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.com/BTL/?p=2192 > _______________________________________________ > foundation-list mailing list > foundation-list@gnome.org > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list -- Andreas J. Guelzow Pyrenean Shepherds _______________________________________________ foundation-list mailing list foundation-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-list