On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 19:43 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
NNB. don't believe everything you read ;-) particularly in this area.
Specially from people who work for a company that is strategically
aligned with Microsoft.
1stly that's the purest nonsense :-) Novell competes
Hi Rui,
I just read through this whole thread from start to finish after having
gotten a little behind on my email.
Personally the ODF versus OOXML discussion is only of secondary interest
to me, but one thing struck me through this whole debate. Rui, it is
fine to disagree with Miguel and
Michael throughout this discussion belong anywhere. Miguel and Michael
have each done more for free software than most of us can even hope to
aspire to
That doesn't mean what they are doing now is good for free software. Just
ask Mr Raymond ;)
___
Miguel and Michael have done remarkable jobs in many situations, and
as such deserve a lot of praise for those jobs.
This one, however, is not a remarkable job and deserves critic.
Regards,
Rui
ps: is how can we do autoSpaceLikeWord95 a snide remark? Is 2004/48/EC
a snide remark? all those
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 20:09 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Miguel and Michael have done remarkable jobs in many situations, and
as such deserve a lot of praise for those jobs.
This one, however, is not a remarkable job and deserves critic.
It's not about praise or doing a remarkable
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 20:09 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Miguel and Michael have done remarkable jobs in many situations, and
as such deserve a lot of praise for those jobs.
This one, however, is not a remarkable job and deserves critic.
That's not the central point in Christian's
Since I do not read what Microsoft says in standards group meetings, I
thank Rui for informating us that it matches what Miguel de Icaza said
here. Putting that similarity together with the nature of his
statements (vague claims that that the criticism of OOXML is flawed),
it becomes a cogent
Hi Richard,
As someone who believes strongly about many things, yet to my knowledge
always argues the case and never the person I don't see why you are
coming out defending such behavior here. My criticism was mainly about
the tone of the debate and for someone who himself never resorted to
name
And put in different words: if anybody is concerned about how this
issue affects the GNOME Foundation and the GNOME project in general
please expose these concerns in a way we can do or say something.
I think the GNOME Foundation should lend its support to the campaign
against
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 05:58:34PM +0100, Michael Meeks wrote:
On Fri, 2007-07-20 at 20:22 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Also, why do you say the format is open? Can you tell me how Word95 does
auto-space ?
Can you tell me how ODF lays out paragraphs or does line-breaking or
Hello,
Also, why do you say the format is open? Can you tell me how Word95 does
auto-space ?
Can you tell me how ODF lays out paragraphs or does line-breaking or
wraps text to shaped embedded objects or ... ?
Nothing in OOXML spec explains how Word95 does autospace, so how can
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 03:37:06PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
Hello,
Also, why do you say the format is open? Can you tell me how Word95 does
auto-space ?
Can you tell me how ODF lays out paragraphs or does line-breaking or
wraps text to shaped embedded objects or ... ?
Use OpenOffice.org 1.1 line spacing this argument is funny, and was
addressed at the Portuguese Technical Commission.
There is an essential difference between
SecretRuleYouCan'tKnowOfProductFuBar and
UnderSpecifiedRuleYouCanReadSourceCodeToCompleteKnowledge
They are all underspecified
to be very revealing of the truth of OOXML.
Cheers,
Kevin Kubasik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard Stallman
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:43 AM
To: Miguel de Icaza
Cc: foundation-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft
revealing of the truth of
OOXML.
Cheers,
Kevin Kubasik
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Richard
Stallman
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 9:43 AM
To: Miguel de Icaza
Cc: foundation-list@gnome.org
Subject: Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft
@gnome.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Miguel de Icaza
Subject: Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Hi,
It is my non-lawyer point of view that the Microsoft OSP is absolutely
irrelevant and that in the soon to be EU law may actually be a complete
red herring, since it may soon be the case that you don't
OOXML and Microsoft patents
Hi,
It is my non-lawyer point of view that the Microsoft OSP is absolutely
irrelevant and that in the soon to be EU law may actually be a complete
red herring, since it may soon be the case that you don't have to be the
owner of patents to make the authorites do
The analysis on that page is based on a different patent license than
the OSP for OOXML.
If it isn't about OOXML and isn't about the OSP, it seems doubly
irrelevant.
In regard to what he says this about the OSP:
âI see Microsoftâs introduction of the OSP as a good step
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.
I have issued with it, it is only for *required* parts
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 11:44:40AM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
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
What does all of this have to do with the GNOME foundation?
Andreas
On Wed, 2007-18-07 at 01:37 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
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
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
Interesting that you should say this. Yesterday I read Eben Moglen's
response to my questions about the OOXML patent issue. He said
Microsoft's OSP is worthless.
I have emailed Eben, hopefully he can share with me what he thinks is
worthless about the OSP and maybe we can request the terms
OOXML is for the most part a much simpler version to process than the
old file formats.
If you know of something else more complex than OOXML's 6000-page
incomplete spec, does it matter? Even supposing you are right, I
don't see that it changes anything about OOXML.
The support
Interest groups have used standards to club their opponents for many
years. Its nothing new.
It is insulting because of the contemptuous attitude it shows.
Really that speaks about you, not about me.
I would not go as far as saying
that OOXML is a sham just because ODF helps us
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
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 17:50 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
If a long standard is part of an attack, we can use that for our own
purposes.
In this case I suspect that the length of the standard is largely a
consequence of the format being an XML serialization of the existing
complex and
OOXML is for the most part a much simpler version to process than the
old file formats.
If you know of something else more complex than OOXML's 6000-page
incomplete spec, does it matter? Even supposing you are right, I
don't see that it changes anything about OOXML.
Thus we remain
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
This is no reason we shouldn't _try_ to implement OOXML. As long as
we are not forcibly stopped, we may as well try to implement
everything that users want.
This work is currently being done jointly with Sun and Novell in
OpenOffice.org. It is developed openly in OpenOffice.org CVS and is
Meanwhile, if it is hard for Microsoft to fully implement a 600 page
spec, that just reinforces the point that it is hard for us to
implement a 6000 page spec.
There are a few issues here:
* Microsoft not implementing support for ODF in their products
is probably a
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.
We need to implement support for the date issue if we want to be able to
get folks to move to our office suite from MS Office anyways.
Meanwhile, if it is hard for Microsoft to fully implement a 600 page
spec, that just reinforces the point that it is hard for us to
implement a 6000 page spec.
And this has been the Microsoft plan for standards for many years. In
fact their own leaked memos say exactly this. Miguel -
On Sat, Jul 14, 2007 at 03:06:45PM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
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.
We need to implement support for the date issue if we want to be
* The validity of the statement that we can be stopped from
implementing OOXML: Has a lawyer weighted into whether the
patent grants in the Microsoft OSP are not sufficient? All I
have seen so far are opinions from advocates, with no legal
background.
As I spend a lot of time in interop work, the more information that I
have on my hands the better.
Software Jujitsu if you will.
I think you mean Aikido or Judo if you want to use your oppenents
strength against them, although in your case perhaps seppuku was the
phrase you
Our own lawyers consider that the Microsoft OSP sufficient.
Is that as a result of the patent deals between Novell and Microsoft
however ?
No, its based entirely on the OSP terms on the web site:
www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/
ISO has policies on standards. OOXML fails to
I'll try to forward you my
collection of arguments, counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments
I'm preparing for the meeting next monday
A long article full of details is useful for your meeting; however, in
other contexts, a shorter article can be more persuasive. A long list
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
45 matches
Mail list logo
