Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO - Linux

This is a discussion on Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO - Linux ; On Oct 22, 12:39 pm, AES wrote: > In article , > > Thufir wrote: > > > Why did Adobe refuse to allow Microsoft to bundle a PDF writer with > > Office? More importantly, how does Open Office ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 39 of 39

Thread: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

  1. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Oct 22, 12:39 pm, AES wrote:
    > In article ,
    >
    > Thufir wrote:
    >
    > > Why did Adobe refuse to allow Microsoft to bundle a PDF writer with
    > > Office? More importantly, how does Open Office manage to bundle a PDF
    > > writer? What prevents Microsoft from literally taking the code, all GPL,
    > > and grafting it onto their own product?

    >
    > I'd also be interested in a more detailed (and accurate, and neutral)
    > exposition of what happened, and what was behind, this alleged incident
    > (or pointers to same).



    You remind me of a brother of mine who was always complaining about
    the lack of objectivity in TV shows: "They want to make me believe
    that a car flies, geeeesh!" and similar complains.

    I told him: "You want real stuff? You are simply watching the wrong
    channels. Tune CNN".

    Same for you, AES, if you don't want to read opinions don't "tune"
    Usenet.

    I am sure you are intelligent enough to discern facts from opinions in
    a writing, and dig further, without having to hire somebody to pick
    reading material for you.

    Ever heard of Google?:

    Adobe Microsoft PDF disagreement

    -Ramon



  2. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Oct 22, 10:48 am, Robert Heller wrote:
    > At Mon, 22 Oct 2007 15:37:11 GMT Thufir wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 20:16:16 +1000, cmyk wrote:

    >
    > > >> When I hear that Adobe will be transferring responsibility for the file
    > > >> format to ISO, I interpret that to mean that the standard will be open,
    > > >> a good thing.

    >
    > > > Are we talking about the same Adobe that refused to allow Microsoft to
    > > > bundle a PDF writer with Office 2007? In spite of claiming on their web
    > > > site that anyone who wants to is fee to do so? How open is that?

    >
    > > You'll have to be more specific -- I was giving my gut reaction to "what
    > > if" Adobe and Microsoft gave the same press announcement. In one case, I
    > > would be optimistic, in the other, not.

    >
    > > Why did Adobe refuse to allow Microsoft to bundle a PDF writer with
    > > Office? More importantly, how does Open Office manage to bundle a PDF
    > > writer? What prevents Microsoft from literally taking the code, all GPL,
    > > and grafting it onto their own product?

    >
    > Microsoft wanted to 'embrace and extend' PDF -- Microsoft wanted to
    > 'customize' the PDF format or some such. SOP for Microsoft. Adobe is
    > however too big a 'fish' to be attacked in this way. Adobe also does
    > not depend on Microsoft for their business and Adobe already provides a
    > 'hack' for any MS-Windows user to add a virtual PDF printer. And there
    > are some 'free' (GPL / shareware) hacks to do this, generally using
    > ghostscript and one of several 'print filter' programs for MS-Windows.
    >


    That is total crap. MS was providing a simple PDF export. The reason
    that Adobe complained is because MS Office 2007 was also supporting
    MS's own XPS document format - which is an xml based fixed document
    format designed to compete directly with PDF.

    Now as a result, to support PDF in Office 2007, you have to download a
    free extension to the product.

    --
    Tom Shelton


  3. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    At Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:39:08 -0700 AES wrote:

    >
    > In article ,
    > Thufir wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > Why did Adobe refuse to allow Microsoft to bundle a PDF writer with
    > > Office? More importantly, how does Open Office manage to bundle a PDF
    > > writer? What prevents Microsoft from literally taking the code, all GPL,
    > > and grafting it onto their own product?
    > >

    >
    > I'd also be interested in a more detailed (and accurate, and neutral)
    > exposition of what happened, and what was behind, this alleged incident
    > (or pointers to same).
    >


    Google is your friend:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Adobe...en-US:official


    --
    Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar!
    Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration
    http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Web Hosting, with CGI and Database
    heller@deepsoft.com -- Contract Programming: C/C++, Tcl/Tk


  4. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 09:53:11 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > Ever heard of Google?:
    >
    > Adobe Microsoft PDF disagreement


    "Anyone may create applications that read and write PDF files without
    having to pay royalties to Adobe Systems; Adobe holds patents to PDF, but
    licenses them for royalty-free use in developing software complying with
    its PDF specification.[3]"




    The single article I "researched" on this topic states unequivocally that
    PDF is available patent free so long as the specification is complied
    to. I would be interested in the opposing view, but so far am not at all
    convinced that Adobe treated Microsoft any differently than it treated
    Open Office (Sun?), nor am I likely to spend x amount of time googling
    given the above.


