OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!! - Linux

This is a discussion on OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!! - Linux ; On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:44:13 -0400, Linonut wrote: > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo: > >> In article , >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote: >>> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3
Results 41 to 58 of 58

Thread: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

  1. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:44:13 -0400, Linonut wrote:

    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    >>> know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    >>> numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against OOXML
    >>> regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents

    >>
    >> A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    >> has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    >> implementations.

    >
    > Where is this "legally-binding promise"? I mean the one without all the
    > provisos and disclaimers.


    You mean like all the provisos and disclaimsers in the Sun and IBM
    promises?

  2. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    Moshe Goldfarb writes:

    > On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:39:06 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>>> How do you reconcile the fact that Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML for
    >>>> the very failings that ODF has (and admitted they have)?
    >>>
    >>> I don't feel any need to reconcile it. The fact is that ODF went
    >>> through with much less fuss and fanfare, and certainly not the
    >>> aggressive tactics of Microsoft.

    >>
    >> You are a very trusting person. When I read on someone's site a bunch
    >> of criticism of OOXML, and then check the spec itself, and the ODF spec,
    >> and find that the person repeatedly lies in what they say, and then I
    >> read on their site serious allegations backed by anonymous sources, or
    >> third party sources that contradict first party reports, I assume they
    >> are probably lying again.
    >>
    >> You seem to assume that they are probably telling the truth. That seems
    >> odd to me.
    >>
    >>>> How do you reconcile the fact that Sun's and IBM's licensing terms are
    >>>> nearly identical to those of Microsoft's, yet ODF proponents ignore their
    >>>> terms and criticize Microsoft's?
    >>>
    >>> I've already answered that, Erik. Microsoft's record speaks for itself.
    >>>
    >>> Unless you have a signed agreement with Microsoft, drafted with the help
    >>> of a team of lawyers and a lot of brainstorming and sleepless nights,
    >>> you'd be stupid to trust Microsoft.

    >>
    >> Well, if you want to consider the record, note that IBM makes heavy use,
    >> in major areas of their business, technology covered by Microsoft
    >> patents and licensed by Microsoft under the same terms as OOXML. So
    >> does Sun. Apparently, both Sun and Microsoft have decided that
    >> Microsoft's promise *is* fine, since they rely on it for large parts of
    >> their income.
    >>
    >> Your position on this approaches being mystical.

    >
    > It's obvious that Linonut is not actually reading the stuff he is parroting
    > for Roy Schestowitz.


    I have been saying that for ages. Seriously - pick a few of his
    posts. He is losing it. His replies border on the insane. He is a
    technical wannabe with zero common sense or humour. His obvious hatred
    of Tim Smith is no doubt down to the fact that Tim humps him on
    virtually subject Liarnut attempts to discuss. He is a two faced liar,
    hypocrite and fraud.

  3. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

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

    On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:44:13 -0400,
    Linonut wrote:
    > * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >
    >> In article ,
    >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    >>> know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    >>> numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against OOXML
    >>> regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents

    >>
    >> A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    >> has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    >> implementations.

    >
    > Where is this "legally-binding promise"? I mean the one without all the
    > provisos and disclaimers.
    >



    What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?

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

    iD8DBQFH9Swid90bcYOAWPYRAmIQAKCYmzfmTAGjHFS2GShnap gQs+0SmgCgt0yB
    Q3VkyCsDM2sBauUtf+uC4LY=
    =19lV
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    im in ur base, deleting ur rows

  4. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:30:08 +0200, Hadron wrote:

