Re: GNOME: lack of strategic roadmap
Em 24-02-2010 10:16, Dave Neary escreveu: Richard Stallman wrote: Software freedom is a means to furthering our vision of providing technology to all, regardless of means, physical and technical capability or culture. Freedom can lead to more available technology, but it is vital in its own right. It is little benefit to have technology available if the price of using it is your freedom. That is why we write free replacements for existing proprietary software. To draw a parallel with slavery (hyperbole, I know, but humour me): Is it enough to say you're free now for a society to be just? Is the goal of freedom for all a sufficient vision, especially when that goal is (more or less) accomplished today? Freedom from slavery is a means to an end, the end being a just society with no racial discrimination and equal opportunity for all. Freedom is a mean means that it could be replaced by another mean, which means that you'd have a society that is just if you consider freedom an injustice. Since freedom is quite the opposite of an injustice, then said society simply can't be considered just. As a consequence, a society needs to include Freedom in order to be called just. Corolary: freedom is a cornerstone mean for a just society If a computer user can be free, but will end up with an inferior computing environment because of it, he may welcome returning to a proprietary environment, as many Mac OS X users free software developers have. Every day I look at a Nokia N900 I feel exactly like that, tempted to return to a proprietary environment because it has a way superior computing environment than my OpenMoko Neo Freerunner. I have been strong, fortunately. Even though this phone is not 100% free, it's the next best thing for a free phone (or tracking device). I'm just saying, that while user freedom is vital, it is insufficient as a vision for the GNOME project. Assuming (which I doubt) that it is insufficient, open access is way more undefined and subject to conclusions which frequently lead to no freedom, so I don't view it as an interesting definition. Perhaps this can be a middle ground: a superior computing environment that gives you full freedom. Rui ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
Em 14-12-2009 00:26, Philip Van Hoof escreveu: On Sun, 2009-12-13 at 13:34 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Em 13-12-2009 12:44, Philip Van Hoof escreveu: Richard's claim that proprietary is illegitimate is enforcement. He's making a philosophic mistake that contradicts his own ideology of free choice. Choice of the master is not free choice for a slave. It only looks like free choice to other masters uninvolved in the choice. Ridiculous hyperbole. Oh, so you're left with just insults? Free choice isn't enforceable. You can only convince people of it. I think Richard has correctly highlighted the fact that the GNOME Planet could better promote free software. That's not his only request, though. He's requesting GNOME to claim that proprietary software is illegitimate. Let's focus on that. The coin of software freedom has two sides to conving people to buy it: 0) promotion of Free Software 1) critic of proprietary software Just like you can't educate a child just by teaching him the good examples, you have to critic the bad examples in front of the child: there's no law against being unpolite, it's perfectly legal, but shouldn't one repress unpolite behaviours when a child exhibits them? You're assuming developers are children who have to be punished into making choices. No, you are. I simply made a parallel comparison. Any educated person will have no problem in understanding that. And I never talked about punishment either. You seem to have an obcession with it, confusing critic with punishment. GNOME, both as a community and as a foundation, should teach the good examples and critic the bad ones. GNOME should stick to teaching the good examples. Criticizing the bad ones is only counter productive. I think you should read a bit more about teaching before making such claims. You teach people by cooperating with them. What Miguel has been doing is a good example how to convince people of (some) new ideas. I'm sorry, what does he have to do with this? As such, I don't think this is enough: We already do this: http://www.gnome.org/about/ Stopping here is quite insufficient. To me, proprietary software is illegitimate. Not in the legal sense, as the law allows that, but in the human sense. It teaches that sharing is evil. It tries to hold you as a slave to it's proprietary formats, and lock you in as a defenseless customer. But to me it's no wonder you should think it is, specially since you seem pretty adamant against critic of proprietary software. It seems to me you're one of those people who think the freedom of speech of others is a shotgun pointed at your head forcing you to do stuff in a certain way they prefer. It's stunning that first you are talking about repressing childish behavior, talking about how bad being impolite is ... And here you are doing argumentum ad hominem. It undermines your credibility. Ever heard of filters? If Richard Stallman get's so much into your nerves, just make a filter to delete his emails automatically. Did I say Richard gets into my nerves? Why would I want to delete his E-mails? Why wouldn't I want to know how he thinks, what he writes? Why are you talking on behalf of me, anyway? Don't create more pointless flame wars or appeal to loose-loose schisms as that's what you're doing. Nonsense and more ad hominem. Pottle... kettle... Respect is earned, not due. You haven't behaved in a way that deserves my respect. Rui ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
Em 13-12-2009 12:44, Philip Van Hoof escreveu: Richard's claim that proprietary is illegitimate is enforcement. He's making a philosophic mistake that contradicts his own ideology of free choice. Choice of the master is not free choice for a slave. It only looks like free choice to other masters uninvolved in the choice. Free choice isn't enforceable. You can only convince people of it. I think Richard has correctly highlighted the fact that the GNOME Planet could better promote free software. That's not his only request, though. He's requesting GNOME to claim that proprietary software is illegitimate. Let's focus on that. The coin of software freedom has two sides to conving people to buy it: 0) promotion of Free Software 1) critic of proprietary software Just like you can't educate a child just by teaching him the good examples, you have to critic the bad examples in front of the child: there's no law against being unpolite, it's perfectly legal, but shouldn't one repress unpolite behaviours when a child exhibits them? GNOME, both as a community and as a foundation, should teach the good examples and critic the bad ones. As such, I don't think this is enough: We already do this: http://www.gnome.org/about/ Stopping here is quite insufficient. To me, proprietary software is illegitimate. Not in the legal sense, as the law allows that, but in the human sense. It teaches that sharing is evil. It tries to hold you as a slave to it's proprietary formats, and lock you in as a defenseless customer. But to me it's no wonder you should think it is, specially since you seem pretty adamant against critic of proprietary software. It seems to me you're one of those people who think the freedom of speech of others is a shotgun pointed at your head forcing you to do stuff in a certain way they prefer. Ever heard of filters? If Richard Stallman get's so much into your nerves, just make a filter to delete his emails automatically. Don't create more pointless flame wars or appeal to loose-loose schisms as that's what you're doing. Rui ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
