Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
On Tue, 2007-07-24 at 19:43 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > > 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. 1stly that's the purest nonsense :-) Novell competes vigorously with MS; but anyhow this is my personal view regardless of employer. 2ndly separating 'strategy' from bogus technical arguments is my goal here. Stick with the strategy, but lets cut the c-waffle. 3rdly You're to be congratulated for not just believing unthinkingly what I write; neat ! I personally, find it much harder to keep those critical faculties engaged as I absorb views that correspond with my own; but it's very worthwhile doing so. All the very best, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
And put in different words: if anybody is concerned about how this issue affects the GNOME Foundation and the GNOME project in general please expose these concerns in a way we can do or say something. I think the GNOME Foundation should lend its support to the campaign against acceptance of OOXML as a official standard. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
There wasn't any name calling. Just statement of facts. That they aren't favourable... well, saying someone is parroting obvious talking points is far from calling anyone a fanatic, but maybe that's just me. On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 11:10:32PM +0200, Christian F.K. Schaller wrote: > Hi Richard, > As someone who believes strongly about many things, yet to my knowledge > always argues the case and never the person I don't see why you are > coming out defending such behavior here. My criticism was mainly about > the tone of the debate and for someone who himself never resorted to > name calling in this discussion I don't see why you feel its defensible > behavior. > > Christian > > On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 16:22 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > > Since I do not read what Microsoft says in standards group meetings, I > > thank Rui for informating us that it matches what Miguel de Icaza said > > here. Putting that similarity together with the nature of his > > statements (vague claims that that the criticism of OOXML is flawed), > > it becomes a cogent argument to mistrust those statements. -- This statement is false. 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
Hi Richard, As someone who believes strongly about many things, yet to my knowledge always argues the case and never the person I don't see why you are coming out defending such behavior here. My criticism was mainly about the tone of the debate and for someone who himself never resorted to name calling in this discussion I don't see why you feel its defensible behavior. Christian On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 16:22 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > Since I do not read what Microsoft says in standards group meetings, I > thank Rui for informating us that it matches what Miguel de Icaza said > here. Putting that similarity together with the nature of his > statements (vague claims that that the criticism of OOXML is flawed), > it becomes a cogent argument to mistrust those statements. > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Since I do not read what Microsoft says in standards group meetings, I thank Rui for informating us that it matches what Miguel de Icaza said here. Putting that similarity together with the nature of his statements (vague claims that that the criticism of OOXML is flawed), it becomes a cogent argument to mistrust those statements. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
On 7/31/07, Behdad Esfahbod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't think it's relevant to the foundation anymore. Agreed. And put in different words: if anybody is concerned about how this issue affects the GNOME Foundation and the GNOME project in general please expose these concerns in a way we can do or say something. Thank you. -- Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 20:09 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > 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. That's not the central point in Christian's response. Let's please keep this mailing list as respectful as it has always been. Please consider reading http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct when writing to this list. Thank you, Claudio -- Claudio Saavedra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
On Tue, 2007-07-31 at 20:09 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote: > 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. It's not about praise or doing a remarkable job. It's about respect. May I suggest that the rest of discussion in this thread be moved out of foundation-list? I don't think it's relevant to the foundation anymore. behdad > 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 -- behdad http://behdad.org/ "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- Benjamin Franklin, 17
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
> 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 That doesn't mean what they are doing now is good for free software. Just ask Mr Raymond ;) ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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 > ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Sure; however - in the presence of resource scarcity such as face-time, or credibility etc. it's necessary to make hard choices: do we promote ODF instead of Free Software in a given time slot ? In such situations the optimum is usally a mixture of both. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Hi Richard, Thanks for your mail. On Fri, 2007-07-13 at 19:09 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > You are right that open standards cannot substitute for free software, > but that's a different issue. Sure; however - in the presence of resource scarcity such as face-time, or credibility etc. it's necessary to make hard choices: do we promote ODF instead of Free Software in a given time slot ? and how is that presented - ODF as a transient tactic for the advancement of Free Software ? or "Open Standards Rock" :-) > However, that doesn't mean the ODF battle is unimportant for us. Naturally; and I'm personally rooting for OpenOffice. It's also certain that ODF's relative simplicity could be a helpful legislative tool in breaking apart Microsoft's Office suite monopoly: that is certainly a helpful policy perspective. I think the problem for me comes when people start investing lots of their personal capital in boosting ODF, based eg. not on the advantages to people of Free Software, and even the usefulness of monopoly busting to increase the room for us, but instead on fairly spurious minutia. As an analogy; a "Creation Scientist" (a view I once held) - might focus on various real difficulties and corner-cases with the evolution 'theory' ;-) and in doing so will (often) present a substantially unbalanced view of the benefits and explanatory power of an evolutionary perspective - while also concealing the many difficulties of their own position. That makes for good polemic of course, but is hardly fair. > For the reasons you mentioned, we cannot simply endorse what those ODF > advocates say. But we should work for the cause they are working for. Of course; inasmuch as their cause is to the benefit of ours, we should support them with our customary integrity. However, it seems clear to me that the ODF battle ground incorporates a cacophony of special interests, and pseudo-technical argumentation, all of which rather obscures a clear view of the field. That is particularly so when 2nd and 3rd hand sources are preferred to a solid understanding of the issues involved; as (sadly) we so often see. HTH, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ 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
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
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
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 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 ... ? All the very best :-) Michael. NB. layout is substantially non-standardised by either ODF or OpenXML - despite the multiple statements of the form "endless archival with perfect document fidelity" spewed by both camps :-) [ and FWIW not standardising layout is (IMHO) a good thing ]. NNB. don't believe everything you read ;-) particularly in this area. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
RE: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
When I say 'open' I mean 'I can open it in vim, and have some idea of what's going on' I realize that I should have picked a different word given the context of our discussion ;) I don't mean to imply that the new format is great, but implementing a horrid and obnoxious XML format is still preferable (at least in my humble opinion) to a purely binary one. But also, my opinion stems from work on Beagle[1], where we just want to extract text, and assign it importance. I understand a full 'word processer' implementation is radically different, and significantly more difficult. I am not well versed in this argument, nor will I pretend to be, if my assumptions are mistaken, please feel free to correct me. I did not mean to imply in my opening paragraph that those were my only two thoughts on the subject, just that I have conflicted feelings about it. Cheers, Kevin Kubasik p.s. Some of you may have noticed the mailer header, it's true. Work e-mail system =/ However, I does give me access to the whole office suite. So on the subject of Microsoft's new formats. I would be more than willing to provide screenshots of document renderings, sample documents, sample conversions, or anything else you can think of. [1] http://beagle-project.org -Original Message- From: Rui Miguel Silva Seabra [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 3:22 PM To: Kevin Kubasik Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Miguel de Icaza; foundation-list@gnome.org Subject: 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
RE: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
That's the case in Germany wrt trademarks. I very much doubt that it applies to patents. Cheers, Waldo -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rui Miguel Silva Seabra Sent: Friday, July 20, 2007 12:22 PM To: Kevin Kubasik Cc: foundation-list@gnome.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Miguel de Icaza Subject: 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. ___ 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
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
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
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
The analysis on that page is based on a different patent license than the OSP for OOXML. If it isn't about OOXML and isn't about the OSP, it seems doubly irrelevant. In regard to what he says this about the OSP: âI see Microsoftâs 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.â Has he explained why hee does not agree with the stated criticisms of the OSP? From those reasons, we could see whether he has refuted those criticisms or ignored them. ___ 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 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. 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. If you present direct proof that the page is wrong on a certain point, I will consider it with an open mind. However, vague unsubstantiated criticisms of the page, like the ones quoted above, do not provide a reason to doubt what the page says. 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. Maybe Rosen is right--as regards open source. But that isn't relevant to free software. The criteria are not the same. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
What does all of this have to do with the GNOME foundation? Andreas On Wed, 2007-18-07 at 01:37 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote: > > 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.
