Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO - Linux

This is a discussion on Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO - Linux ; It will snow in hell before Microsoft, the INNOVAT~1 company, does something like this... "Adobe is working to transition responsibility for the PDF specification to the International Standards Organization (ISO). The PDF specification is currently represented by the PDF Reference, ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 39

Thread: Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO

  1. Adobe is Transitioning the PDF Specification to ISO



    It will snow in hell before Microsoft, the INNOVAT~1 company, does
    something like this...


    "Adobe is working to transition responsibility for the PDF
    specification to the International Standards Organization (ISO). The
    PDF specification is currently represented by the PDF Reference, sixth
    edition, version 1.7 (Nov. 2006) and the PDF Redaction: Addendum to
    the PDF Reference, sixth edition, version 1.7. These documents
    represent the last PDF specification produced by Adobe.

    Adobe will continue producing the Errata for the PDF Reference, sixth
    edition, version 1.7 until ISO re-issues the PDF specification or
    otherwise assumes responsibility for documenting errors in the PDF
    specification.
    After ISO assumes responsibility for the PDF specification, the
    language extensions described in this guide may be submitted to ISO as
    proposed changes to the PDF specification. ISO may or may not accept
    these Adobe extensions. If accepted, the exact syntax and semantics of
    the ISO version of these extensions may differ from that described in
    this guide."

    -RFH


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

    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >
    > It will snow in hell before Microsoft, the INNOVAT~1 company, does
    > something like this...
    >
    >
    > "Adobe is working to transition responsibility for the PDF
    > specification to the International Standards Organization (ISO). The
    > PDF specification is currently represented by the PDF Reference, sixth
    > edition, version 1.7 (Nov. 2006) and the PDF Redaction: Addendum to
    > the PDF Reference, sixth edition, version 1.7. These documents
    > represent the last PDF specification produced by Adobe.
    >
    > Adobe will continue producing the Errata for the PDF Reference, sixth
    > edition, version 1.7 until ISO re-issues the PDF specification or
    > otherwise assumes responsibility for documenting errors in the PDF
    > specification.
    > After ISO assumes responsibility for the PDF specification, the
    > language extensions described in this guide may be submitted to ISO as
    > proposed changes to the PDF specification. ISO may or may not accept
    > these Adobe extensions. If accepted, the exact syntax and semantics of
    > the ISO version of these extensions may differ from that described in
    > this guide."
    >
    > -RFH
    >


    It's going to be tough for Adobe, after Microsoft screwed up the ISO
    system with their OOXML. The system needs repair now.



    http://consortiuminfo.org/standardsb...71016092352827


    OOXML Payback Time as Global Standards Work in SC 34 "Grinds to a Halt"

    "But unfortunately, the damage has not stopped there: since the OOXML
    ballot closed on September 2, not a single ballot has received enough
    votes to count in this important committee. Why? Because the last minute
    arrivals to SC 34 are not bothering to vote."

    Paul

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

    In article <1192932359.482906.222950@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
    Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > It will snow in hell before Microsoft, the INNOVAT~1 company, does
    > something like this...


    You need to be more specific. Microsoft has submitted several specs to
    assorted standards bodies, so presumably you aren't counting those for
    some reason, but it is not apparent how you are distinguishing what
    Adobe is doing from those.

    (Especially considering that Adobe's move here is a response to
    Microsoft's XPS being submitted to ISO).

    --
    --Tim Smith

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

    On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:56:26 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:


    > (Especially considering that Adobe's move here is a response to
    > Microsoft's XPS being submitted to ISO).


    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.

    When I hear that Microsoft will transferring responsibility for the file
    format to ISO, I wait for the other shoe to drop.


    -Thufir

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

    On Oct 21, 12:56 am, Tim Smith
    wrote:
    > In article <1192932359.482906.222...@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.c om>,
    > Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >
    > > It will snow in hell before Microsoft, the INNOVAT~1 company, does
    > > something like this...