Em 11-12-2009 18:20, Brian Cameron escreveu: If there is enough people to do a vote, that's great. My vote: -1 I do not think that people should be discouraged from suggesting rules for the GNOME community, and a reaction like leaving the GNU community because Richard made a suggestion could be interpreted that way, I think. We can always say no. Richard Stallman said: There are many ways to implement such a rule, of which block the whole blog is about the toughest one we might consider. I'd suggest rather to try a mild approach; I'm sure that can do the job. Richard's suggestion that a mild approach may be appropriate does not seem over-the-top to me. Perhaps a mild approach could be something simple like a disclaimer on planet that highlights that some information on planet may advertise non-free software, and we want to make clear that GNOME does not endorse non-free software and instead encourages people to consider free alternatives. might be a reasonably mild and acceptable solution? I would prefer to see such a disclaimer, actually. Perhaps we should also make the disclaimer say something about hunting. I have a personal blog and when I asked planet.openmoko.org to add my posts, I gave them the RSS feed corresponding to posts under the tag OpenMoko. Perhaps it would be a simpler suggestion to pass on the aggregated bloggers that after date X only posts with the tag GNOME will be aggregated? Rui ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: foundation-list Digest, Vol 68, Issue 13
Em 12-12-2009 11:31, Philip Van Hoof escreveu: On Sat, 2009-12-12 at 09:51 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: I have a personal blog and when I asked planet.openmoko.org to add my posts, I gave them the RSS feed corresponding to posts under the tag OpenMoko. Perhaps it would be a simpler suggestion to pass on the aggregated bloggers that after date X only posts with the tag GNOME will be aggregated? This is what Stormy replied in the thread: From: Stormy Peters stormy.pet...@gmail.com Date: 12/10/2009 03:46:37 PM (Thu, 10 Dec 2009 07:46:37 -0700) Planet GNOME is about people and we display everyone's full blog feed as it represents them. ^^ ^ There are people that work on proprietary software as well as GNOME and that's who they are. I don't think we should reject people because they don't agree with us 100% of the time. [CUT about hunting] Now, if they aren't doing any GNOME work and all they talk about it non-free, non-GNOME software, that's different. Stormy I agree with Stormy here: People can choose to have a tag on english, which is what I did because some people complained about my Dutch posts and this was proposed by the planet maintainers as resolution. But for example Lionel Dricot, a French speaking Belgian, told us in this thread that he enjoys reading Reinhout's Dutch posts (Reinhout is from the Netherlands) to practice his Dutch knowledge. This is just to illustrate what going full monty on gnome tags will have as impact. It would change the entire philosophy of the planet. The same philosophy that made it a success would be changed into a cold one. I'm against the proposal because the planet is doing just fine. Why is that so hard for some people to accept? In fact, I must confess that phrase from Stormy escaped my quick skimming of the whole flame, I don't agree with that PoV as I'll explain below. I was just suggesting a simpler course of action which I voluntary opt to when I'm invited or when I ask for inclusion at some planet. Themed planets I'm in only get my related posts. This is because, IMHO, if you want to follow the person, you can always do so from their own RSS, but (again, IMHO), themed planets should have articles from many people, but mostly related to the theme of the planet. Otherwise, with the point of view Stormy (and others) has over the planet, eventually one participant's post, or even himself, will press someone else's buttons, and this kind of things come up again, and again and again :| In fact, many posts from many of the participants bore *me* to death and I miss older times. Of course I can skip them, but then one could wonder why is there a GNOME planet at all :) Rui ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Supporting GTK+
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 04:10:39AM +, Bruno Pinho wrote: This tutorial about GTK+ is 100% translated to portuguese. What do you think? Can I offer it to my friends so they can study? thanks, Hi Bruno, It seems to be a Standard Portuguese translation, am I right? I just skimmed the first pages. If so, we (ANSOL -- http://ansol.org/) would like to talk to you (private email, please). Best, Rui ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 09:41:24AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Richard Stallman The reason this is not so is that Microsoft is trying to spin the apparent support of GNOME into proof that OOXML is not bad for free software. Microsoft haven't done so publicly thus far, but the risk is there, and we will endeavour to make it absolutely clear that our participation does not imply endorsement, contribution or support. We've taken one step already with our statement on our participation, and you are sure to see more in the future. I've heard Stephen McGibbon himself say to Portuguese TC-173 such suggestions. He made a quick list to show there is support from the Free Software community, and one of the references was de Icaza *from*GNOME*, another was a lawyer who has worked with OSI, Jody, etc... Just so you may know for sure that in closed circles they *are* spinning it. Rui -- Keep the Lasagna flying! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 42nd day of The Aftermath 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: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 07:37:27PM -0500, Luis Villa wrote: On Nov 28, 2007 7:15 PM, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I don't see how the foundation can 'make sure' of anything in this instance. It can not force developers towards or away from either spec. That is simply not in it's mandate. I may be being obtuse, but what's not in it's mandate for ODF but is for OOXML? Or am I reading your words wrong? Yes, you are. :) He means that we can't force anyone to do anything. In the OOXML case, someone came to the board and volunteered, and the board helped out. There was no mandate there. Similarly, if someone came and volunteered to work on ODF, the board would (presumably) seek to join the relevant standards bodies so that that volunteer could participate. But we can't force anyone to go do that work for us. Thanks. We all appear to agree that implementing ODF is good for FLOSS. However, beyond that there's no stick, and a carrot (eg funding) seems inappropriate (why this project vs the dozens of others). Or one another in particular? For a fake standard, there is funding? What funding? No one is paying Jody to do what he does on OOXML; again, he is a volunteer, doing things voluntarily. If someone were to volunteer for ODF, the board would facilitate it. But the board isn't going to pay anyone to work on either standard. Thanks. -- Or is it? Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath 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: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:09:31PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:15:11AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:23:57PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:34:54PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: and I hope the Foundation will help make sure the users of GNOME can use the next version of ODF I don't see how the foundation can 'make sure' of anything in this instance. It can not force developers towards or away from either spec. That is simply not in it's mandate. I may be being obtuse, but what's not in it's mandate for ODF but is for OOXML? Or am I reading your words wrong? I will try to be clearer. Thank you! :) We all appear to agree that implementing ODF is good for FLOSS. However, beyond that there's no stick, and a carrot (eg funding) seems inappropriate (why this project vs the dozens of others). Or one another in particular? For a fake standard, there is funding? I have no idea what you are talking about. No money has been spent, nor will any money be spent joining ECMA. As we've stated on numerous occasions the foundation is a non-profit entity and was given a _FREE_ _NON-VOTING_ membership. Thank you. The board has offered to try and facilitate a membership in OASIS for an interested candidate. The will is there, but like so much else we're short on man power. We'd welcome patches to improve the ODF exporter in Gnumeric or abiword. I'd prefer to be spending my time coding to these endless discussions of ISO-tactics. I think I might have missed this, where is it? I can't seem to find it, but it's late here and my googling skills may be already too hampered... It == Gnumeric ODF support ? http://svn.gnome.org/viewvc/gnumeric/trunk/plugins/openoffice/ It == Joining OASIS ? It's been mentioned numerous times in various forums. Indeed when we first mentioned that I would be joining ECMA it was discussed that it would be good to get an OASIS membership too. This one. I don't recall seing it on foundation-list or foundation announce, though. I confess not to follow *all* forum sites. If you (or anyone else) is interested talk to the board. That is all it takes. I'd love to do it, but the weekly meetings are too much of a commitment at this point. My day job is not paying me to take part in standards organizations or FLOSS. I'd love to, but it very likely requires some geographical proximity I can't afford (US, or plane travels). Best, Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath 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: GNOME dependent on Mono
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 08:03:38PM -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with great concern. (...) However, making GNOME depend on Mono is running a grave risk, and a grave mistake. If the article accurately describes the situation, I think we need to launch a high-priority project to reimplement Yelp in some other language. RPM (as used in most distributions) is not as flexible as DEB and a badly made package will bring in *optional* dependencies as if they were required. People are very freaked out and nerves on a real fringe, so it's very easy to trigger alarm. We have Novell, as a huge puppet from Microsoft's manouvers to divide the Free Software community, to thank for so much friction. Rui -- Frink! Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath 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: GNOME dependent on Mono
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 12:22:23PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Richard Stallman I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with great concern. Unfortunately, the authors of that website are obstinate in their indifference to the truth, and do not serve the interests of the Free Software community. They prefer to create suspicion and insinuations than report the truth of important matters such as these. http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/26/the-novell-fud-never-existed/ I think you're way too harsh on people who actually concluded things like: Jeff has written a good blog item to clarify things about Novell and GNOME. (...) (...) You are encouraged to read Jeff’s detailed and honest writing on this issue. Hey, I have a handicap, English is not my native language and I have a truth be told damn the consequences attitude, so what I write ususally seems harsher than what I mean. I wish English was like Perl, in that regard. Rui -- This statement is false. Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath 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: GNOME dependent on Mono
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 01:15:34AM +, Bastien Nocera wrote: On Wed, 2007-11-28 at 20:03 -0500, Richard Stallman wrote: I read http://boycottnovell.com/2007/11/05/gnome-mono-yelp/ with great concern. snip usual rant Yelp has had an optional Beagle dependency for at least 2 years. It's optional, and it's not news. We need a new RPM in some distributions, as optional dependencies are not part of current RPM in Fedora, for instance :) Rui -- Umlaut Zebra �ber alles! Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath 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: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?
