> I would not go as far as saying > that OOXML is a sham just because ODF helps us advance our own FLOSS > agenda. > > Why not? Surely there is nothing wrong with telling the truth to > support the free software cause. > > If OOXML were not a sham, it would be dishonest to call it one in > order to achieve our ends. I would not suggest that, and I have not. > I suggested that we tell the truth about OOXML. > > OOXML is a sham as a free/open standard, due to dozens of flaws > described in http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections.
The problem is that the above url is far from being truthful. You do not have to go too far to find problems with it, starting with the discussion that we were having on this forum regarding the Microsoft OSP patent promise. For one, the description on that page is at odds with the statements by Larry Rosen on the license (I included it at the end of this message). Rosen's statement is from November 2005, and reflects the pre-OSP promise, but this is discussed in the above url, and considered a non-starter which puts it at odds with Rosen's position. On technical grounds, the document sometimes is right on spot, sometimes it raises issues that would be good to have clarified, sometimes it goes down to nitpicking and sometimes it is wrong. I have touched on some of those complaints myself in the past [1]. I have no problem opposing OOXML on truthful grounds, but there is an active disinformation campaign against OOXML and this is precisely what I oppose. There is a continuous repetition of the same arguments, the selective quotation (I have been selectively quoted and out of context by Mr Weir and other folks in several occasions to advance this campaign). If the same standards that are being applied to OOXML were applied to ODF, ODF would have not become a standard. Repeating myself, I have no problem with the advocacy of ODF over OOXML for FLOSS software as well as our recommendation for governments, as long as we remain truthful. The discussion between ODF and OOXML is about what is an open standard, and unlike free and open source software there is not a clear cut definition of what constitutes open. There is no shame in promoting ODF on the grounds that this is the standard that is best supported by FLOSS software in my opinion. > What we should do, for the sake of our free software agenda, is make > an effort to inform the public and governments of this state of > affairs. Sure. Miguel. Larry Rosen statement [2] I was delighted to learn of Microsoft’s recent "Covenant Regarding Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas." This covenant goes beyond anything Microsoft has ever done before. It means that both open source and proprietary software can compete in implementations of these important XML schemas without the threat of patent litigation from Microsoft. This covenant is at least as generous as the patent licenses for many other document formats and industry standards. It includes protection for Microsoft against patent lawsuits; this is just like the patent defense provisions in many open source licenses. And the scope of their patent covenant, even though it is limited to "conforming" software products, is sufficient to allow open source implementations that can read and write Office 2003 documents. Microsoft’s covenant is, to coin a phrase, as fair and balanced as other licenses or covenants we’ve accepted before. I am pleased to see Microsoft move their patent licensing strategy this far. Microsoft has offered its specification for standardization by ECMA, an industry standards organization headquartered in Europe. It is important for open source companies to participate in this standardization effort, so that we can ensure that the specification for the standard is itself developed in an open way. If we do that, I’m confident that "conforming" software products will evolve to meet customer needs worldwide without Microsoft having to dictate the scope of that conformance. The first reaction people will have is, "where’s the catch?" I don’t see anything we can’t live with. We can participate in crafting the standard in ECMA, we can read and write Office 2003 files in open source applications, and we don’t have to pay royalties to Microsoft to do so. It’s a good start. [1] http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html [2] http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2192 _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list