    -Thufir

  5. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 18:48:40 +0200, Robert Heller wrote:

    > If Microsoft were to adhere to the GPL, Microsoft would have to open
    > source all or part of MS Office. Microsoft is not going to do this.
    > Microsoft NOT going to touch GPL code -- it is too frightening for them.


    The fact remains that the only thing stopping Microsoft from using that
    GPL code is Microsoft. So, if Microsoft wanted to, they could certainly
    use it.

    Given the brain power at Microsoft I'm confident they could come up with
    some sort of plug-in which wouldn't require exposing the rest of Office,
    if they really wanted to.



    -Thufir

  6. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:59:34 GMT, Thufir wrote:

    > The single article I "researched" on this topic states unequivocally that
    > PDF is available patent free so long as the specification is complied
    > to. I would be interested in the opposing view, but so far am not at all
    > convinced that Adobe treated Microsoft any differently than it treated
    > Open Office (Sun?), nor am I likely to spend x amount of time googling
    > given the above.


    That's because you only "researched" one article.

    Try a simple google search.

    http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6079320.html
    http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=188701361

  7. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:18:59 -0500,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:59:34 GMT, Thufir wrote:
    >
    >> The single article I "researched" on this topic states unequivocally that
    >> PDF is available patent free so long as the specification is complied
    >> to. I would be interested in the opposing view, but so far am not at all
    >> convinced that Adobe treated Microsoft any differently than it treated
    >> Open Office (Sun?), nor am I likely to spend x amount of time googling
    >> given the above.

    >
    > That's because you only "researched" one article.
    >
    > Try a simple google search.
    >
    > http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6079320.html
    > http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=188701361




    "Adobe publishes the PDF standard in its entirety and makes it available
    for free, without restrictions, to anyone who cares to use it," Adobe
    Senior Director of Public Policy Michael Engelhardt wrote last year in a
    letter to a Massachusetts state senator. "No one needs permission from
    Adobe to build their own product with the PDF standard."




    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHHZQvd90bcYOAWPYRAt6CAJwOQ6ukfz62JoU+i+HLxy 1MhSrilwCg2pT6
    GSp1QnN7qPozu82b0i80mvw=
    =kucx
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    One man's 'magic' is another man's engineering. 'Supernatural' is a null
    word.
    -- Lazarus Long

  8. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Oct 23, 12:26 am, Jim Richardson wrote:
    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:18:59 -0500,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:59:34 GMT, Thufir wrote:

    >
    > >> The single article I "researched" on this topic states unequivocally that
    > >> PDF is available patent free so long as the specification is complied
    > >> to. I would be interested in the opposing view, but so far am not at all
    > >> convinced that Adobe treated Microsoft any differently than it treated
    > >> Open Office (Sun?), nor am I likely to spend x amount of time googling
    > >> given the above.

    >
    > > That's because you only "researched" one article.

    >
    > > Try a simple google search.

    >
    > >http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6079320.html
    > >http://www.informationweek.com/news/...rticleID=18870...

    >
    >
    >
    > "Adobe publishes the PDF standard in its entirety and makes it available
    > for free, without restrictions, to anyone who cares to use it," Adobe
    > Senior Director of Public Policy Michael Engelhardt wrote last year in a
    > letter to a Massachusetts state senator. "No one needs permission from
    > Adobe to build their own product with the PDF standard."
    >
    >

    >


    So why wouldn't they let MS ship a PDF export with Office 2007?
    Sounds to me like Adobe is full of crap. In response, MS removed both
    the PDF and the XPS exports from Office. You have to download them
    separate now.

    --
    Tom Shelton


  9. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

    > That's because you only "researched" one article.


    > Try a simple google search.


    > http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6079320.html



    "Adobe wants the software giant to remove the PDF "save as" feature from
    its beta version of Office 2007"

    When is Microsoft going to produce an ODF 'save as' feeture in
    msOffice2007 ..

  10. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    Tom Shelton wrote:
    > On Oct 23, 12:26 am, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >> "Adobe publishes the PDF standard in its entirety and makes it available
    >> for free, without restrictions, to anyone who cares to use it," Adobe
    >> Senior Director of Public Policy Michael Engelhardt wrote last year in a
    >> letter to a Massachusetts state senator. "No one needs permission from
    >> Adobe to build their own product with the PDF standard."
    >>
    >>
    >>

    >
    > So why wouldn't they let MS ship a PDF export with Office 2007?
    > Sounds to me like Adobe is full of crap. In response, MS removed both
    > the PDF and the XPS exports from Office. You have to download them
    > separate now.


