LibreOffice:致欧盟委员会的要求,使其遵守自身指南。
LibreOffice: Request to the European Commission to adhere to its own guidances

原始链接: https://blog.documentfoundation.org/blog/2026/03/05/cra-guidances/

3月6日,欧盟委员会回应了文档基金会的要求,在其关于网络复原力法案(CRA)的磋商中增加了开放文档格式(ODS)版本的反馈表格。此前,反馈仅以专有的微软Excel(.xlsx)格式提交。 文档基金会曾认为,要求使用专有格式与欧盟明确承诺的开放标准、互操作性和数字主权相矛盾——这些原则体现在欧洲互操作性框架、欧盟开源软件战略以及CRA本身的目标中。使用.xlsx格式对使用LibreOffice等开源软件或优先使用开放格式的个人和组织造成了参与障碍。 委员会在24小时内的迅速回应表明了解决这一问题的意愿,并使其做法与其既定政策保持一致。提供ODS和.xlsx两种格式确保了更广泛、更具包容性的欧盟政策制定参与。这一举动被视为朝着维护欧盟的中立性和减少对专有技术的依赖迈出的积极一步。

## LibreOffice 与欧盟委员会文件格式问题 欧盟委员会要求通过一份需要Microsoft Excel的电子表格来征求反馈意见,尽管他们一直提倡开放文档格式。 这引发了Hacker News上的争论,许多人认为这表明欧盟决策中存在结构性偏见,偏向于微软产品,实际上要求拥有微软许可证才能充分参与。 最初有些人认为这是一个程序上的疏忽,但另一些人指出这是故意选择使用微软产品,浪费了欧盟纳税人的钱。 讨论还集中在文件格式兼容性的现实上——许多人认为LibreOffice处理Microsoft Office格式已经足够好,这不是一个技术问题,而是对专有软件的偏好。 值得注意的是,委员会迅速接受了请求,加剧了对偏见的担忧。 一些评论员强调了更广泛的问题,即治理偏向于*使用*工具的能力,而不是遵守既定政策。 这起事件凸显了开放标准与Microsoft Office的统治地位之间的持续紧张关系,以及促进互操作性的重要性。
相关文章

原文

The European Commission has accepted our request, and starting from today – Friday March 6 – has added the Open Document Format ODS version of the spreadsheet to be used to provide the feedback. We are grateful to the people working at DG CONNECT, the Commission’s Directorate-General for Communications Networks, Content and Technology, for responding to our request within 24 hours. At this point, the rest of this message is no longer relevant, and the call for action is no longer necessary.

ARCHIVED MESSAGE

The European Commission has spent years advocating for open standards, vendor neutrality, and digital sovereignty. The European Interoperability Framework explicitly recommends open formats for public sector digital services. The EU’s own Open Source Software Strategy calls for reducing dependency on proprietary technologies, and the Cyber Resilience Act itself is designed to address systemic risks from unaccountable technology dependencies.

On March 3rd, 2026, the European Commission published a request for feedback on to the guidances to be provided in relation to the CRA, which must be provided through the linked spreadsheet in .xlsx format, a proprietary format that makes interoperability extremely difficult due to its ever changing and undocumented features.

This is not a minor procedural oversight. It is a structural bias built into the process which sends out a clear message: full participation in EU policymaking requires a Microsoft licence.
We ask the European Commission to lead by example by following its own guidances in relation to interoperability and at to least provide, alongside the proprietary format generated by the proprietary software and services they use, also an Open Document Format (ODF) file which is an actual interoperable and internationally recognised standard.

While the Commission evaluates plans to upgrade its infrastructure and services to Open Source solutions, with the aim of improving resiliency and reduce risky dependencies, it should implement in its standard procedures the release of documents in ODF format to allow all citizens, organisations and institutions to participate in the democratic processes.

#CyberResilienceAct   #OpenStandards   #DigitalSovereignty   #OpenSource   #LibreOffice   #ODF

CALL FOR ACTION

Dear Commission representatives,

We are writing to provide feedback on a procedural matter that, while perhaps appearing minor at first glance, carries significant implications for the principles underpinning EU digital policy — in particular the commitments to open standards, interoperability, and vendor neutrality that the Commission itself has championed in multiple legislative and strategic contexts.
The stakeholder feedback template for the Cyber Resilience Act Guidance document has been made available exclusively in Microsoft Excel format (.xlsx). This choice is, respectfully, difficult to reconcile with the Commission’s own stated commitments.

The .xlsx format is a proprietary format defined and controlled by Microsoft Corporation, a private entity incorporated in the United States. In fact, although OOXML (ISO/IEC 29500) has been approved as a standard, its implementation has never complied with the specifications of the standard itself, as widely documented in the literature on interoperability. Requiring participants to use this format as the sole vehicle for structured data entry effectively conditions participation in a public consultation on the availability or willingness to use software produced by a single supplier.

This stands in direct contradiction to several principles the EU has advanced:

• The European Interoperability Framework (EIF), which recommends the use of open standards in public sector digital services and the avoidance of lock-in to proprietary technologies.
• The Open Source Software Strategy 2020–2023 and its successor, which promote the use of open source and open standards across EU institutions.
• The spirit, and arguably the letter, of the very Cyber Resilience Act itself, which seeks to reduce systemic risk arising from dependency on unaccountable or opaque technology components.

A consultation process that requires respondents to use a proprietary format produces a structural bias: it disadvantages individuals, organisations, and public administrations that have made the entirely legitimate and EU-endorsed choice to operate on open source software and open formats. A citizen or small organisation using LibreOffice, for instance, may encounter compatibility issues when working with the provided .xlsx template. A government body that has migrated to ODF-based workflows faces an unnecessary obstacle.

The remedy is straightforward. Feedback templates of this kind should be provided in at minimum two formats: one open format (ODF spreadsheet, .ods, being the obvious choice, as it is a true ISO-standardised format with no proprietary ownership) and one widely-used proprietary format for those whose environments require it. Ideally, a plain-text or web-based form would supplement both, removing the spreadsheet dependency entirely for respondents who prefer it.

The Commission’s credibility on digital sovereignty, open standards, and vendor-independent infrastructure is undermined — symbolically but meaningfully — each time its own processes rely exclusively on proprietary formats from non-European technology vendors. The CRA is precisely the kind of legislation where procedural consistency with stated principles matters most.

We respectfully urge the Commission to review its template distribution practices and to adopt a format-neutral approach to stakeholder consultation as standard policy going forward.

Yours faithfully,

Board of Directors
The Document Foundation
Berlin, March 5, 2026

 

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com