On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 05:40:47AM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 08:25:30AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:09:31PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: If you (or anyone else) is interested talk to the board. That is all it takes. I'd love to do it, but the weekly meetings are too much of a commitment at this point. My day job is not paying me to take part in standards organizations or FLOSS. I'd love to, but it very likely requires some geographical proximity I can't afford (US, or plane travels). There is no requirement for travel. All relevant discussion takes place on mailing lists and conference calls. The only significant requirements are time and expertise. Time being the more important factor. If there's no geographical limitation or travel needs, please consider my offer to help in this regard *iif* nobody better suited comes along. I will likely happen to tackle this issue on the Portuguese TC-173 in the future, anyway, unless it's still Microsoft-controlled, in which case I still don't know what the future will be. Rui -- Fnord. Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath 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: two questions for candidates
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 12:04:14PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=Rui Miguel Silva Seabra Microsoft isn't defending OOXML under the terms defined by ISO. So we should be as grubby and corrupt as them? No, we simply shouldn't be lax or complacent with a convicted entity who has not changed its methods, as if it was a normal human being. What I am saying here is not that we should put up a weak fight. I am saying we should *defeat* OOXML under the terms defined by ISO. As far as ISO is concerned, GNOME Foundation participated in the Disposition of Comments. We know that isn't true, but ECMA's PR is clearly written in a way to suggest all those entities did it without saying it outright. BTW, Jeff, Jody: did the GNOME Foundation ever receive a notice from ECMA to participate in the Disposition of Comments? I'd really like to know that in order to call ECMA out in the open... I'm helping to do that in Australia. It is in the local standards bodies that the fight exists now. Not on the GNOME Foundation mailing list. Yes, but the matter is of... Right on, but you could make sure not only geeks noticed the many poison pills of OOXML. This discussion is an evident proof one of the poison pills is getting at people. This discussion is not about supporting OOXML. ... profiling candidates :) Rui -- Today is Boomtime, the 40th day of The Aftermath 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
Question to candidates: what about next ODF?
Hello, One question to candidates: Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing of ODF? I'm sure it won't be for lack of a sponsor, but I think it is much more important to the Free Software world to have a true Open Standard for office documents, regardless of MS OOXML's outcome, and I hope the Foundation will help make sure the users of GNOME can use the next version of ODF with GNOME based Free Software. Thanks, Rui -- Or is it? Today is Boomtime, the 40th day of The Aftermath 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: Question to candidates: what about next ODF?
