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: Lucas Rocha joins board
On Wed, 2007-07-18 at 08:31 +0100, Glynn Foster wrote: > In light of Dave's recently departure from the board, we've invited Lucas > Rocha > to join the board for the remaining time left on our current term. We felt > that > Lucas was a good fit to compliment the current set of board members, and we're > all looking forward to working with him. > > I'd like to personally thank Dave for the time and commitment he provided to > the > board, and Lucas for agreeing to join us this year. Congrats, Lucas!!! A brazilian on the board! Let's go, more and more, brazilian GNOMErs!!! -- brunobol - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://live.gnome.org/BrunoBoaventura http://blogs.gnome.org/portal/brunbol ___ 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
Lucas Rocha joins board
Hi, In light of Dave's recently departure from the board, we've invited Lucas Rocha to join the board for the remaining time left on our current term. We felt that Lucas was a good fit to compliment the current set of board members, and we're all looking forward to working with him. I'd like to personally thank Dave for the time and commitment he provided to the board, and Lucas for agreeing to join us this year. Glynn ___ 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