    > Moshe Goldfarb writes:
    >
    >> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:39:06 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
    >>
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>>> How do you reconcile the fact that Pro-ODF proponents criticize OOXML for
    >>>>> the very failings that ODF has (and admitted they have)?
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't feel any need to reconcile it. The fact is that ODF went
    >>>> through with much less fuss and fanfare, and certainly not the
    >>>> aggressive tactics of Microsoft.
    >>>
    >>> You are a very trusting person. When I read on someone's site a bunch
    >>> of criticism of OOXML, and then check the spec itself, and the ODF spec,
    >>> and find that the person repeatedly lies in what they say, and then I
    >>> read on their site serious allegations backed by anonymous sources, or
    >>> third party sources that contradict first party reports, I assume they
    >>> are probably lying again.
    >>>
    >>> You seem to assume that they are probably telling the truth. That seems
    >>> odd to me.
    >>>
    >>>>> How do you reconcile the fact that Sun's and IBM's licensing terms are
    >>>>> nearly identical to those of Microsoft's, yet ODF proponents ignore their
    >>>>> terms and criticize Microsoft's?
    >>>>
    >>>> I've already answered that, Erik. Microsoft's record speaks for itself.
    >>>>
    >>>> Unless you have a signed agreement with Microsoft, drafted with the help
    >>>> of a team of lawyers and a lot of brainstorming and sleepless nights,
    >>>> you'd be stupid to trust Microsoft.
    >>>
    >>> Well, if you want to consider the record, note that IBM makes heavy use,
    >>> in major areas of their business, technology covered by Microsoft
    >>> patents and licensed by Microsoft under the same terms as OOXML. So
    >>> does Sun. Apparently, both Sun and Microsoft have decided that
    >>> Microsoft's promise *is* fine, since they rely on it for large parts of
    >>> their income.
    >>>
    >>> Your position on this approaches being mystical.

    >>
    >> It's obvious that Linonut is not actually reading the stuff he is parroting
    >> for Roy Schestowitz.

    >
    > I have been saying that for ages. Seriously - pick a few of his
    > posts. He is losing it. His replies border on the insane. He is a
    > technical wannabe with zero common sense or humour. His obvious hatred
    > of Tim Smith is no doubt down to the fact that Tim humps him on
    > virtually subject Liarnut attempts to discuss. He is a two faced liar,
    > hypocrite and fraud.


    He used to be a decent, reasonable poster but he went off the deep end
    about 2 months ago.

    Too bad.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  5. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:12:34 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:44:13 -0400,
    > Linonut wrote:
    >> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>
    >>> In article ,
    >>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    >>>> know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    >>>> numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against OOXML
    >>>> regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents
    >>>
    >>> A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    >>> has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    >>> implementations.

    >>
    >> Where is this "legally-binding promise"? I mean the one without all the
    >> provisos and disclaimers.
    >>

    >
    >
    > What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    > didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    > better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?


    The way I understand it is that both the mp3 and wma spec have some extra
    unused bits that presumable are going to eventually be used for copy
    protection/DRM.



    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  6. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

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

    On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:53:28 -0400,
    Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:12:34 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >> Hash: SHA1
    >>
    >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:44:13 -0400,
    >> Linonut wrote:
    >>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>
    >>>> In article ,
    >>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    >>>>> know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    >>>>> numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against OOXML
    >>>>> regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents
    >>>>
    >>>> A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    >>>> has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    >>>> implementations.
    >>>
    >>> Where is this "legally-binding promise"? I mean the one without all the
    >>> provisos and disclaimers.
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    >> didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    >> better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?

    >
    > The way I understand it is that both the mp3 and wma spec have some extra
    > unused bits that presumable are going to eventually be used for copy
    > protection/DRM.
    >



    Um, that's nice. Now, were you planning on answering my questions or
    were you just going to sidestep them?


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

    iD8DBQFH9ULId90bcYOAWPYRAoubAJ9l91yCj4cTbzraaUALLf vKK43S9QCfSOmk
    lYmZgQAaaXMk0XzESLRJRXc=
    =u7S8
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    "If guns cause crime, mine must be defective." -Ted Nugent

  7. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:12:34 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

    > What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    > didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    > better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?


    Of course the MP3 patent holder claims that Vorbis likely violates their
    patents as well, so what free format are you referring to?

  8. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

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

    On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 19:19:36 -0400,
    Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:12:34 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >
    >> What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    >> didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    >> better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?

    >
    > Of course the MP3 patent holder claims that Vorbis likely violates their
    > patents as well, so what free format are you referring to?


    Flac or ogg vorbis would fit that definition.

    Why didn't they use wma ? Why a format they don't *own* the patents to.
    To me this is very much a "let's make it sound open, but leave a way to
    make sure there are legal hurdles in the way of open source
    competitors."

    I'd like to hear what Jasper Stocholm (sp) has to say on this, be
    interesting. I don't expect you to do much other than continue to gloss
    over it.


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

    iD8DBQFH9W9zd90bcYOAWPYRAmaNAJwIBBFIWsff62wp9O0dgw Xh/mZCFwCgy0vI
    APqbn8bjC6HCIk+hoEgs81Q=
    =9lOX
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    It's psychosomatic. You need a lobotomy. I'll get a saw.
    -- Calvin

  9. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:49:12 -0700, troll Jim Richardson said after being slapped:
    >
    > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:53:28 -0400,
    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:12:34 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:44:13 -0400,
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article ,
    >>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>>> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    >>>>>> know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    >>>>>> numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against OOXML
    >>>>>> regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    >>>>> has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    >>>>> implementations.
    >>>>
    >>>> Where is this "legally-binding promise"? I mean the one without all the
    >>>> provisos and disclaimers.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    >>> didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    >>> better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?

    >>
    >> The way I understand it is that both the mp3 and wma spec have some extra
    >> unused bits that presumable are going to eventually be used for copy
    >> protection/DRM.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Um, that's nice. Now, were you planning on answering my questions or
    > were you just going to sidestep them?


    Sidestep them, because I have got your sisters to ****. Thanks for
    playing.

    --
    Jim Richardson: I am terribly stupid but I love my sweetheart Roy Culley


  10. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    In article <2qmfc5-lbn.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    > didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    > better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?


    According to many reports, it's MP2, not MP3, that they mention, and it
    is not a requirement. It is a suggestion for interoperability, which
    makes sense, as MP2 and MP3 are the dominant formats for audio
    broadcasting, and computer music storage, respectively.

    This is part of a section where they added for several types (audio,
    video, images, text, mathematical equations) a minimal list of existing
    standard types with a suggestion that those should be used if you want
    the best shot at interoperability.

    Note that various MPEG-1 audio layers are ISO standards. As IBM and
    most of the other anti-OOXML folk (well, the few who aren't just passing
    on whatever IBM says...) have said numerous times, standards should
    reuse existing ISO standards rather than bring in non-ISO stuff. Kind
    of funny that they change their mind on this when

    No doubt Microsoft would have liked to have WMA mentioned, but I don't
    think it was Microsoft that wrote this part of the spec. I think this
    is one of those things that one of the participating national standards
    bodies suggested.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  11. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 13:49:12 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:

    > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    > Hash: SHA1
    >
    > On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 15:53:28 -0400,
    > Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
    >> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 12:12:34 -0700, Jim Richardson wrote:
    >>
    >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
    >>> Hash: SHA1
    >>>
    >>> On Thu, 3 Apr 2008 09:44:13 -0400,
    >>> Linonut wrote:
    >>>> * Tim Smith peremptorily fired off this memo:
    >>>>
    >>>>> In article ,
    >>>>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
    >>>>>> Also, while I don't agree with Microsoft's FUD tactic on patents, I also
    >>>>>> know they won't actually do anything about it (and i've said so in here
    >>>>>> numerous times). Which is also why I don't buy the argument against OOXML
    >>>>>> regarding patents. To date, Microsoft has still never used patents
    >>>>>
    >>>>> A better reason not to buy the anti-OOXML patent FUD is that Microsoft
    >>>>> has made a legally binding promise not to enforce patents against OOXML
    >>>>> implementations.
    >>>>
    >>>> Where is this "legally-binding promise"? I mean the one without all the
    >>>> provisos and disclaimers.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    >>> didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    >>> better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?

    >>
    >> The way I understand it is that both the mp3 and wma spec have some extra
    >> unused bits that presumable are going to eventually be used for copy
    >> protection/DRM.
    >>

    >
    >
    > Um, that's nice. Now, were you planning on answering my questions or
    > were you just going to sidestep them?


    I did you bumbling idiot.

    You asked why they didn't use a free format.
    I gave you one reason.

    --
    Moshe Goldfarb
    Collector of soaps from around the globe.
    Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
    http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

  12. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

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

    On Thu, 03 Apr 2008 17:07:24 -0700,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <2qmfc5-lbn.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> What does MS say about the use of the patented mp3 format for audio? Why
    >> didn't they use a free format, or one like wma (which they claim is
    >> better anyway) which they presumably have the patent rights for?

    >
    > According to many reports, it's MP2, not MP3, that they mention, and it
    > is not a requirement. It is a suggestion for interoperability, which
    > makes sense, as MP2 and MP3 are the dominant formats for audio
    > broadcasting, and computer music storage, respectively.
    >
    > This is part of a section where they added for several types (audio,
    > video, images, text, mathematical equations) a minimal list of existing
    > standard types with a suggestion that those should be used if you want
    > the best shot at interoperability.
    >
    > Note that various MPEG-1 audio layers are ISO standards. As IBM and
    > most of the other anti-OOXML folk (well, the few who aren't just passing
    > on whatever IBM says...) have said numerous times, standards should
    > reuse existing ISO standards rather than bring in non-ISO stuff. Kind
    > of funny that they change their mind on this when
    >
    > No doubt Microsoft would have liked to have WMA mentioned, but I don't
    > think it was Microsoft that wrote this part of the spec. I think this
    > is one of those things that one of the participating national standards
    > bodies suggested.
    >



    Is mp2 covered by similar patents as mp3?

    How are "embedded" patents handled? i.e, if an ISO std requires file
    format foo, which is covered by a patent from greedyco, does RAND
    apply? what about open source implementations?


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

    iD8DBQFH9mQud90bcYOAWPYRAtxBAKDAUMVbdTnJFUiEeY4rNy qvjSkyPwCg2KQ0
    IWDG32ewo7Kin5CV+qDGGb0=
    =vmz1
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged
    demo.

  13. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    In article ,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > Is mp2 covered by similar patents as mp3?
    >
    > How are "embedded" patents handled? i.e, if an ISO std requires file
    > format foo, which is covered by a patent from greedyco, does RAND
    > apply? what about open source implementations?


    Since MP2 and MP3 are both ISO standards, they would be under the same
    RAND requirement as OOXML and ODF.

    Not that it matters in this case, as OOXML does not require MP2 or MP3.
    The section these are in is just listing a set of formats that are
    widely supported so are suggested for interoperability: PNG and JPEG for
    images, MathML and Open Math ML for math, MP2 for audio, etc.


    --
    --Tim Smith

  14. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

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

    On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 12:16:17 -0700,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> Is mp2 covered by similar patents as mp3?
    >>
    >> How are "embedded" patents handled? i.e, if an ISO std requires file
    >> format foo, which is covered by a patent from greedyco, does RAND
    >> apply? what about open source implementations?

    >
    > Since MP2 and MP3 are both ISO standards, they would be under the same
    > RAND requirement as OOXML and ODF.
    >



    So that means that you can use an mp3 without worrying about the patents
    then? Under the RAND coverage?

    > Not that it matters in this case, as OOXML does not require MP2 or MP3.
    > The section these are in is just listing a set of formats that are
    > widely supported so are suggested for interoperability: PNG and JPEG for
    > images, MathML and Open Math ML for math, MP2 for audio, etc.
    >
    >


    Cool, thanks for clearing that up.

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

    iD8DBQFH9olkd90bcYOAWPYRAq7oAKDARUE1izYjmkO6Mn/pIiNBODKpwACgriNS
    Q8jOF78Mm2QrAJKFyes+ov4=
    =q/wf
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    To err is human...to really foul up requires the root password.

  15. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    In article <44eic5-2ka.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > > Since MP2 and MP3 are both ISO standards, they would be under the same
    > > RAND requirement as OOXML and ODF.
    > >

    >
    >
    > So that means that you can use an mp3 without worrying about the patents
    > then? Under the RAND coverage?


    Unfortunately, not necessarily. ISO RAND requirements don't require
    that the patents be available for free, only under "reasonable" and
    "non-discriminatory" terms.

    Non-discriminatory terms basically means they are available on the same
    terms to everyone. They can't refuse to license the patents to their
    competitors, or charge the competitors more, or things like that.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  16. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

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

    On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 14:12:03 -0700,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article <44eic5-2ka.ln1@dragon.myth>,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> > Since MP2 and MP3 are both ISO standards, they would be under the same
    >> > RAND requirement as OOXML and ODF.
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >> So that means that you can use an mp3 without worrying about the patents
    >> then? Under the RAND coverage?

    >
    > Unfortunately, not necessarily. ISO RAND requirements don't require
    > that the patents be available for free, only under "reasonable" and
    > "non-discriminatory" terms.
    >
    > Non-discriminatory terms basically means they are available on the same
    > terms to everyone. They can't refuse to license the patents to their
    > competitors, or charge the competitors more, or things like that.
    >




    So it is quite possible that ooxml will be unable to be used by an open
    source project, if MS plays their cards "right"?

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

    iD8DBQFH9qOXd90bcYOAWPYRAv/2AKDmwN8ID3pcA92/pdh/nyY5373/8gCgjeDv
    tXO/SmLutPxGfR/O2YOrnpk=
    =sXSP
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    Nine out of ten of the voices in my head say "Don't shoot!"

  17. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

    In article ,
    Jim Richardson wrote:
    > >> So that means that you can use an mp3 without worrying about the patents
    > >> then? Under the RAND coverage?

    > >
    > > Unfortunately, not necessarily. ISO RAND requirements don't require
    > > that the patents be available for free, only under "reasonable" and
    > > "non-discriminatory" terms.
    > >
    > > Non-discriminatory terms basically means they are available on the same
    > > terms to everyone. They can't refuse to license the patents to their
    > > competitors, or charge the competitors more, or things like that.
    > >

    >
    >
    >
    > So it is quite possible that ooxml will be unable to be used by an open
    > source project, if MS plays their cards "right"?


    No, the license that covers the patents that might cover OOXML is
    compatible with open source (including GPL).

    It is possible that a given author of a document could include embedded
    or attached content that can't legally be viewed on open source, but
    that has nothing to do with OOXML. You can, of course, attach data in
    proprietary formats to ODF, too.

    --
    --Tim Smith

  18. Re: OOXML should *NOT* be approved as ISO standard!!!

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

    On Fri, 04 Apr 2008 22:25:47 -0700,
    Tim Smith wrote:
    > In article ,
    > Jim Richardson wrote:
    >> >> So that means that you can use an mp3 without worrying about the patents
    >> >> then? Under the RAND coverage?
    >> >
    >> > Unfortunately, not necessarily. ISO RAND requirements don't require
    >> > that the patents be available for free, only under "reasonable" and
    >> > "non-discriminatory" terms.
    >> >
    >> > Non-discriminatory terms basically means they are available on the same
    >> > terms to everyone. They can't refuse to license the patents to their
    >> > competitors, or charge the competitors more, or things like that.
    >> >

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> So it is quite possible that ooxml will be unable to be used by an open
    >> source project, if MS plays their cards "right"?

    >
    > No, the license that covers the patents that might cover OOXML is
    > compatible with open source (including GPL).
    >
    > It is possible that a given author of a document could include embedded
    > or attached content that can't legally be viewed on open source, but
    > that has nothing to do with OOXML. You can, of course, attach data in
    > proprietary formats to ODF, too.
    >


    Does it enable MS to make "see! they can't support OOXML standard
    because they can't do ?



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

    iD8DBQFH+Jksd90bcYOAWPYRAv4RAJ9a1wj06zJ6JJZ0KRZQ4n 8a0WHtHgCfVsCg
    IMI/Ly9NwwDAqPm2cUQXG78=
    =yRvK
    -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

    --
    Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
    If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.
    -- Lazarus Long.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3