    Everything I read on the issue back when MS made the decision to drop
    PDF indicated that Adobe was afraid their sales would take a beating if
    Office 2007 shipped with PDF capability. They asked MS to pay them for
    it, MS said no, Adobe threatened to sue on antitrust grounds, and MS
    dropped it so they could stay out of court. It's been awhile since I saw
    anything on the issue, though, so there might be additional news that I
    missed....

    If that's truly the case then from Adobe's point of view it wasn't
    telling MS it couldn't use PDF, only that it couldn't use it to
    monopolize the market. That implies that anybody whose business depends
    on PDF-creation software could file an antitrust suit against MS for
    including PDF in Office, and it's incidental that Adobe originated the
    standard. The problem for Adobe is that even if you buy this
    explanation, it still creates the *appearance* of hypocrisy.

  11. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    Hash: SHA1

    On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:58:13 -0700,
    Tom Shelton wrote:
    > On Oct 23, 12:26 am, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 00:18:59 -0500,
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>
    >> > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 04:59:34 GMT, Thufir wrote:

    >>
    >> >> The single article I "researched" on this topic states unequivocally that
    >> >> PDF is available patent free so long as the specification is complied
    >> >> to. I would be interested in the opposing view, but so far am not at all
    >> >> convinced that Adobe treated Microsoft any differently than it treated
    >> >> Open Office (Sun?), nor am I likely to spend x amount of time googling
    >> >> given the above.

    >>
    >> > That's because you only "researched" one article.

    >>
    >> > Try a simple google search.

    >>
    >> >http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6079320.html
    >> >http://www.informationweek.com/news/...rticleID=18870...

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> "Adobe publishes the PDF standard in its entirety and makes it available
    >> for free, without restrictions, to anyone who cares to use it," Adobe
    >> Senior Director of Public Policy Michael Engelhardt wrote last year in a
    >> letter to a Massachusetts state senator. "No one needs permission from
    >> Adobe to build their own product with the PDF standard."
    >>
    >>

    >>

    >
    > So why wouldn't they let MS ship a PDF export with Office 2007?
    > Sounds to me like Adobe is full of crap. In response, MS removed both
    > the PDF and the XPS exports from Office. You have to download them
    > separate now.
    >
    > --
    > Tom Shelton
    >



    dunno, maybe there's more to the story than a couple of short web blurbs
    on news sites.

    I was simply amused that Erik's link produced such a quotable.

    -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    iD8DBQFHHh4xd90bcYOAWPYRAtpuAKCq4w0scsaLGKEAzQu9+x 5Rwxj4MQCePcLz
    GgtKqvvCr0Ow43VVA+xymxo=
    =ew8W
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Secrecy is the beginning of tyranny.
    -- Lazarus Long

  12. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    In article ,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > > That's because you only "researched" one article.
    > >
    > > Try a simple google search.
    > >
    > > http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6079320.html
    > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=188701361

    >
    >
    >
    > "Adobe publishes the PDF standard in its entirety and makes it available
    > for free, without restrictions, to anyone who cares to use it," Adobe
    > Senior Director of Public Policy Michael Engelhardt wrote last year in a
    > letter to a Massachusetts state senator. "No one needs permission from
    > Adobe to build their own product with the PDF standard."
    >
    >



    Adobe has threatened to file an antitrust complaint against Microsoft
    with the European Commission if the software giant includes the PDF
    "save as" feature in its Office 2007, Heiner added.




    --
    --Tim Smith

  13. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Oct 23, 9:53 am, "R.H. Allen" wrote:
    > Tom Shelton wrote:
    > > On Oct 23, 12:26 am, Jim Richardson wrote:

    >
    > >> "Adobe publishes the PDF standard in its entirety and makes it available
    > >> for free, without restrictions, to anyone who cares to use it," Adobe
    > >> Senior Director of Public Policy Michael Engelhardt wrote last year in a
    > >> letter to a Massachusetts state senator. "No one needs permission from
    > >> Adobe to build their own product with the PDF standard."

    >
    > >>

    >
    > > So why wouldn't they let MS ship a PDF export with Office 2007?
    > > Sounds to me like Adobe is full of crap. In response, MS removed both
    > > the PDF and the XPS exports from Office. You have to download them
    > > separate now.

