Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
- From: "Andreas J. Guelzow" <aguelzow taliesin ca>
- To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>
- Cc: gnome foundation <foundation-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2007 12:04:53 -0600
What does all of this have to do with the GNOME foundation?
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 .
> 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
> 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.
> Larry Rosen statement 
> 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.
>  http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jan-30.html
>  http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=2192
> foundation-list mailing list
> foundation-list gnome org
Andreas J. Guelzow
] [Thread Prev