    >
    > You need to be more specific. Microsoft has submitted several specs to
    > assorted standards bodies, so presumably you aren't counting those for
    > some reason, but it is not apparent how you are distinguishing what
    > Adobe is doing from those.
    >
    > (Especially considering that Adobe's move here is a response to
    > Microsoft's XPS being submitted to ISO).
    >


    Tim:

    I think you should reflect on the difference between:

    (a) submitting something to ISO's approval
    (b) transferring something to ISO's responsibility

    Allow me to illustrate the difference with an admittedly silly
    example.

    Let's say I have a beautiful daughter. I feel proud when the town's
    Casanova/Don Juan proclaims: "oh, that daughter of Ramon is quite
    breathtaking". I would looking forward people complimenting my
    daughter. That example belongs to (a) above.

    Case (b) should be very obvious: In that case I give the guardianship
    of my daughter to the guy.

    Anybody can do something like (a). The product (or daughter) don't
    even have to have any real qualities. OTOH, it takes a huge capital
    (called *trust* and self-confidence, which works in both directions)
    to do something like (b).

    So, let's keep the discussion in the realm (b) where it belongs, as
    neither Adobe or I made a statement about (a).

    -Ramon



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

    On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:33:48 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > I think you should reflect on the difference between:
    >
    > (a) submitting something to ISO's approval
    > (b) transferring something to ISO's responsibility


    There is no difference. Once ISO approves something, ISO assumes
    responsibility for it. Period. End of story. In ALL cases.

    Now, it may be that the original submitter may make changes and improve on
    it over time, then resubmit those changes to ISO for futher versions, but
    it's entirely at ISO's whim whether or not to accept such submissions.

    > Allow me to illustrate the difference with an admittedly silly
    > example.


    Allow me to illustrate how you don't know what you're talking about.

    > Let's say I have a beautiful daughter. I feel proud when the town's
    > Casanova/Don Juan proclaims: "oh, that daughter of Ramon is quite
    > breathtaking". I would looking forward people complimenting my
    > daughter. That example belongs to (a) above.
    >
    > Case (b) should be very obvious: In that case I give the guardianship
    > of my daughter to the guy.


    No. There are not two classes of ISO standard. There are multiple ways
    for something to BECOME a standard, but once standarized the ISO owns them.

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

    In article <10fk1vp2i0ia8.dlg@funkenbusch.com>,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:33:48 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >
    > > I think you should reflect on the difference between:
    > >
    > > (a) submitting something to ISO's approval
    > > (b) transferring something to ISO's responsibility

    >
    > There is no difference. Once ISO approves something, ISO assumes
    > responsibility for it. Period. End of story. In ALL cases.
    >
    > Now, it may be that the original submitter may make changes and improve on
    > it over time, then resubmit those changes to ISO for futher versions, but
    > it's entirely at ISO's whim whether or not to accept such submissions.


    Note, however, that it is also possible to submit something that is
    covered by patent. ISO requires that you make the patents available
    under a RAND license, but that only applies to the version that is being
    standardized. Thus, you can do something like what Sun did with ODF,
    and only make the patents cover that version, plus future versions whose
    standardization Sun participates in. That means that if Sun doesn't
    like the direction ISO starts to take ODF, all Sun has to do is stop
    participating, and ISO's work is dead in its track, because of Sun's
    patents.

    (This doesn't seem to bother "advocates". Apparently, non-free
    standards are actually OK with them, as long as they are owned by
    someone who isn't Microsoft, and a non-free non-MS standard is better
    than a free MS standard).

    --
    --Tim Smith

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

    On Oct 21, 1:40 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
    wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:33:48 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > I think you should reflect on the difference between:

    >
    > > (a) submitting something to ISO's approval
    > > (b) transferring something to ISO's responsibility

    >
    > There is no difference. Once ISO approves something, ISO assumes
    > responsibility for it. Period. End of story. In ALL cases.
    >


    Okay, can you give an example of something that has been given to ISO
    by Microsoft?

    -Ramon



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

    On Oct 21, 3:22 pm, Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <10fk1vp2i0ia8....@funkenbusch.com>,
    > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >
    > > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:33:48 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >
    > > > I think you should reflect on the difference between:

    >
    > > > (a) submitting something to ISO's approval
    > > > (b) transferring something to ISO's responsibility

    >
    > > There is no difference. Once ISO approves something, ISO assumes
    > > responsibility for it. Period. End of story. In ALL cases.