On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 06:23:57PM -0500, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Wed, Nov 28, 2007 at 09:34:54PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Hello, One question to candidates: Wil you promote the Foundation's participation on the reviewing of ODF? I'm sure it won't be for lack of a sponsor, but I think it is much more important to the Free Software world to have a true Open Standard for office documents, regardless of MS OOXML's outcome, and I hope the Foundation will help make sure the users of GNOME can use the next version of ODF with GNOME based Free Software. I don't see how the foundation can 'make sure' of anything in this instance. It can not force developers towards or away from either spec. That is simply not in it's mandate. I may be being obtuse, but what's not in it's mandate for ODF but is for OOXML? Or am I reading your words wrong? We all appear to agree that implementing ODF is good for FLOSS. However, beyond that there's no stick, and a carrot (eg funding) seems inappropriate (why this project vs the dozens of others). Or one another in particular? For a fake standard, there is funding? The board has offered to try and facilitate a membership in OASIS for an interested candidate. The will is there, but like so much else we're short on man power. We'd welcome patches to improve the ODF exporter in Gnumeric or abiword. I'd prefer to be spending my time coding to these endless discussions of ISO-tactics. I think I might have missed this, where is it? I can't seem to find it, but it's late here and my googling skills may be already too hampered... Rui -- Kallisti! Today is Pungenday, the 41st day of The Aftermath 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: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
On Mon, Nov 26, 2007 at 03:16:48AM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: quote who=jamie I can see MS spinning this to their advantage and I believe playing safe here would be better for us in the short term Thing is, Microsoft haven't spun it to their advantage. They've mentioned that Gnumeric is implementing OOXML, but that actually works against them (due to the complexity of the spec and the completeness of the impl). That's only true for people who understand how writing software works. To a policy maker, writing software is something little gnomes do when he asks IT department for some feature. If it isn't a full implementation, then for him it's okay because we all know software isn't bug-free. They *are* spinning it to their advantage. Give them a hand, they'll rip your arm off. They're not people, they are an entity whose moral duty is to increase shareholder revenue to a maximum. That they send nice guys to shows and talks is only a means to let you off-guard. They haven't spun our membership of TC45-M to their advantage, and they won't, because we're not their friends, and won't react kindly if they do. :-) Not chalengable *written forms*... Rui -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 37th day of The Aftermath 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: GNOME Foundation Statement on ECMA TC45-M Participation
On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 02:02:49AM +0100, Olav Vitters wrote: On Sat, Nov 24, 2007 at 12:44:52AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Don't cry about people who criticize the Foundation's unconditional support for OOXML, you're pointing guns at your own feet (and in fact just took another shot). Nice trollish statement. Maybe, if you want to conviniently forget the «The more you guys keep playing the neutral game, the more you'll get abused like this.» part... Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack GNU/Linux! Today is Pungenday, the 36th day of The Aftermath 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: Candidacy Announcement for the 2007 GNOME Board Election: George Kraft
On Thu, Nov 15, 2007 at 09:37:07AM -0600, George Kraft wrote: On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 03:23 -0500, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 14:45 -0600, George Kraft wrote: Affl: none Bio: http://live.gnome.org/GeorgeKraft Hi George, Great to see you running. So, you are not with IBM anymore? In that case your Bio page is outdated. I still work for IBM, but I would not officially represent them with respect to GNOME. It's not a matter of official representation but of whether your actions might be skewed in favour of your employer, which is fairly easy to happen if you depend on them for a living. Even if you don't do that right now and was never asked to do, it's not impossible that you may be pressured to so in the future, which is why the affiliation is important Rui -- P'tang! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 27th day of The Aftermath 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: Who would be a good member? [Was: About the coming election]
On Wed, Nov 07, 2007 at 06:35:50PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote: what you value about GNOME. To put it in a clunky but simple way, if GNOME is People, vote for the people who are GNOME. Dear god... I didn't know GNOME was made of old people who had assisted death in order to make canned food! Quick, let's tear it all down! GNOME IS PEOPLE! GNOME IS PEOPLE! [1] Rui [1] just search for soylent green is people and have a short laugh -- All Hail Discordia! Today is Sweetmorn, the 19th day of The Aftermath 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 09:32:52AM -0400, Luis Villa wrote: OOXML is going to be the defacto standard whether we like it or not. To pretend otherwise is to deny that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow. I'm not so sure... http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Aodt = almost 100.000 hits http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Adocx = almost 1.000 hits http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Aods = over 18.000 hits http://www.google.com/search?q=filetype%3Axlsx = over 200 hits Best, Rui ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 08:31:20AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: Spreadsheets are probably much easier to support, since they have a much more structured data (fixed table spaces, namely). Spoken like a non-spreadsheet user. My experience suggests exactly the opposite. Users are a lot more forgiving of kerning differences than they are of calculating different answers. Unfortunately my uses of spreadsheet go more into kerning than calculus, but to care about calculus and not care about correctness is hipocrisy of those users (even if they don't mean it because they simply are ignorant about the many problems :) ) chart:plot-area table:cell-range-address=Sheet1.$B$1:.