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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
