities put up fierce resistance to free software because they do not want to run afoul of ethics laws that prohibit them from accepting gifts - if free software has value, then government officials are not allowed to receive the code without paying for it.

"THE more things change, the more they stay the same," claims one of our readers, who prefers to remain anonymous. "Got .Nessus in your country's infrastructure?" is the question he asks when suggesting that Microsoft is trying to poison the GNU/Linux operating system so as to gain more control over it because Free software takes over at the expense of Microsoft.

I've been contacted by a government agency that is seeking input on the question of what definition of openness it should adopt for that state. Obviously, it's in part about ODF/OOXML.

"...Free access to information may sound like a plus when its free mp3s we're debating, but not such a plus when it's unrestricted government access to your phone lines. Eben Moglen is the first person in the free software movement I've heard admit and take ownership for the link between the two, and for this he gets major points..."