Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra <rms 1407 org>]

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...?