Jeroen Dekkers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> claimed: > An Open Standard isn't an oxymoron IHMO. You've got proprietary > standards like MP3 and de facto standards like MS Word.
"De facto standards" are often not standardised in any meaningful way, so that phrase is an absurdity. Just look at all the small variations in so-called-standard Microsoft Word files. > [...] http://www.ososs.nl/index.jsp?alias=watisos [...] > I think using this definition is the way to go: nobody is against Open > Standards, the only thing you've convince people of is that a standard > isn't open when patents aren't licensed royalt-free. It may be beneficial to support someone else's definition, too. Regards, -- MJ Ray - personal email, see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Work: http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ irc.oftc.net/slef Jabber/SIP ask _______________________________________________ Discussion mailing list [email protected] https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