    >
    > > Now, it may be that the original submitter may make changes and improve on
    > > it over time, then resubmit those changes to ISO for futher versions, but
    > > it's entirely at ISO's whim whether or not to accept such submissions.

    >
    > Note, however, that it is also possible to submit something that is
    > covered by patent. ISO requires that you make the patents available
    > under a RAND license, but that only applies to the version that is being
    > standardized. Thus, you can do something like what Sun did with ODF,
    > and only make the patents cover that version, plus future versions whose
    > standardization Sun participates in. That means that if Sun doesn't
    > like the direction ISO starts to take ODF, all Sun has to do is stop
    > participating, and ISO's work is dead in its track, because of Sun's
    > patents.
    >
    > (This doesn't seem to bother "advocates". Apparently,


    > non-free
    > standards are actually OK with them, as long as they are owned by
    > someone who isn't Microsoft,



    Ever wonder why that is, Tim? Well, it so happens that there is ONE
    and only one company in the whole world that has reached a level of
    abuse and control in one field.

    You Microsofties have been diseminating such crap as: "oh, oh, it is
    now your neighbor's turn (yeah, right, as if MS is my neighbor!), you
    may be next!". Well, there is no "next", because no company has ever
    been (or, hopefully will ever be) another Microsoft.

    The only reason there is a Microsoft, the only reason we (society)
    have allowed it to get this far is because we were new at it. But we
    have the capacity to learn.

    Fool me once, shame on you...

    The human race has developed strong Microsoft antibodies.

    -Ramon



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

    On Oct 21, 1:40 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
    wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:33:48 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > I think you should reflect on the difference between:

    >
    > > (a) submitting something to ISO's approval
    > > (b) transferring something to ISO's responsibility

    >
    > There is no difference. Once ISO approves something, ISO assumes
    > responsibility for it. Period. End of story. In ALL cases.
    >
    > Now, it may be that the original submitter may make changes and improve on
    > it over time, then resubmit those changes to ISO for futher versions, but
    > it's entirely at ISO's whim whether or not to accept such submissions.
    >
    > > Allow me to illustrate the difference with an admittedly silly
    > > example.

    >
    > Allow me to illustrate how you don't know what you're talking about.
    >
    > > Let's say I have a beautiful daughter. I feel proud when the town's
    > > Casanova/Don Juan proclaims: "oh, that daughter of Ramon is quite
    > > breathtaking". I would looking forward people complimenting my
    > > daughter. That example belongs to (a) above.

    >
    > > Case (b) should be very obvious: In that case I give the guardianship
    > > of my daughter to the guy.

    >
    > No. There are not two classes of ISO standard. There are multiple ways
    > for something to BECOME a standard, but once standarized the ISO owns them.


    I should have clarified that I was referring that all standards
    organizations, not exclusively to ISO. In general, a standards
    organization cannot possibly take full control or "own" (your words) a
    developing standard.

    If we were talking about making sure that bolts made in China with 1mm
    pitch and 8mm diameter can actually screw into a nut made in Chile,
    well yes, that is a standard that ISO can own.

    If we are talking about suing an organization for using the qualifier
    "ISO-123" without adhering to it, yes, ISO can sue them or whatever.

    The case in question involves a moving, developing standards. There
    are a few handful people who fathered that standard and its
    implementation, and we all want them to continue working on it.

    The world according to Erik Funkenbusch:

    - "What's the matter, John?"

    - "Well, it turns out that my family and I have to move to
    Switzerland."

    - "How come?"

    - "I am a victim of my own success. I work for Adobe and they
    submitted the PDF standard to the ISO, which now 'ows' (this according
    to some Erik guy on the net) the standard, so I have to quit my job at
    Adobe and get a job with ISO."

    - "Is there any other way"

    - "Actually ISO, doesn't want to have a role in product development,
    but there is this guy in some COLA NG (not even sure what that is)
    named Erik Funkenbusch. He must be VERY influential, because now ISO
    has to become a research, development and implementor company, and
    therefore now I have to work for them".