    >
    > Everything I read on the issue back when MS made the decision to drop
    > PDF indicated that Adobe was afraid their sales would take a beating if
    > Office 2007 shipped with PDF capability. They asked MS to pay them for
    > it, MS said no, Adobe threatened to sue on antitrust grounds, and MS
    > dropped it so they could stay out of court. It's been awhile since I saw
    > anything on the issue, though, so there might be additional news that I
    > missed....
    >


    Wait - adobe says there are not restrictions on PDF, taht any one can
    use it without permission, or royalties. Yet, when ms add's the
    feature, they want ms to make customers pay for it (they weren't
    asking ms to pay, but for ms to charge for the feature).


    > If that's truly the case then from Adobe's point of view it wasn't
    > telling MS it couldn't use PDF, only that it couldn't use it to
    > monopolize the market. That implies that anybody whose business depends
    > on PDF-creation software could file an antitrust suit against MS for
    > including PDF in Office, and it's incidental that Adobe originated the
    > standard. The problem for Adobe is that even if you buy this
    > explanation, it still creates the *appearance* of hypocrisy.


    It is hypocrisy. And if they do it to MS, what do you think they will
    do to OO.org if it ever achieves the same level of market share as MS
    office? Adobe owns pdf....

    --
    Tom Shelton


  14. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO


    Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    > In article ,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    > > > That's because you only "researched" one article.
    > > >
    > > > Try a simple google search.
    > > >
    > > > http://www.news.com/2100-1012_3-6079320.html
    > > > http://www.informationweek.com/news/...leID=188701361

    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > "Adobe publishes the PDF standard in its entirety and makes it available
    > > for free, without restrictions, to anyone who cares to use it," Adobe
    > > Senior Director of Public Policy Michael Engelhardt wrote last year in a
    > > letter to a Massachusetts state senator. "No one needs permission from
    > > Adobe to build their own product with the PDF standard."
    > >
    > >

    >
    >
    > Adobe has threatened to file an antitrust complaint against Microsoft
    > with the European Commission if the software giant includes the PDF
    > "save as" feature in its Office 2007, Heiner added.
    >


    If I were Microsoft, I would simply GPL that "save as PDF" feature and
    refer the European Commission to SCO v. IBM and Wallace v. IBM et al
    controversies:

    REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
    JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw):

    "If modified works or machine-readable versions of GPL- or
    LGPL-licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no
    charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." (Ex. 27
    2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26 2; see also Ex. 27 3; Ex. 26 4.)"

    IBM to the 7th Circuit:

    "Wallace apparently attempts to distinguish Broadcast Music, asserting
    that programmers using the GPL are "owners of the intellectual
    property," ... Like the blanket licenses in Broadcast Music, though,
    the "parties" to the GPL do not negotiate with each other for the
    terms of the agreement, but rather accept the terms as a function of
    the licensing system itself. The "ownership" interests contributors to
    software licensed under the GPL might have in their modifications are
    seriously limited, given that any distribution of those modifications
    must be done under the terms of the GPL."

    Wallace to the 7th Circuit:

    "IBM et al. state [IBM Brief at 15, 1] "The ownership interests
    contributors to software licensed under the GPL might have in their
    modifications are seriously limited, given that any distribution of
    those modifications must be done under the terms of the GPL". This
    statement constitutes a mea culpa"

    Chief Judge Easterbrook to the world:

    "Copyright and patent laws give authors a right to charge more, so
    that they can recover their fixed costs (and thus promote innovation),
    but they do not require authors to charge more. No more does antitrust
    law require higher prices. Linux and other open-source projects have
    been able to cover their fixed costs through donations of time"

    See also

    http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
    (Why Software Should Not Have Owners)

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

    -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

  15. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:45:55 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

    >>
    >> Adobe has threatened to file an antitrust complaint against Microsoft
    >> with the European Commission if the software giant includes the PDF
    >> "save as" feature in its Office 2007, Heiner added.

    >
    > If I were Microsoft, I would simply GPL that "save as PDF" feature and
    > refer the European Commission to SCO v. IBM and Wallace v. IBM et al
    > controversies:


    Even take the code from Open Office -- Adobe would be in no position to
    complain (if that's in fact what's happened).



    -Thufir

  16. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO


    Thufir wrote:
    >
    > On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 20:45:55 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    > >>
    > >> Adobe has threatened to file an antitrust complaint against Microsoft
    > >> with the European Commission if the software giant includes the PDF
    > >> "save as" feature in its Office 2007, Heiner added.

