so ?
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| maggrand Dec 05, 2006 11:05 AM EDT |
OpenXML is not open anyway .....so who cares ? |
| jimf Dec 05, 2006 12:06 PM EDT |
OO already supports the MS .doc format, so what's wrong with support for their proprietary XML, although I do think it needs to be called MSXML... Nothing free about the pig. |
| Abe Dec 05, 2006 12:45 PM EDT |
OOo didn't say they wouldn't support MSXML, I am sure they will support it the same way they support .doc. The tricky part is, although MS declares MSXML as open, it might have patents or depends on other products that have patents. One would need a license to use it. On the contrary, the .doc format has no patents and it was reverse engineered which is legal. If you are saying that OOo should be using MSXML format, why would they want to do that if every office application in the field is going to use ODF ISO standard! Eventually MS will be have use ODF or at least will have a plug-in to export to ODF. This is becoming a requirement by many organizations. MS has to take it or leave it. Open Standards are becoming so desirable it is going to be very very tough on MS to avoid them. |
| jimf Dec 05, 2006 12:56 PM EDT |
> If you are saying that OOo should be using MSXML format Certainly never as default. > Open Standards are becoming so desirable it is going to be very very tough on MS to avoid them. I agree. As it should be. MSXML is only another conversion format, and should be treated as such. If MS want's to play lisense games, just forget it... Their loss. |
| rijelkentaurus Dec 05, 2006 1:53 PM EDT |
> Open Standards are becoming so desirable it is going to be very very tough on MS to avoid them. While we've got some movement towards that here in the US (such as Mass.), I don't think folks here have any idea what's going on in the Rest Of The World...which isn't surprising since most folks here can't find the Rest Of The World on a map. There is definitely a movement towards standards, which is very bad for MS. Office, whatever its technical benefits, is not an application that can stand on its own merits and justify the price. I already see the headaches that are going to be coming my way as a support person, when people get something in the new MS format and can't open it with the old Office...and I have to tell them to buy Office 2007. In that case, I might just recommend OOo if it can open the file. This might open an interesting back door for OS software...one can hope, eh? |
| tuxchick Dec 05, 2006 1:59 PM EDT |
Map? Whuzzat? Reminds me of the FedEx commercial where they guy can't find China. |
| jimf Dec 05, 2006 2:01 PM EDT |
> most folks here can't find the Rest Of The World on a map. While I don't think that's true for most posters on this site, I'm afraid that's true of many Americans. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2006 2:04 PM EDT |
> While I don't think that's true for most posters on this site, I'm afraid that's true of many Americans. Our wonderful public education system at work. Though most of the private schools aren't much better. :( Never let the government do anything if there's any alternative. |
| jezuch Dec 05, 2006 2:17 PM EDT |
Quoting:OpenXML is not open anyway It's open as in "in an open safe behind three layers of bullet-proof glass". It's still better than [any version of] .doc, which is behind a solid wall of armored concrete ;) |
| Scott_Ruecker Dec 05, 2006 3:37 PM EDT |
When I was in the sixth grade the Social Studies books we used had Dallas and Fort Worth reversed and I brought it to the attention of my teacher, who promptly sent me to the Principle for saying the book was wrong. My Mother was called and when I explained to her what I did she asked for the book and saw what I saw and the Principle did too. Even though I was 'excused' he still refused to bring my teacher into the room to tell her. >Our wonderful public education system at work... |
| tuxchick Dec 05, 2006 4:02 PM EDT |
hee, I went to second grade in La Grande, Oregon, which is a small town surrounded by farms and ranches. Every day I saw horses lying down to sleep. I even sat on them. Then I go to school and the teacher says "Horses sleep standing up. If they lie down they are sick." Well, it is a crime to contradict Teacher, and never mind what all of us ignorant second-graders saw with our own eyes. Even the kids who had their own horses were not accepted authorities on the subject. Other relics from my primary education: Indians were dirty heathen savages and the pioneers were all clean and noble, volcanoes are extinct (we could see Mt. Hood puffing smoke on a regular basis, and then came Mt. St. Helens), black people are intellectually inferior, gravity in space is zero, and Jesus was a homo. I am not making that up, my 7th-grade teacher Mr. Darling said that. Mr. Darling wherever you are, it's the only thing I remember about your class other than your sweaty armpits. |
