Re: OOXML [was Re: GNOME Foundation Board Meeting Minutes :: 7/6/07]

[Jody Goldberg <jody gnome org>]

On Thu, Nov 01, 2007 at 03:32:23AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
>     > I think that The GNOME participating in OOXML lends it a credibility
>     > it does not deserve. Joining ECMA TC45 would be like joining of the
>     > political party you dislike the most to improve their politics.
> 
>     It's like starting a competing political party and going to the same
>     law library.
> 
> Is joining ECMA TC45 really like using a library?  According to your
> own words, it is engaged in modifying the OOXML spec:
> 
>     That is inaccurate.  Whom do you think will be responding to
>     national body issues ?  ECMA, and by proxy TC45, have the ability to
>     propose changes in the spec to resolve issues, and to raise their
>     own issues preemptively for resolution.
> 
> I gather that such modification intended to bring about the acceptance
> of OOXML as an ISO standard.  (Please correct me if I'm wrong.)

That is almost certainly Microsoft's goal, it is not my goal.  We
want to improve the spec for different reasons.
 
> If that is the case, anyone who is represented on the ECMA committee
> is helping to promote the ISO acceptance of OOXML

The latter does not necessarily follow from the former.  Intentions
do matter.  Should I also be held accountable if organized crime
uses Gnumeric to track it's drug shipments ?

> -- which would hurt our community substantially.
Why ?
After all these years of educating people about the non-zero sum
nature of software, the benefits of access to the source code.  Why
are we suddenly preparing to impale ourselves on ODF.  How are we
hurt, substantially or otherwise, by OOX.  It's a better format than
the only binary content.  It's easier for us to interact with the
new format, and that better code for us, and our users.