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:


        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.



 [EMAIL PROTECTED]  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot

foundation-list mailing list

Reply via email to