$C$4 ... chart:series ... chart:domain/ /chart:series Minimal information on whether B goes into X or Y. Start adding multiple series into 1 plot and things get complicated quickly. To make things even more difficult, the entire approach is wrong. It does not allow for calculated content, or inline arrays. Data validation is specified is another area where implementation could have been simple, had ODF used stock xml. Instead it decided to store the spec as some sort of magic formula string that requires yet another parser. Let's fight to get it fixed when the time to discuss the next version of ODF comes up, shall we? I hope we can have your dedication as well :) But you're actually advocating it become a standard as it is... I am advocating that people use free software, and don't see that I have any control over whether OOX becomes an ISO standard for MS file formats or not. But you do have a certain ammount of control on how GNOME is perceived as supporting/not supporting that it becomes a standard. Contrary to the way this is being portrayed, this is a win win situation for free software. Either we get more docs and MS is constrained from embracing and extending their standard. How could something like that be prevented? Their monopoly is sustained precisely on embracing and extending. Or MS offers up even better documentation and tries again Even better implies it's currently good. It's not. And its this form of expressions that portrays the support of the GNOME Foundation for OOXML when you represent it. You can't blame people who perceive you as a supporter of OOXML if you're this careless :) Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Boomtime, the 15th day of The Aftermath 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Fri, Nov 02, 2007 at 06:19:23AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: Option 3 is useful only if we can veto (or organize a veto, or a stall) of the OOXML progress toward being a standard. The current participation is not of that manner. I have a significant problem with the ethics of that. Being on a standardization committee requires good faith participation. To join with the intent of sabotage is unacceptable. Indeed that is one of the few areas even MS has not yet descended to. They could easily have joined ODF, or had their minions attack it. Current Sub Committe 34 of ISO/JTC1 is currently stopped because the new P-member countries only voted for MS-OOXML and don't bother to vote about anything else, so far. Three votes have already been stalled thanks to strange vote apathy: http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0902.htm http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0909.htm http://www.jtc1sc34.org/repository/0910.htm What does SC-34 also control? RELAX NG, Schematron, Topic Maps, ODF, PDF... Considering evidence was found that they bought members in Sweden, that they forged the support of the Andaluzan Regional Government, etc... I'd pretty much say they not only descended, but are actively seeking to go deeper than the Mariana Trench. Rui -- You are what you see. Today is Boomtime, the 15th day of The Aftermath 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:18:38PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 10:19 +0100, BJörn Lindqvist wrote: I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the political party you dislike the most to improve their politics. To me, it's more like going to debates and challenging them. You mean, like a republican into a debate with ten democrats? Or vice-versa? If that's your meaning of going to debates I agree. Rui -- Or not. Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 12nd day of The Aftermath 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 04:14:11PM -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote: On Wed, 2007-10-31 at 08:30 +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: Nonsese, says you. I had direct access to Microsoft representatives as well, and even a Microsoft expert. Microsoft decided to spend their money and time for two and half weeks calling me a liar, on blogs and even on a newspaper here (but this last part didn't go so well for them since I invoked the right of reply and totally shattered their accusation). No wonder, given that you are always very aggressive in discussions. No, I merely wrote things down like: they decided to limit participation to 20 entities for lack of space but the room could handle almost 30 people and the host entity has an auditorium which it refused to use. Or Microsoft [the president of the TC] tried twice to shut me up but only succeeded once (and he did that to another oppositor), or Microsoft expert advising the usage of a ruler to know how to make autoSpaceLikeWord95 (where do you buy Word95 today, BTW?), etc... What I wonder is why such a lowlife like me deserves to be the target of Microsoft's paid bloggers... Rui -- Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 12nd day of The Aftermath 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: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 03:06:42PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Wed, Oct 31, 2007 at 08:30:43AM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:56:31PM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 02:55:07PM +, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted. Microsoft has done it's very best to ensure it doesn't *have*to* improve the spec, to avoid any questions, and not clarify anything. That statement is false. Are you using ddate? :) parse error:1:huh ? Install ddate and play with ddate +% (sometimes it's really funny) :) The SpreadsheetML rep may not have been thrilled with my questions, but the majority were answered. More people could have joined ECMA, or participated in the ISO review process constructively had they wanted to. ECMA is out of the board right now, since it's JTC1 who makes changes and not ECMA. That is inaccurate. Whom do you think will be responding to national body issues ? ECMA, and by proxy TC45, have the ability to propose changes in the spec to resolve issues, and to raise their own issues preemptively for resolution. AFAICT ECMA will be inquired, but the changes will not be decided by ECMA. JTC1 can do things like: is there a way to define autoSpaceLikeWord95? No? Then that tag is out. or even dates must now support at least double double int seconds since 1970 (which would be worse but just for the sake of an example). All ECMA could do at that point is remove the proposal. Who are you insinuating about a not making a constructive process at ISO? Some of the corporate manipulation of national bodies has been quite disturbing. If ODF had been subjected to a fraction of this response it would never have passed. You Bet! Fortuantely ODF had interoperability in mind, and many people actually participated in it's long development. Are you conscious that SC-34 is virtually stopped because the Microsoft stoogies who have the obligation to vote do not vote on issues that are not Microsoft related? Yes. As per usual parts of MS have managed to descend into the gutter. However, that does not mean that the FLOSS community should follow suit. Fortunately it hasn't. 7 of the countries which upgraded to P voted YES on OOXML and nothing else, the 8th abstained (and nothing else so far, IIRC). It is not the membership that is really detrimental, although you can bet Microsoft is spinning around that open source likes OOXML thanks to that. People can spin things however they'd like. I'll implement any file format users request. If people are comfortable citing Gnumeric for ODF, they can cite it for OOX too. At the end of the day, if people use Gnumeric, or free software, we've won. Spreadsheets are probably much easier to support, since they have a much more structured data (fixed table spaces, namely). It's statements like some of yours that are detrimental, but nothing that you can't fix by making a better job for the community, if you can, of course, since nobody demands of you to loose family time, etc... Shall I find a convenient bus to walk in front of :-) Hope