Minnesota is considering taking up ODF (via Andy Updegrove).  In this case, unlike the process in Massachusetts, it’s a proposed law, accessible online here.  So what do they think “open standards” means?  Here’s the definition:

(f) “Open standards” means specifications for the encoding and transfer of computer
2.4     data that:
2.5     (1) is free for all to implement and use in perpetuity, with no royalty or fee;
2.6     (2) has no restrictions on the use of data stored in the format;
2.7     (3) has no restrictions on the creation of software that stores, transmits, receives, or
2.8     accesses data codified in such way;
2.9     (4) has a specification available for all to read, in a human-readable format, written
2.10    in commonly accepted technical language;
2.11    (5) is documented, so that anyone can write software that can read and interpret the
2.12    complete semantics of any data file stored in the data format;
2.13    (6) if it allows extensions, ensures that all extensions of the data format are
2.14    themselves documented and have the other characteristics of an open data format;
2.15    (7) allows any file written in that format to be identified as adhering or not adhering
2.16    to the format;
2.17    (8) if it includes any use of encryption, provides that the encryption algorithm is
2.18    usable on a royalty-free, nondiscriminatory manner in perpetuity, and is documented
2.19    so that anyone in possession of the appropriate encryption key or keys is able to write
2.20    software to unencrypt the data.
2.21    (g) “Restricted format” means any data format that is accessed, stored, or transferred
2.22    and is not open standards compliant.