Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
Synchronizing and sharing the notes are not SaaS, though editing might be SaaS. So at least some of this service is basically ok, provided Gnote can also use it (because Tomboy's dependence on C# is a problem). Again, I must certainly be missing something here, but if C# represents such a problem in and of itself, how is it that gnu.org develops, maintains and supports the DOTGNU project, which aims to be for ... C# programs what GNU/Linux is rapidly becoming for desktop and server applications? Either C# is a problem or it's not, and if it is, why is there a GNU project to support it? If it's not, what exactly are we talking about? (http://www.gnu.org/software/dotgnu/) It is the same set of half truths that Richard has been spreading for a while on C#. Richard will respond that C# is a slippery slope to allow developers to use APIs that might have been patented, so it should be avoided. He has never addressed the fact that the ideas embedded in .NET APIs have been copied extensively by plenty of open source projects, beyond those that use Mono and that every one of those projects would then be in as much risk. It is not my job to point out those projects, I do not believe in fighting FUD with FUD, but any .NET expert that spends some time with a modern distribution would be able to point out ideas and APIs that were originated at Microsoft and could potentially infringe on the very same patents. C# the language, and the core .NET libraries are under a far-from-ideal Community Promise patent license. Sadly, this patent grant for the ideas embodied in those standards are made available by Microsoft to full implementations of C# and those core class libraries. But they are not available to third party languages. So in fact, the ECMA subset of C# and the ECMA subset of the class libraries comes with patent protection, but if people made copies of those ideas for other languages and other execution environments, they would not be protected from a potential Microsoft patent threat. Richard has sadly become very disconnected from technology so he does not understand the finer print. He relies on third parties to provide him with an analysis, and those people are sadly not well equipped, informed or are too driven by hate to provide sound advise. I could help Richard and we could work together, but he has decided that I am a traitor of the movement. So in the meantime I do what I do best: I write free software and I build it on the platform that I enjoy working the most, C# and the ECMA CLI [1] [1] Well, mostly. I also write proprietary software for proprietary platforms like the iPhone and Microsoft Visual Studio. But I have been enjoying learning new things. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
Regarding Facebook's connections with the CIA, see http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jan/14/facebook. The Guardian is a major UK newspaper. Maybe I am not too bright, but I failed to see the close ties that you quoted in your original message on February 26th. It has a lot of innuendo and no smoking gun, the article claims that the suspicious activity goes like this: * The new round of funding for Facebook came from Greylock * One of Greylock's partners, Howard Cox (out of 24) is on the board of Q-Tel a VC firm from the CIA. That is the whole connection. The Greylock partners on the board of facebook are David Sze and Reid Hoffman, none of which is Howard Cox. Here is a list of names that Greylock has invested in that I can recognize: * Red Hat * RedFin (real estate) * Cloudera * Cuil * Digg * OpenDNS * Linked-In * Zend PHP * ZipCar * Pandora If you are going to do some guilt by association, it seems that all of the above have as much close ties to the CIA as Facebook does. You could make outrageous claims about the CIA injecting backdoors in code distributed by any of the above. And can you really trust a compiler that has gone through a dark room? I know that with the proper level of paranoia I cant: http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Reboot: Strategic goals for GNOME
Hello, That subset is not enough: programs such as Tomboy depend on the other libraries which are not in the ECMA subset and not covered. Also, that community promise, even where it does apply, is not adequate. If there was only some technique; Some sort of steps; Some sort of process that would allow people to change the code so that it did not use those APIs. Perhaps some form of change -- a patch, if you will-- that could be applied to this DNA which could produce maybe a new strain of this DNA. Maybe then, and only then, we could have a solution. But clearly, such process does not exist. It defies imagination. And if such process existed, Microsoft probably patented it. So, why bother? Clearly, giving up is the only option. Some say surrender, other being practical. See http://www.fsf.org/news/2009-07-mscp-mono for details. That article is a load of crap, a package of half truths. It is a textbook sample of FUD. Well, wikipedia-textbook sample. That article now leads us to believe that there is something magical about the way that Microsoft implements regular expressions or how they implemented XSLT and XPath. If you cant find prior art for that, you probably should leave the software industry while you are still ahead. And the other strong point of the article? That some optimizations might be patented and *then* we would infringe, then it ends with a truism, patents are bad. There is a solid share of ridiculous hypotheticals, each of them worthy of being turned into a trollcat. http://trollcats.com/2010/02/eat-hot-logic-heretics-trollcat/ Implementing a free platform for C# is a good thing to do. If you would like to promote the use of C# itself, how about explaining to Novell and Microsoft that they need to fully implement said protection in an ironclad way for all the usual C# libraries. I spend a considerable amount of time doing this. It has taken time, and there would be no Community Promise, and there would be no Silverlight agreement (the one that has no special Novell provisions) without this work. It is a slow process since we speak different languages.Microsoft is willing to make changes, but they move slow and they need to understand every step of the way. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Private Foundation-List Petition for referendum