not, too many Free Software developers have died recently (just recently Itojun)... Having worked on filters for both formats, I'll trust my judgement over the various position papers with obvious biases littering the net. Both formats need work, the black and white characterization of ODF == good OOX == bad does not fit what I've seen while implementing things. Naturally, Gnumeric follows the design of Excel, which follows the design of it's file format, so its structure and logic are naturally reflected in a document format which is designed to reflect status quo. I'd be surprised if it happened otherwise! My calculus is simple. - At least one person will use OOX - That person may want to use free software at some point - If we can support their files they will use free software again. - Therefore we should implement filters - Documentation makes filters easier What kind of 'making a better job for the community' do you envision ? My opinion the best thing the community can do is to get interested domain experts onto the TCs and get better docs. If you were saying «we already did a terrific job making it be as documented as it is, but it still needs more», nothing to point at you. AFAICT you did some good work there. But you're actually advocating it become a standard as it is... I would personally not care much if the only problem between ODF and OOXML were of being two standards for the same target, but Microsoft is procuring ways to go around those pesky governments who
Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 07:00:58AM -0400, Jody Goldberg wrote: 2) OOX is a file format that is in use, and we will have to interact with it. The opportunity to improve the spec and have MS answer questions and clarify necessary details should not be wasted. Microsoft has done it's very best to ensure it doesn't *have*to* improve the spec, to avoid any questions, and not clarify anything. It's not as good as having the source code to OO.o there to read yourself (which is why free software will eventually dominate) but it is a step forward. A step forward, yes, but into what direction? The direction of nobody else can compete because nobody else com properly implement? I think OOX should be blessed as a standard, Why? Because it has unfulfillable promises according to many legislations[1] regarding patents? Because it has completely undocumented tags? Because it demands numerical and date calculus proven fallible to be present? Because it has completely undocumented magical strings (references to undocumented binary stuff)? It takes more than blanket statements to make a sound justification! [1] think EU where patent infringement is now a public crime (and Portugal is right now being sued for not having implemented that directive yet) so don't anyone dare to say this doesn't happen... 'the MS Office XML File Format' and that we should do everything we can to improve the specification of that and any other format we interact with. I've really really tried, but Microsoft defends that you could use a ruller to measure the spaces onscreen to know what autoSpaceLikeWord95 is. This is deaf-mute-blind talking to each other. If that level of disagreement is unacceptable in the community then I can leave ECMA and request that they discontinue the GNOME Foundation's membership. In my opinion that would be a step backwards. It would seem you aren't making that strong an effort to represent the possibility of Free Software developers fully implementing the standard, maybe you should in fact make it better, rather than threaten to leave. Best regards, Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Pungenday, the 11st day of The Aftermath 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
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 things will affect us (you're from Europe, right?) very soon. On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 04:05:48PM +0200, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote: 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 about the qualities or lack of such of the OOXML specification. But I don't think the kind of rude personal attacks and snide remarks you been targeting at 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, and thus trying to smear them only makes you look bad and for people to consider your arguments to be without merit. I assume the reason this debate is on the gnome foundation list is because there is a wish to have the GNOME foundation come out stronger in favour of ODF. But if that is the goal I think a more professional attitude is a better tool, as the current badmouthing do not entice me at least, to get stronger GNOME endorsement ODF. Christian On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 21:34 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: 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 ... ? 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 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 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? If it's only for Microsoft (since KWord most definitely can't do it), then how can it be part of an open standard? 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. 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 :) Rui -- Frink! Today is Boomtime, the 66th 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
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 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? 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. 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. Rui -- Wibble. Today is Setting Orange, the 59th 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
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 ... ? 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 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 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? If it's only for Microsoft (since KWord most definitely can't do it), then how can it be part of an open standard? 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. 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 :) Rui -- Frink! Today is Setting Orange, the 59th 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
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 enforcement. Also, why do you say the format is open? Can you tell me how Word95 does auto-space? Please don't tell me about a ruler to measure on-screen spacement like the Microsoft expert did in the portuguese Technical Commission. Rui On Fri, Jul 20, 2007 at 11:07:16AM -0400, Kevin Kubasik wrote: If I may, I have been following this thread quite close, as I don't know how I personally feel about the OOXML standard yet. On one hand, the format is open, and much easier to implement (to the point that most users will never really notice compatibility issues) than the original binary document format. On the other hand, the attempt seems a little half hearted, and as an Open Software advocate, I can only trust Microsoft so much. That being said, I think both of you are starting to degrade your arguments a bit, as you both just keep asking the other to provide proof of points, to which the responses are even more terse and less useful. I love a good debate, and think that the Gnome Foundation is a leader in the free software community, and its position will/could/can influence people. It is in this spirit that I ask not only that this debate continue, but it continue in a productive and useful manor. I am not saying this debate has reached the 'empty' or 'troll' level, far from it, but I have always had a hard time sifting through the mix of PR, omitted truths, and sometimes outright lies of this debate (on a larger scale) and this discussion has proved 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 patents 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: Larry Rosen persistently spreads misinformation about the GNU GPL and what it implies for linking with non-free software. We cannot treat him as a reliable authority. He has his own agenda. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users. It has removed 324 spam emails to date. Paying users do not have this message in their emails. Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Hail Eris! Today is Sweetmorn, the 55th 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