    > >
    > > If I were Microsoft, I would simply GPL that "save as PDF" feature and
    > > refer the European Commission to SCO v. IBM and Wallace v. IBM et al
    > > controversies:

    >
    > Even take the code from Open Office -- Adobe would be in no position to
    > complain (if that's in fact what's happened).


    If Microsoft would take someone else's GPL'd code then GNUtians would
    "complain" that Microsoft must GPL the entire MS Office (and probably
    whole Windows as well) -- all that "larger work as a whole" GNUtian
    theory.

    So Microsoft must write and GPL its own code. And then refer the
    European Commission to the following law of the 7th Circuit of the
    United States as stated by prolific and learned Chief Judge Frank
    Easterbrook:

    "GPL propagates from user to user and revision to revision: neither the
    original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may
    charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. ... Linux and
    other open-source projects have been able to cover their fixed costs
    through donations of time"

    http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/do...6-2454_008.pdf

    regards,
    alexander.

    --
    "The revolution might take significantly longer than anticipated."

    -- The GNU Monk Harald Welte

  17. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:57:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:


    > If Microsoft would take someone else's GPL'd code then GNUtians would
    > "complain" that Microsoft must GPL the entire MS Office (and probably
    > whole Windows as well) -- all that "larger work as a whole" GNUtian
    > theory.



    You speak for these "GNUtian's" (as you've labeled them)? Even if
    c.o.l.a. was filled with demands for Office to be GPL'ed, what of it?
    Sounds like something to be decided by a judge.


    Thanks for the link,

    Thufir

  18. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    In article , hawat.thufir@gmail.com
    says...
    > On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:57:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >
    >
    > > If Microsoft would take someone else's GPL'd code then GNUtians would
    > > "complain" that Microsoft must GPL the entire MS Office (and probably
    > > whole Windows as well) -- all that "larger work as a whole" GNUtian
    > > theory.

    >
    >
    > You speak for these "GNUtian's" (as you've labeled them)? Even if
    > c.o.l.a. was filled with demands for Office to be GPL'ed, what of it?
    > Sounds like something to be decided by a judge.


    This is exactly why Microsoft can't afford any GPL code to get anywhere
    near Office code. All it would take is one EU regulator deciding that
    since Microsoft included some GPL code in an export filter, the whole of
    Office would have to be released under GPL. Why in the world would
    Microsoft risk a product worth literally billions of dollars just to
    include PDF as an in-the-box export? And that's assuming that Adobe
    wouldn't go ahead with their threat and complain to the EU about the
    export filter anyway. Microsoft could be forced to GPL Office PLUS pay
    a penalty to the EU for "abusing" Adobe. Then Adobe files the anti-
    trust lawsuit against Microsoft once the EU rules against Microsoft.
    (And the lawyers skip joyfully down the street.) There's just no upside
    for Microsoft anywhere here.

    --
    "There are 10 kinds of people in the world:
    those that understand binary and those that don't." - Unknown

  19. Re: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

    Greg Cox espoused:
    > In article , hawat.thufir@gmail.com
    > says...
    >> On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 11:57:23 +0200, Alexander Terekhov wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >> > If Microsoft would take someone else's GPL'd code then GNUtians would
    >> > "complain" that Microsoft must GPL the entire MS Office (and probably
    >> > whole Windows as well) -- all that "larger work as a whole" GNUtian
    >> > theory.

    >>
    >>
    >> You speak for these "GNUtian's" (as you've labeled them)? Even if
    >> c.o.l.a. was filled with demands for Office to be GPL'ed, what of it?
    >> Sounds like something to be decided by a judge.

    >
    > This is exactly why Microsoft can't afford any GPL code to get anywhere
    > near Office code. All it would take is one EU regulator deciding that
    > since Microsoft included some GPL code in an export filter, the whole of
    > Office would have to be released under GPL.


    This is a legal issue, not a regulatory issue. If Microsoft uses GPLed
    code, then they must abide by the terms of the licence.

    If a regulator were involved, it would be because of illegal business
    practice by Microsoft, not because of copyright violation by Microsoft.

    I've seen you post before, but had no idea how little you understood
    about the differences between these things.

    Follow-ups set properly, although I expect you'll change that.

    --
    | Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
    | Cola faq: http://www.faqs.org/faqs/linux/advocacy/faq-and-primer/ |
    | Cola trolls: http://colatrolls.blogspot.com/ |
    | My (new) blog: http://www.thereisnomagic.org |

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2