| beirwin Dec 05, 2006 5:55 PM EDT |
Tuxchick,
Here I always thought my education in the 'burbs of Chicago in the '50's (that'll date me!!) was kinda so so, however, your experiences in Oregon makes my education seem like Ivy League city! I was lucky, tho'. My Dad worked for some of the Chicago newspapers (not the Tribune, I hasten to add), so we always were exposed to the world and current events through the papers. Heck, we even travelled a lot in Canada on holiday so I knew that Canadians didn't live in igloos and it doesn't snow all the time! :-) Unfortunately, American tourists to Victoria, British Columbia (where I live now), still don't have much of a clue about Canada. Sigh. |
| jdixon Dec 05, 2006 6:05 PM EDT |
> Unfortunately, American tourists to Victoria, British Columbia (where I live now), still don't have much of a clue about Canada. Sigh. My wife and I have taken vacations to Canada (Ontario region) several times. We loved it, the people were very friendly, and for some strange reason they always seemed to take us as rural Canadians (we have no idea why). It's far more hassle now that the administration has gotten so paranoid about border crossings, so we're not very likely to do so again anytime soon. :( |
| beirwin Dec 05, 2006 6:16 PM EDT |
>My wife and I have taken vacations to Canada (Ontario region) several times. We loved it, the people were very friendly, and for some strange reason they always seemed to take us as rural Canadians (we have no idea why) Glad to hear you had good holidays in Ontario. As to why you're mistaken as a rural Canadian -- maybe you don't have a strong American accent! When I visit my sister in southern Illinois, folks there think I'm British! Go figure. |
| swbrown Dec 05, 2006 8:44 PM EDT |
"OO already supports the MS .doc format, so what's wrong with support for their proprietary XML" That OpenXML is heavily patented with active patents and doesn't have a culture of permitted infringement ala DOC. Microsoft's 2005 patent license for OpenXML cleverly excludes GPLed code (one of the platform managers for Office confirmed this after much badgering, although they said there shouldn't be a problem with LGPL code) and their later 'covenant not to sue' (sound familiar? :)) over OpenXML also excludes GPLed code although in a much less obvious way and they've been careful this time not to say anything regarding that. If Novell contributes it to OpenOffice.org, and they try to license it LGPL with the rest of OpenOffice.org, the patent license for OpenXML as described by Microsoft will contradict clause 3 that lets you take LGPLed code as GPL, and clause 11 will then forbids distribution. To 'safely' support OpenXML, you'd need to have the code for it licensed under a non-GPL/LGPL license (e.g., BSD), and have the implementation be legally separable/independent from the main OpenOffice.org application. I'm not sure of what it would take to legally ensure that, as dealing with plugins hits the parts of the GPL/LGPL that require actual lawyers as the definitions depend on existing law. Remember that one of the goals of GPL/LGPLed code is that you'll know you're safe to reuse it in other projects or modify it for other tasks without having to consult a lawyer. It's why it's intentionally not compatible with 'field of use' patents and the like. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2006 2:35 AM EDT |
>If Novell contributes it to OpenOffice.org, and they try to license it LGPL Presuming that the Microsoft licenses are sufficient to permit unencumbered licensing of OpenXML stuff under the LGPL -- and I haven't read them to know -- why could that not be contributed to OpenOffice? The use of LGPL'd components does not force a project to be LGPL'd. If that were the case, there would be an awful lot of undistributable GPL'd software as most of it relies on libc. |
| swbrown Dec 06, 2006 9:27 AM EDT |
"Presuming that the Microsoft licenses are sufficient to permit unencumbered licensing of OpenXML stuff under the LGPL -- and I haven't read them to know -- why could that not be contributed to OpenOffice?" If you presume it doesn't violate the LGPL, then there is no LGPL violation. Otherwise, read my post. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2006 11:02 AM EDT |
swbrown - Actually, I got twisted around....The LGPL lets you link free code into non-free programs, not non-free code into GPL'd programs. My bad. That still doesn't mean that Novell code can't be incorporated, for example, that does not infringe patents, or for which some alternative assurance/licensing existed. However, I think you're right -- some sort of BSD licensed plug-in or library might be the only safe way to go. |