    End of fantasy (Erik's not mine).

    Erik: It logically follows that Microsoft is trying to give
    "ownership" of OOXML to ISO, the standards body that recently rejected
    it?:

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,13...s/article.html

    Are you saying that if/when ISO "owns" OOXML the level of influence
    of, say, Red Hat, and M$ over it will be equivalent?

    -Ramon

    ps: no, I have no idea whether ISO is actually based in Switzerland.




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

    On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:48:27 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > On Oct 21, 1:40 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
    > wrote:
    >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:33:48 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    >>> I think you should reflect on the difference between:

    >>
    >>> (a) submitting something to ISO's approval
    >>> (b) transferring something to ISO's responsibility

    >>
    >> There is no difference. Once ISO approves something, ISO assumes
    >> responsibility for it. Period. End of story. In ALL cases.

    >
    > Okay, can you give an example of something that has been given to ISO
    > by Microsoft?


    C# and the .NET CLR. However, Microsoft has continued to spearhead the
    development of C# and .NET and continues to submit changes to ISO for
    standardization. Because there is no competing work, ISO seems to accept
    that. It is, however, entirely at ISO's whim whether or not to allow that.

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

    On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 16:34:23 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    >> No. There are not two classes of ISO standard. There are multiple ways
    >> for something to BECOME a standard, but once standarized the ISO owns them.

    >
    > I should have clarified that I was referring that all standards
    > organizations, not exclusively to ISO. In general, a standards
    > organization cannot possibly take full control or "own" (your words) a
    > developing standard.


    Umm.. we're talking about ISO specifically, you said ISO, and there's no
    other standards body involved, so what's your point?

    > The case in question involves a moving, developing standards. There
    > are a few handful people who fathered that standard and its
    > implementation, and we all want them to continue working on it.


    What the hell are you talking about? You appear to be nitpicking over the
    use of the word "own". "own" means the ISO has responsibility for it. I
    have no idea what you're trying to say with the rest of your blathering.

    > Erik: It logically follows that Microsoft is trying to give
    > "ownership" of OOXML to ISO, the standards body that recently rejected
    > it?:


    If the ISO standardizes OOXML, then yes.. they ISO owns the ISO version of
    that. It's up to them whether they develop future versions, or allow the
    submitter to continue to submit improvements.

    > Are you saying that if/when ISO "owns" OOXML the level of influence
    > of, say, Red Hat, and M$ over it will be equivalent?


    Inflience is entirely based on who's on the technical committee's. Red Hat
    won't have any influence if they are not on the committee. As an example,
    Sun has more members on the Oasis ODF comittee than anyone else, almost
    combined.. so in effect, sun virtually owns the Oasis ODF TC. ISO doesn't
    generally work that way, though.

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

    In article <1193007541.348374.90590@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.c om>,
    Ramon F Herrera wrote:

    > The human race has developed strong Microsoft antibodies.



    Nice phrase!

    I've been wavering back and forth for a year or more now, trying to
    decide whether or when (or even if) I would send a "PDF only, please" to
    all the organizations I'm connected to, or do volunteer service for,
    telling them that as of mm/dd/yy I'll no longer attempt to process any
    ..doc, .xls or .ppt files they send me -- open formats only, pls.

    Then I discovered last week that a colleague whom I know to be
    considered one of the gentlest, most easy-going, most consensus-building
    guys around, runs a totally Microsoft-free Mac.

    I'm starting tomorrow.

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

    On Oct 21, 5:37 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
    wrote:
    > On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 15:48:27 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > > On Oct 21, 1:40 pm, Erik Funkenbusch
    > > wrote:
    > >> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 05:33:48 -0700, Ramon F Herrera wrote:
    > >>> I think you should reflect on the difference between:

    >
    > >>> (a) submitting something to ISO's approval
    > >>> (b) transferring something to ISO's responsibility

    >
    > >> There is no difference. Once ISO approves something, ISO assumes
    > >> responsibility for it. Period. End of story. In ALL cases.