Hello, I believe that we should keep the foundation-list open for anyone to read. As Jeff said, trollumnists do not need to play by the same rules that we do, they do not need to stick to the facts when they do not serve their purpose. When facts get in the way, they will just invent their own or lie by omission [1]. Perhaps what we do need is for the board to have a stronger connection to mass media and be ready to articulate public responses properly framing discussions and correcting any incorrect reporting. Raw community discussion is like a kitchen, it might not be pretty, but what counts is the result. We should be proud of the software that we create, how we got there, and the fact that we have nothing to hide. If we close down the list because of a trollumnist, then fear, hate and trollumnism win. We can improve our Code of Conduct to help us harmonize our discussions and harmonize the public outcome. As I have mentioned in the past on my blog, I very much like The Art of Possibility and perhaps we could grab some of those concepts for the code of conduct. Miguel. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Code of Conduct and Foundation membership
Hello, GNOME is not connected with the anti-hunting movement; there's no reason it should have any position on the question. But GNOME is part of the GNU Project, and it ought to support the free software movement. The most minimal support for the free software movement is to refrain from going directly against it; that is, to avoid presenting proprietary software as legitimate. Gnome supports both the free software movement as well as proprietary developers, and that is why Gnome for years has encouraged the use of the LGPL license for all of its libraries. Gnome is a general purpose desktop, but it also recognizes the need for proprietary applications to use these libraries and to build and integrate properly 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
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 a full implementation of OOXML respect that tag's meaning? The topic is addressed here: http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/01/09/specifying-the-document-settings.aspx And it addresses in particular the issue of whether it should be removed or not. This is not a discussion about layouts. If it's bad that such a standard defines layouts, I may agree. Still, that means that tag must disappear. People with different backgrounds will come to different conclusions about removing the tags. This was done for another ECMA spec, and I wish that the information was kept (to this day, I still keep the original drafts and the early published documents because things that were deemed implementation specific happen in the wild, and when it comes to interop, you want to be forgiving about what you accept and strict on what you generate). Of course this is my position on technical merits, others implementors might have other views. On political and activist grounds you might also reach different conclusions, but I will find it difficult in the future to say with a straight face in court well, they did not specify enough, so this format created lock-in. Specially from people who work for a company that is strategically aligned with Microsoft. Ah, the old guilt by association way of constructing a logical argument. Always a fine choice. Miguel ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 (both groups) using quotes, or using amusing names is not going to get them specified. And it addresses in particular the issue of whether it should be removed or not. Nice, just another repeatition the argument of legacy. What about KWord? Can it support legacy formats, or is legacy only for Microsoft? You could request that those bits be specified if you really care about them. They are rendering and layout issues that as Michael pointed are not really specified in either standard and seems minor. Oh, I forgot, since Michael said it, and he works at Novell on OpenOffice, and Novell has an agreement with Microsoft to implement OOXML his opinion is useless. Duh, how did I not think of that. Of course this is my position on technical merits, others implementors might have other views. On political and activist grounds you might also reach different conclusions, but I will find it difficult in the future to say with a straight face in court well, they did not specify enough, so this format created lock-in. Specially from people who work for a company that is strategically aligned with Microsoft. Ah, the old guilt by association way of constructing a logical argument. Always a fine choice. Well, pot, meet kettle. However, you are the one who said almost word for word what another Microsoft employee said at the Portuguese Meeting. You are saying pot meet kettle, but you either does not know what it means, or you do not know how to use it, or you are incorrectly using it. Yes, and you will notice that Microsoft employees, IBM employees and myself all agree that 2+2 equals 4. It does not make it a conspiracy, it is merely a conclusion that you can arrive to if you do not let bigotry get in the way of your advocacy. It's fortunate that he didn't speak Portuguese, this is how I could tell you used almost word for word what he said. Do they give lectures on how to answer? I'm curious :) You keep attacking the messenger and not the message and trying to use guilt by association. It works wonder for the Bush administration, I applaud your efforts to mimic the very best the world of FUD has to offer. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 which are *described in detail* and *not merely referenced*. As I already mentioned, those pieces are tiny (the metafile images), they are old, so any patents in there would expire and ODF depends on those as well. For one, the description on that page is at odds with the statements by Larry Rosen on the license (I included it at the end of this message). Rosen's statement is from November 2005, and reflects the pre-OSP promise, but this is discussed in the above url, and considered a non-starter which puts it at odds with Rosen's position. You're parroting Microsoft propaganda. Instead of using an ad-hominem attack, you could point us why Larry Rosen is wrong and you are right, his credentials seem pretty solid to me: In addition to this law practice, Larry also served for many years as general counsel and secretary of the non-profit Open Source Initiative (OSI). He currently advises many open source companies and non-profit open source projects including Apache Software Foundation and the Python Software Foundation. In 2005-2006 he was a Lecturer in Law at Stanford Law School. [...] Larry's book, Open Source Licensing: Software Freedom and Intellectual Property Law, was published by Prentice Hall in 2004. Labeling inconvenient facts as propaganda is precisely the kind of practice that I want to avoid. Larry Rosen statement [2] (snip) It's been a long time since I *last* trusted Larry Rosen's words. This is just one more of his unthoughtful statements that led me to doubt such broad statements. Then produce the legal council that contradicts Rosen. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 to be modified. Rosen's statement is from November 2005, and reflects the pre-OSP promise, but this is discussed in the above url, and considered a non-starter which puts it at odds with Rosen's position. Rosen is talking about open source, not free software. He said that Microsoft's old patent promise allows open source implementations. I explained in http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/microsoft-new-monopoly.html why it did not allow free software implementations. The analysis on that page is based on a different patent license than the OSP for OOXML. It is based on the patent license for XPS which is a format used for output (it is similar in spirit to Postscript or PDF as opposed to ODF). This is probably where the confusion stems from. In any case, I only knew about Larry Rosen's position on the original OOXML license, but it turns out that the Microsoft page for the OSP contains a quote from himself directly regarding the OSP, it specifically talks about free and open source licenses: “I see Microsoft’s introduction of the OSP as a good step by Microsoft to further enable collaboration between software vendors and the open source community. This OSP enables the open source community to implement these standard specifications without having to pay any royalties to Microsoft or sign a license agreement. I'm pleased that this OSP is compatible with free and open source licenses.” In addition to Larry Rosen's quote, there is one from Mark Webbink, Deputy General Counsel at Red Hat: Red Hat believes that the text of the OSP gives sufficient flexibility to implement the listed specifications in software licensed under free and open source licenses. We commend Microsoft’s efforts to reach out to representatives from the open source community and solicit their feedback on this text, and Microsoft's willingness to make modifications in response to our comments. He also explicitly mentions free and open source licenses. Maybe Rosen is right--as regards open source. But that isn't relevant to free software. The criteria are not the same. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 for the underlying features of OOXML is already present in the existing products. 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. Your insult is too vague to be checked, or refuted, but the reasons why this question of standardization is important are very specific. Well, it was not meant to be an insult, am not sure how you arrived to that conclusion. But if you felt that way, you can rest assured it was not my intention. Interest groups have used standards to club their opponents for many years. Its nothing new. Governments around the world are interested in using an open standard format. They have to decide whether to insist on a real open standard, such as ODF, or accept a sham open standard, OOXML. If they choose the former, they are likely to move somewhat to OpenOffice. Otherwise they are likely to be stuck with Microsoft Office. I guess we place different values on having a complete spec vs not having one. I rather have people use ODF (even with its incomplete spec, and even with the go read the source code to OpenOffice is the only answer to trick questions), but I would not go as far as saying that OOXML is a sham just because ODF helps us advance our own FLOSS agenda. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 order to achieve our ends. I would not suggest that, and I have not. I suggested that we tell the truth about OOXML. 