Re: Regarding OOXML and Microsoft patents

[Richard Stallman <rms gnu org>]

    > 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.