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
> > 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
On Wed, Jul 18, 2007 at 01:37:09AM -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote: > > > 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. I have issued with it, it is only for *required* parts which are *described in detail* and *not merely referenced*. Also, it is far from being as broad as SUN's offer, or even IBM's offer, that while similar at first sight to Microsoft's OSP, it is far more far reaching. > 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. > 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. You're parroting Microsoft propaganda. Dozens of entities participated in ODF's creation, and it became something different from what older StarOffice supported. It changed to accomodate needs from KOffice, for instance. > 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. Not in Spain, some other countries have nice definitions too. > 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. Rui -- Fnord. 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
> 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
Interest groups have used standards to club their opponents for many years. Its nothing new. It is insulting because of the contemptuous attitude it shows. Really that speaks about you, not about me. 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. 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. ___ 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
On Sat, 2007-07-14 at 17:50 -0400, Miguel de Icaza wrote: > If a long standard is part of an attack, we can use that for our own > purposes. In this case I suspect that the length of the standard is largely a consequence of the format being an XML serialization of the existing complex and wart-filled proprietary binary formats. I haven't read the specs to see how detailed and precise they are, though. Neither am I saying I think it's a good idea for anyone (except Microsoft) for people to use XML in this way, as little more than a memory dump of a proprietary format. Of course, the length doesn't make the spec easy to implement -- did Microsoft include any sort of test suite, and any clear conformance statements? Liam -- Liam Quin - XML Activity Lead, W3C, http://www.w3.org/People/Quin/ Pictures from old books: http://fromoldbooks.org/ Ankh: irc.sorcery.net irc.gnome.org www.advogato.org Travel pictures: http://www.holoweb.net/~liam/pictures/ ___ 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. > 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. 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. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
I'll try to forward you my collection of arguments, counter-arguments and counter-counter-arguments I'm preparing for the meeting next monday A long article full of details is useful for your meeting; however, in other contexts, a shorter article can be more persuasive. A long list of facts can make most people tune out. The article I recall seeing was good because it made the point very clear without a lot list of detailed reasons. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
> > 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. All you wish to see clearly. ___ 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
> 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. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
> * The validity of the statement that we can be stopped from > implementing OOXML: Has a lawyer weighted into whether the > patent grants in the Microsoft OSP are not sufficient? All I > have seen so far are opinions from advocates, with no legal > background. > > Our own lawyers consider that the Microsoft OSP sufficient. Is that as a result of the patent deals between Novell and Microsoft however ? > > Thus we remain with the conclusion that it is very important to > > campaign for ODF and reject OOXML as a "standard". > > It seems to me that the we are trying to participate in the game of > "club your opponent with the standard club". ISO has policies on standards. OOXML fails to meet them on so many grounds that any other vendor trying to play the games around OOXML would have had their document thrown out already. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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
> > 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
> 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. 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
> 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 ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
> This is no reason we shouldn't _try_ to implement OOXML. As long as > we are not forcibly stopped, we may as well try to implement > everything that users want. This work is currently being done jointly with Sun and Novell in OpenOffice.org. It is developed openly in OpenOffice.org CVS and is license the same way as the rest of the office suite (ie it is free software). For those who want to scream conspiracy theories, I'm one of the developers for Novell and I don't have access to any "confidential" bit of the specification. This means that whatever hole exists (and there are) we have to assemble the pieces together on our own. Hub ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
> Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of > Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement, > or might even be downright illegal to do it independently, closed formats. Well, neither OOXML nor ODF have been fully implemented by third party implementations beyond the products they originated with. If that is true, it is a red herring. Suppose that ODF is never implemented fully by anything except OpenOffice. Is that a problem for us? Not at all, because OpenOffice is free software. By contrast, if OOXML is never implemented fully by anything except Microsoft Office, that could be a big problem for us, since Microsoft Office is not free software. The same conclusion applies if we replace "fully" with "adequately". Meanwhile, if it is hard for Microsoft to fully implement a 600 page spec, that just reinforces the point that it is hard for us to implement a 6000 page spec. This is no reason we shouldn't _try_ to implement OOXML. As long as we are not forcibly stopped, we may as well try to implement everything that users want. But we must also campaign against OOXML's adoption, because it may be impossible to implement adequately, and we might be forcibly stopped. Thus we remain with the conclusion that it is very important to campaign for ODF and reject OOXML as a "standard". ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
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: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Does that wiki page roughly match your professional legal advice ? (or even experience ?). I haven't got any legal advice about this question yet. Have you? Anyhow - I am interested at your interest in the Open-Standards debate. As a tactic, I have noticed that ODF (or just Open Standards) are increasingly promoted at the expense of software freedom - which is a travesty. You are right that open standards cannot substitute for free software, but that's a different issue. This leads to extraordinary scenarios - where people who you might have hoped were Free software advocates start actively promoting all manner of proprietary 'plugins' (etc.) even for proprietary Office suites - simply because they are "ODF" ;-) When they do this, we should argue against it. However, that doesn't mean the ODF battle is unimportant for us. Practically speaking, OOXML puts lots of pressure on people to keep using Microsoft Office, and therefore to keep using Windows (or MacOS which is no better). ODF allows encourages them to move to Open Office, which is free software. For the reasons you mentioned, we cannot simply endorse what those ODF advocates say. But we should work for the cause they are working for. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement, 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? ___ 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
> > 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: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
> Here in Portugal, in the OOXML fake-standard debate, the position of > Free Softwar activists has been that it's impossible to fully implement, > or might even be downright illegal to do it independently, closed formats. Well, neither OOXML nor ODF have been fully implemented by third party implementations beyond the products they originated with. 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. > 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. Miguel. ___ 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
Hi Richard, I was interested by your mail: On Sat, 2007-07-07 at 16:48 -0400, Richard Stallman wrote: > The 2006 Microsoft patent policy does not eliminate the patent > obstacles to implementing OOXML. See > http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted > (and the following questions too). Does that wiki page roughly match your professional legal advice ? (or even experience ?). I would (personally) not rely exclusively on such a clearly biased analysis :-) Also, some of the criticisms appear (to my untutored mind) also to apply to Sun's similar covenant: http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.php which (personally) I tend to view in good faith, not as some perfidious plot to destroy the free world. Anyhow - I am interested at your interest in the Open-Standards debate. As a tactic, I have noticed that ODF (or just Open Standards) are increasingly promoted at the expense of software freedom - which is a travesty. This leads to extraordinary scenarios - where people who you might have hoped were Free software advocates start actively promoting all manner of proprietary 'plugins' (etc.) even for proprietary Office suites - simply because they are "ODF" ;-) I see OO.o representatives speaking at conferences, presenting from & praising OS/X and talking extensively about ODF, occasionally OO.o features and seldom about Free Software: a tragedy. Free Software necessarily implies an Open Standard [ we have the source after all ! ]. AFAICS - Standards may be open or closed, but Free software will eventually support them all. From my (no doubt highly not-thought-through) viewpoint: Open Standards, is just a game that big companies play so their proprietary software can compete & with which they bludgeon each other in public. It also seems to be a game that Microsoft knows how to play. HTH, Michael. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
The 2006 Microsoft patent policy does not eliminate the patent obstacles to implementing OOXML. See http://www.grokdoc.net/index.php/EOOXML_objections#Patent_rights_to_implement_the_Ecma_376_specification_have_not_been_granted (and the following questions too). That page also presents other reasons why it will be hard for anyone other than Microsoft to implement OOXML. ___ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list