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 discussion that we were having on this forum regarding the Microsoft OSP patent promise. For one, the description on that page is at odds with the statements by Larry Rosen on the license (I included it at the end of this message). Rosen's statement is from November 2005, and reflects the pre-OSP promise, but this is discussed in the above url, and considered a non-starter which puts it at odds with Rosen's position. On technical grounds, the document sometimes is right on spot, sometimes it raises issues that would be good to have clarified, sometimes it goes down to nitpicking and sometimes it is wrong. I have touched on some of those complaints myself in the past [1]. I have no problem opposing OOXML on truthful grounds, but there is an active disinformation campaign against OOXML and this is precisely what I oppose. There is a continuous repetition of the same arguments, the selective quotation (I have been selectively quoted and out of context by Mr Weir and other folks in several occasions to advance this campaign). If the same standards that are being applied to OOXML were applied to ODF, ODF would have not become a standard. Repeating myself, I have no problem with the advocacy of ODF over OOXML for FLOSS software as well as our recommendation for governments, as long as we remain truthful. The discussion between ODF and OOXML is about what is an open standard, and unlike free and open source software there is not a clear cut definition of what constitutes open. There is no shame in promoting ODF on the grounds that this is the standard that is best supported by FLOSS software in my opinion. What we should do, for the sake of our free software agenda, is make an effort to inform the public and governments of this state of affairs. Sure. Miguel. Larry Rosen statement [2] I was delighted to learn of Microsoft’s recent Covenant Regarding Office 2003 XML Reference Schemas. This covenant goes beyond anything Microsoft has ever done before. It means that both open source and proprietary software can compete in implementations of these important XML schemas without the threat of patent litigation from Microsoft. This covenant is at least as generous as the patent licenses for many other document formats and industry standards. It includes protection for Microsoft against patent lawsuits; this is just like the patent defense provisions in many open source licenses. And the scope of their patent covenant, even though it is limited to conforming software products, is sufficient to allow open source implementations that can read and write Office 2003 documents. Microsoft’s covenant is, to coin a phrase, as fair and balanced as other licenses or covenants we’ve accepted before. I am pleased to see Microsoft move their patent licensing strategy this far. Microsoft has offered its specification for standardization by ECMA, an industry standards organization headquartered in Europe. It is important for open source companies to participate in this standardization effort, so that we can ensure that the specification for the standard is itself developed in an open way. If we do that, I’m confident that conforming software products will evolve to meet customer needs worldwide without Microsoft having to dictate the scope of that conformance. The first reaction people will have is, where’s the catch? I don’t see anything we can’t live with. We can participate in crafting the standard in ECMA, we can read and write Office 2003 files in open source applications, and we don’t have to pay royalties to Microsoft to do so. It’s a good start. [1] http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html [2] http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2192 ___ 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
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
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: GNOME Foundation Elections - Ballots sent
Hey Baris, I have not yet received my ballot. Miguel. On 11/25/06, Baris Cicek [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, We have just sent the ballots for the elections. Every member who can vote for the elections should have received an e-mail with instructions explaining how to vote. If you have not received your ballot, please first verify that you are eligible to vote by looking at the list of voters and that your e-mail address in this list is still valid: http://foundation.gnome.org/membership/members.php If you are not on this list and think you should be, please send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] explaining your situation. If you are on this list and if you have not received your ballot, then you can ask us to send you a new ballot by sending an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Below is the timeline for the elections. Timeline (all deadlines are 23:59 UTC/18:59 EST) November 2006 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 (4) list of candidates open (4th) 5 6 7 (8) 9 10 11 applications/renewals closed (8th) 12 13 14 15(16)17(18) list of candidates closed (16th) list of candidates announced (18th) 19 20 21 22 23 24(25) instructions to vote are sent (25th) 26 27 28 29 30 December 2006 Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (9) votes must be returned (9th) (10)11 12 13 14 15 16 preliminary results announced (10th) 17 18 19 20 21 22(23) challenges to the results close (23rd) 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 In the case of a tie, another round of votes will happen after the preliminary results are announced. For more information, please look at the elections procedures at http://foundation.gnome.org/elections/2006/rules.html. If you have any questions, feel free to send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] or to foundation-list@gnome.org The GNOME Foundation Membership Elections Committee ___ foundation-announce mailing list foundation-announce@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-announce ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Changing the name of GUADEC
Hello, I would like to propose changing the name of GUADEC. There are many reasons to do this, here are 5: Brilliant idea. Its one of the worst names marketing wise, it means nothing to people. I would try to go for simple Gnome Conference or maybe Gnome Conf. I think that GConf is just being too cute. Miguel. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
