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 compete
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 acceptan
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,
>
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 ca
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 argu
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
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
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 remarkabl
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 thing
> 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 ;)
___
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 Michae
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.
__
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 credibi
> "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 underspecif
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
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 autospac
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-breaki
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
rom: [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 c
-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
; 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 cr
scussion 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: Rega
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
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
> 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 term
> 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
discussi
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
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
> >
> > 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*
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
> 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
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
> 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 supp
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-f
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
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
o
> > 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.
_
> > 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
> phr
> > 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 fail
> 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.
> * 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
> backgro
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
> > 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. M
> 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 anyway
> 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 strate
> 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 m
> 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 i
> 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
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,
> si
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
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
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.
>
>
> > 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 abo
> 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
imp
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 du
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
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 reaso
57 matches
Mail list logo