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 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: It's not an ad-hominem attack. It's almost word for word what Stephen McSomething said in the Portuguese Technical Commission. Same for the other parroting comment. Then produce the legal council that contradicts Rosen. There are many such legal council opposite to Rosen's. AFAICT there's not a single signed piece of paper from a group of independent lawyers studying said promise for every country, so it's quite an invalid assertion to think it is a valid promise :) Same for most of all others. In the US you may have estoppel, but it's not present in all laws. Rui -- Umlaut Zebra �ber alles! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 53rd 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
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
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 to software patents (example: Red Hat and Red Hat derivatives like Fedora do not support MP3 and other interesting things that are otherwise very well supported but quite problematic in the US and other countries RH operates) 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. 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. 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). If you want Free Software to be usable by business (big and small alike), then you can't have legally dubious portions, or you risk losing it all big time. Rui -- Hail Eris, Hack Linux! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 48th 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
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, neither OOXML nor ODF have been fully implemented by third party implementations beyond the products they originated with. 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. But there is a case of being good enough, very much in the same way that say that the Linux kernel was a good enough implementation of the Unix API that it allowed Unix apps to be ran with that kernel. Another example is CSS2: there are no browser that can claim 100% CSS compatibility or with any other combination of Web standards, it is not the end of the world if you do not pass the Acid test for CSS. It would be nice, but it is not mandatory to get the job done. Unlike OOXML, CSS2 is fully royalty free, please compare apple with apples, instead of apples with oranges. 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 ? MS Word 2000 Table Style Rules, can you point them out? 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. Rui -- Hail Eris! Today is Prickle-Prickle, the 48th 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
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 it refers to other Microsoft specs which it has not given permission to implement. Early this year I saw a great short article explaining why it was not feasible for anyone but Microsoft to implement this spec. But I did not save the reference. Does anyone have it? That reference you mention in particular I don't know, but there are many references to parts that can't be coded. I'll try to forward you my collection of arguments, counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments I'm preparing for the meeting next monday at the Portuguese national body on standardization (which, BTW, is presided by Microsof *chuckle*). Rui -- Or is it? 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: GNOME and the free software movement
Sáb, 2006-11-25 às 22:51 +, Joachim Noreiko escreveu: Freedoms that you can't exercise are meaningless. This doesn't stand to reality: I'm not a journalist, yet freedom of press is not meaningless! Freedom for you to study and adapt the code doesn't mean you have to do it your self, you could pay someone technically apt to do it, or convince someone to do it for free. This is just a way to show you how misguided your reasoning was. Rui -- + 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...? signature.asc Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] We need Vendors? [was Words to Avoid Vendor]
On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 09:37 +0100, Murray Cumming wrote: Luckily, I don't believe any of the candidates share your ridiculous extremist self-belief. How badly dressed you are... says the naked to the undressed. Your posts reflect an anti-ness that's borderline religious. Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
[Off Topic] We need Vendors? [was Words to Avoid Vendor]
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 09:42 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: In all of this discussion about whether they are third-party developers or independant software developers, I think people have missed the important point. That point is that we need to encourage traditional independant software VENDORS to our platform. Our platform is placed in such a way that vendors writing closed-source applications can use our platform without licensing costs (unlike QT). I think _you_ missed the important point: It's the other way around. They _need_ a decent platform. We don't need them. We don't need Adobe Acrobat. We don't need Adobe Photoshop. We don't need Microsoft Office and other parafernalia. We don't need DB2, Informix, etc... Rather it's the other way around... But that's a discussion for another day. Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: [Off Topic] Words to Avoid Vendor [was Re: Questions to answer]
On Sun, 2005-11-27 at 14:55 +, Alan Horkan wrote: We can't solve the problem by denying it. No one is denying the power of words but matters of linguistics are distracting from more important issues (like the need for clear information and heading off patent threats). Actually, the patent threats were carefully woven into carefully written sentences that hid their true meaning in the (defunct) European directive proposal on software patents. Linguistics are hardly distracting, they're the form with which our politicians were being fooled into believing they're doing good while their actions risked dragging the EU into the new dark ages of software development. Now there's IPRED2 that allows someone to be labeled a criminal because he heard someone explain how you can play CSS encumbered DVDs on GNU/Linux and didn't point him out to the police, thus abetting* his crime of attempting* to incite* and aid* people to act in what the EUCD brought to define as infringement. * == words from Article 3, Offences of com2005_0276en01.pdf This is scandalous! Rui signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