    >
    > > Okay, can you give an example of something that has been given to ISO
    > > by Microsoft?

    >
    > C# and the .NET CLR. However, Microsoft has continued to spearhead the
    > development of C# and .NET and continues to submit changes to ISO for
    > standardization. Because there is no competing work, ISO seems to accept
    > that. It is, however, entirely at ISO's whim whether or not to allow that.


    MS has even made changes to the framework to be more compliant with
    the ECMA/ISO standard. 1.0 came out before the standardization was
    complete, and during that process, the working group made some changes
    to the standard. Hence, several changes were made, and released in
    the 1.1 framework to reflect those changes.

    MS is so far, playing by the rules here.

    --
    Tom Shelton


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

    "Thufir" wrote in message news:zYDSi.99125$1y4.42550@pd7urf2no...
    > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:56:26 -0700, Tim Smith 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?

    --
    cmyk


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

    On Oct 22, 6:16 am, "cmyk" wrote:
    > "Thufir" wrote in messagenews:zYDSi.99125$1y4.42550@pd7urf2no...
    > > On Sat, 20 Oct 2007 21:56:26 -0700, Tim Smith 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?
    >
    > --
    > cmyk



    Let's say that on Planet Earth, there are 1,000,000,000 organizations
    (some private, some not-for profit, all the way from huge corporations
    to your children who sell lemonade on a street stand, etc.).

    Well, it turns out that Adobe agrees that any of 999,999,999 of them
    can write software that deals with PDF, without having to pay a penny
    to Adobe.

    Microsoft, OTH, has the firm belief (which are willing and able to
    enforce in court) that ONE (that would be the number between zero and
    two) corporation can legally and freely publish software that deals
    with THEIR "standards".

    You remind me of the people who claim that "the USA is the same as any
    other country and deserves to be treated equally". Yeah, right: USA
    and Grenada are the same...

    -Ramon



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

    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?

    To my knowledge, Microsoft could simply take the OO code and graft it
    onto Office (providing that the GPL was adhered to), yes?



    -Thufir

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

    On Oct 22, 11:37 am, 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?
    >
    > To my knowledge, Microsoft could simply take the OO code and graft it
    > onto Office (providing that the GPL was adhered to), yes?
    >
    > -Thufir


    Thufir:

    The problem has nothing to do with Microsoft's access to the source
    code. They can write (actually, after seeing Vista I am not so sure
    anymore) their own PDF implementation at the drop of a hat.

    Adobe (very understandably) would prefer that Microsoft licenses
    Adobe's software to create and manipulate PDF files, as an integral
    part of Windows. Why? The reason is -at least- two-fold:

    - Microsoft would pay Adobe for every copy of Windows sold

    - Windows users would have the guarantee, the seal of approval that
    the PDF files were processed by "Genuine Adobe (TM)" software.

    Adobe has everything but placed the PDF spec on the public domain, but
    Microsoft is the last company on earth that should take advantage of
    Adobe {largesse, generosity, busimess acumen, shrewdness}. It's like
    me distributing bread for the poor, only to spot William Gates III in
    the bread line.

    That should teach us (society, humanity) a lesson, useful to develop
    Microsoft antibodies. Next time a company places a standard in the
    people's trust, they should have a caveat:

    "This license applies to all people and organizations on the planet,
    except for Microsoft or its employees". And no, Mr. Gates and Ballmer,
    you are not welcome in my bread line.

    They wanted to be big nay, the biggest and most powerful. Well they
    got it!. They made their bed and now they have to sleep on it.

    -Ramon

    "Be careful with what you wish, because it may come true"
    Some wise guy

    "If a company grows to be country-size, they have to beware of
    nuclear type of weapons being used against them".
    Ramon's Corolary




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

    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).

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

    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.

    Open Office is open source, released itself under an open source
    license, so including GPL / open source code is not a big deal.

    >
    > To my knowledge, Microsoft could simply take the OO code and graft it
    > onto Office (providing that the GPL was adhered to), yes?


    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.

    >
    >
    >
    > -Thufir
    >


    --
    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


+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast