Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Hi Richard, I was interested by your mail: On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 16:48 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: The 2006 Microsoft patent policy does not eliminate the patent obstacles to implementing OOXML. See http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted (and the following questions too). Does that wiki page roughly match your professional legal advice ? (or even experience ?). I would (personally) not rely exclusively on such a clearly biased analysis :-) Also, some of the criticisms appear (to my untutored mind) also to apply to Sun's similar covenant: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php which (personally) I tend to view in good faith, not as some perfidious plot to destroy the free world. Anyhow - I am interested at your interest in the Open-Standards debate. As a tactic, I have noticed that ODF (or just Open Standards) are increasingly promoted at the expense of software freedom - which is a travesty. This leads to extraordinary scenarios - where people who you might have hoped were Free software advocates start actively promoting all manner of proprietary 'plugins' (etc.) even for proprietary Office suites - simply because they are ODF ;-) I see OO.o representatives speaking at conferences, presenting from praising OS/X and talking extensively about ODF, occasionally OO.o features and seldom about Free Software: a tragedy. Free Software necessarily implies an Open Standard [ we have the source after all ! ]. AFAICS - Standards may be open or closed, but Free software will eventually support them all. From my (no doubt highly not-thought-through) viewpoint: Open Standards, is just a game that big companies play so their proprietary software can compete with which they bludgeon each other in public. It also seems to be a game that Microsoft knows how to play. HTH, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] , Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Hi Michael, On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 11:03:31AM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote: AFAICS - Standards may be open or closed, but Free software will eventually support them all. I think this is naïve since even though they may be eventually supported, they might not be used at all in business due to software patents (example: Red Hat and Red Hat derivatives like Fedora do not support MP3 and other interesting things that are otherwise very well supported but quite problematic in the US and other countries RH operates) From my (no doubt highly not-thought-through) viewpoint: Open Standards, is just a game that big companies play so their proprietary software can compete with which they bludgeon each other in public. It also seems to be a game that Microsoft knows how to play. Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement, or might even be downright illegal to do it independently, closed formats. True standards can't rely on hidden information (with special agreements that need to be signed with Microsoft for certain parts of OOXML, as has been found in a document Microsoft was forced to disclose in Spain). If you want Free Software to be usable by business (big and small alike), then you can't have legally dubious portions, or you risk losing it all big time. Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack Linux! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 48th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
True standards can't rely on hidden information (with special agreements that need to be signed with Microsoft for certain parts of OOXML, as has been found in a document Microsoft was forced to disclose in Spain). Which information is this?There have been accusations made about this hidden information, but they have turned out to be bogus. The closest I have heard of were the OLE tags for embedding OLE objects, and those are present in ODF as well. Update: and also Windows Metafiles, which are not mandatory, they are used to embed existing images. Luckily Windows Metafiles are documented, and there are multiple implementations of them available. So it is hardly hidden information. Miguel ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 04:47:23PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote: Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement, or might even be downright illegal to do it independently, closed formats. Well, neither OOXML nor ODF have been fully implemented by third party implementations beyond the products they originated with. Fully irrelevant, since in one case it's mere workload, and in the other case it's double the workload + restricted information + mathmatical and date errors. But there is a case of being good enough, very much in the same way that say that the Linux kernel was a good enough implementation of the Unix API that it allowed Unix apps to be ran with that kernel. Another example is CSS2: there are no browser that can claim 100% CSS compatibility or with any other combination of Web standards, it is not the end of the world if you do not pass the Acid test for CSS. It would be nice, but it is not mandatory to get the job done. Unlike OOXML, CSS2 is fully royalty free, please compare apple with apples, instead of apples with oranges. True standards can't rely on hidden information (with special agreements that need to be signed with Microsoft for certain parts of OOXML, as has been found in a document Microsoft was forced to disclose in Spain). Which information is this?There have been accusations made about this hidden information, but they have turned out to be bogus. Really? What patents are involved? Can you list them for us since you seem to know? How does Microsoft's attitude towards patents compare with http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php ? MS Word 2000 Table Style Rules, can you point them out? The closest I have heard of were the OLE tags for embedding OLE objects, and those are present in ODF as well. Funny to see you campaining for Microsoft's fake-standard, or are you Miguel de Icaza the slashdot troll? It's always hard to tell when you don't digitally sign messages... So I keep wondering. Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 48th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement, Yes. The spec has 6000 pages, and that isn't even the complete spec, since it refers to other Microsoft specs which it has not given permission to implement. Early this year I saw a great short article explaining why it was not feasible for anyone but Microsoft to implement this spec. But I did not save the reference. Does anyone have it? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Does that wiki page roughly match your professional legal advice ? (or even experience ?). I haven't got any legal advice about this question yet. Have you? Anyhow - I am interested at your interest in the Open-Standards debate. As a tactic, I have noticed that ODF (or just Open Standards) are increasingly promoted at the expense of software freedom - which is a travesty. You are right that open standards cannot substitute for free software, but that's a different issue. This leads to extraordinary scenarios - where people who you might have hoped were Free software advocates start actively promoting all manner of proprietary 'plugins' (etc.) even for proprietary Office suites - simply because they are ODF ;-) When they do this, we should argue against it. However, that doesn't mean the ODF battle is unimportant for us. Practically speaking, OOXML puts lots of pressure on people to keep using Microsoft Office, and therefore to keep using Windows (or MacOS which is no better). ODF allows encourages them to move to Open Office, which is free software. For the reasons you mentioned, we cannot simply endorse what those ODF advocates say. But we should work for the cause they are working for. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
On Fri, Jul 13, 2007 at 07:09:29PM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement, Yes. The spec has 6000 pages, and that isn't even the complete spec, since it refers to other Microsoft specs which it has not given permission to implement. Early this year I saw a great short article explaining why it was not feasible for anyone but Microsoft to implement this spec. But I did not save the reference. Does anyone have it? That reference you mention in particular I don't know, but there are many references to parts that can't be coded. I'll try to forward you my collection of arguments, counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments I'm preparing for the meeting next monday at the Portuguese national body on standardization (which, BTW, is presided by Microsof *chuckle*). Rui -- Or is it? Today is Setting Orange, the 49th day of Confusion in the YOLD 3173 + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
