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, 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. If that is true, it is a red herring. Suppose that ODF is never implemented fully by anything except OpenOffice. Is that a problem for us? Not at all, because OpenOffice is free software. By contrast, if OOXML is never implemented fully by anything except Microsoft Office, that could be a big problem for us, since Microsoft Office is not free software. The same conclusion applies if we replace fully with adequately. 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. 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. But we must also campaign against OOXML's adoption, because it may be impossible to implement adequately, and we might be forcibly stopped. Thus we remain with the conclusion that it is very important to campaign for ODF and reject OOXML as a standard. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 license the same way as the rest of the office suite (ie it is free software). For those who want to scream conspiracy theories, I'm one of the developers for Novell and I don't have access to any confidential bit of the specification. This means that whatever hole exists (and there are) we have to assemble the pieces together on our own. Hub ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 strategic choice on their part, more than a technical limitation; That being said: * Full support for ODF can not be implemented based on the 600 pages published. The only way Microsoft can implement ODF support is by looking at the OpenOffice source code, and from what we know about Microsoft policies (right or wrong) their employees are barred from looking at code under certain licenses (GPL being one of them, not sure if the other licenses that OOo is released under is OK for them). OOXML is for the most part a much simpler version to process than the old file formats. Although the XML has been significantly cleaned up, it remains for the most part a representation of the data that we already have support for (in the form of XLS, DOC and PPT support). 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. But we must also campaign against OOXML's adoption, because it may be impossible to implement adequately, and we might be forcibly stopped. I would agree with your position if the two issues you mention were real, but I have my reservations: * 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. Our own lawyers consider that the Microsoft OSP sufficient. * In my opinion ---and the opinion of our own team working on adding support for OOXML to OOo--- the spec is implementable. It might not be perfect up to the last bit, but it will be within the very acceptable range (Same can be said about pretty much every single one of the implementations that we have: from TCP/IP to NFS, to HTML, to USB support, to anything else). Thus we remain with the conclusion that it is very important to campaign for ODF and reject OOXML as a standard. It seems to me that the we are trying to participate in the game of club your opponent with the standard club.I do not know if it is a good tactic or not, but much of the campaign against OOXML has been based on the very same tactics that people accuse Microsoft of using: planting fear and doubt. Maybe the ends justify the means, but I do not feel comfortable with it. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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. As for the mathematical errors, those have been blown out of proportion: http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/07/12/spreadsheet-formula-bugs.aspx If you want to drown in a glass of water, go ahead, but they are minor issues as outlined on the post above. Unlike OOXML, CSS2 is fully royalty free, please compare apple with apples, instead of apples with oranges. The OSP is also royalty free, where did it say its not? Do you have formal legal advise that the OSP is not enough, or is this a conjecture from the blogosphere? 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 ? We are not talking about Microsoft general attitudes, we are talking about the specifics of this standard, and this standard is explicitly listed in the Microsoft Open Specification Promise and has very precise terms. MS Word 2000 Table Style Rules, can you point them out? I do not, but it is flagged on the standard as deprecated. You could bring this up at the ISO meeting if you are really concerned about it. 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. I would like to stick to the issues and stay away from ad-hominen attacks. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 - you might want to look harder at who you trust some day. The decommoditization of protocols and attack by complexity of standards stuff is even in the original Halloween document leaks 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. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 able to get folks to move to our office suite from MS Office anyways. As for the mathematical errors, those have been blown out of proportion: http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/07/12/spreadsheet-formula-bugs.aspx If you want to drown in a glass of water, go ahead, but they are minor issues as outlined on the post above. Ah, but you are so informed... do you know a YES vote WITH COMMENTS has no meaning of any kind of obligation at all? If it has to be corrected it has to be voted NO WITH COMMENTS. Unlike OOXML, CSS2 is fully royalty free, please compare apple with apples, instead of apples with oranges. The OSP is also royalty free, where did it say its not? Do you have formal legal advise that the OSP is not enough, or is this a conjecture from the blogosphere? Well, according to the OSP, the OSP does NOT cover the full breadth of OOXML specification. Do you consider http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx the blogosphere, or is that just a negative remark towards all bloggers, including you? 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 ? We are not talking about Microsoft general attitudes, we are talking about the specifics of this standard, and this standard is explicitly listed in the Microsoft Open Specification Promise and has very precise terms. Well, Microsoft's attitude has been to gear up in order to use their patent arsenal. Right now, there'se that Promise which has precise but lacking terms. MS Word 2000 Table Style Rules, can you point them out? I do not, but it is flagged on the standard as deprecated. You could bring this up at the ISO meeting if you are really concerned about it. Oh, that's just *one* element of many which alone are a reason for NO WITH COMMENTS, since YES WITH COMMENTS is meaningless. And I'll be sure to table it at my countries ISO meeting. 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. I would like to stick to the issues and stay away from ad-hominen attacks. I didn't attack you, only that idiot troll who claims to be you. Unless this is not really you, I can't tell... why take it so personally? Because I called it fake-standard? Rui -- Wibble. 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
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
* 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. Our own lawyers consider that the Microsoft OSP sufficient. Is that as a result of the patent deals between Novell and Microsoft however ? Thus we remain with the conclusion that it is very important to campaign for ODF and reject OOXML as a standard. It seems to me that the we are trying to participate in the game of club your opponent with the standard club. ISO has policies on standards. OOXML fails to meet them on so many grounds that any other vendor trying to play the games around OOXML would have had their document thrown out already. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 wanted. Well, Jujitsu seemed more appropriate from the Wikipedia page to what my goal was: Jujutsu [...] is a Japanese martial art whose central ethos is to yield to the force provided by an opponent's attack in order to apply counter techniques. If a long standard is part of an attack, we can use that for our own purposes. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 meet them on so many grounds that any other vendor trying to play the games around OOXML would have had their document thrown out already. All I have seen it a lot of hot air. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 of facts can make most people tune out. The article I recall seeing was good because it made the point very clear without a lot list of detailed reasons. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