| jimf Dec 06, 2006 11:35 AM EDT |
This is as much about MS's Business habits as it is about GPL. Right now MS is totally schizoid. The normal business pattern has been to make their format proprietary and to make it 'less' accessible by making each major update incompatible with the previous one. At the same time they have managed to make it pretty much the 'Business Standard'. All of a sudden it looks as though the whole ball game is going to get taken away from them, so, what will they do? If they supply the MS XML format as GPL, or BSD, or whatever free license it obviously is no longer proprietary. If they maintain the format as proprietary, it likely that few word processors will provide any kind of translation. Either way, the market shrinks. Looks to me like MS is screwed any way it goes. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2006 2:28 PM EDT |
>Either way, the market shrinks. Looks to me like MS is screwed any way it goes. Especially with OpenDoc being an ISO standard. It's a new world for them and they don't know how to play in it. |
| Abe Dec 06, 2006 3:43 PM EDT |
Quoting:If they supply the MS XML format as GPL, or BSD, or whatever free license it obviously is no longer proprietary.If they want to do that, it would be better for them to join the the crowed and submit their needed specification to enhance the ODF. But MS doesn't want to do that, not yet at least. They are really caught between a rock and hard place. At this time, MS calls it "Open" XML because it is ASCII readable text. (duh, it is XML). I think I read some where, that the issue is with the schema, that is patented and have to be licensed to use for writing files. For reading Open XML, the schema wouldn't be needed. Also, within the ASCII XML text, MS still use binary data for various purposes. |
| jimf Dec 06, 2006 4:32 PM EDT |
> with OpenDoc being an ISO standard. Exactly! Any time you have an ISO standard it's going to be what Business and Government will gravitate to. Those organizations like this kind of dependability. MS is really fighting a loosing battle if it goes outside the standard. It's arguable that eventually it would be beneficial to have ISO standards for other formats such as video, graphics and sound. Certainly that would level the playing field, and, focus development. Proprietary formats are almost always limiting in the long run. |
| swbrown Dec 06, 2006 8:03 PM EDT |
ISO and ECMA standards aren't worth beans on their own. They both happily accept RAND patents and limited disclosure. What makes ODF safe is that Sun publishes an implementation under a license that is strict regarding patent rights. "It's arguable that eventually it would be beneficial to have ISO standards for other formats such as video, graphics and sound." Like ISO's various MPEG standards we can't legally implement? |
| jimf Dec 06, 2006 8:51 PM EDT |
> standards we can't legally implement? Then it's not a standard, no matter what they claim. |
| dinotrac Dec 06, 2006 11:25 PM EDT |
>ISO and ECMA standards aren't worth beans on their own. There are many ways to be valuable. ISO standards are not free software standards, but they are standards of importance to many businesses around the world. Surely you've seen companies touting their ISO 9000 compliance? |
| swbrown Dec 07, 2006 1:57 PM EDT |
"> standards we can't legally implement? Then it's not a standard, no matter what they claim." It /is/ a standard. The problem here is the confusion about what 'standard' means, and why we have people supporting so many completely unusable standards organizations. ISO exists mainly to standardize commercial platforms where vendors will have to interoperate. E.g., the various MPEG standards. The license holders will have devices that need to speak it. They agree to allow each other to implement the resulting standard via common rules over patent rights. That does /not/ mean in any way or form the standard is implementable by /everyone/. For standards that are implementable by everyone, you need to have them patent free. There is no commercially-run standards organization that does this to my knowledge (what would be the profit motive for them to be run by proprietary companies?). The Free Software community generally creates de-facto standards via implementations released under the GPL, which has strong anti-patent clauses, then these implementations are occasionally turned into true standards submitted to relevant organizations, like the IETF's XMPP standard which came from the Jabber people. This is the best way to create a truly Free standard. The runner-up is standards organizations that require at most royalty-free, transferable, and a couple other important requirements I've forgotten ('royalty-free' is not sufficient on its own), patents. The W3C is such an organization. They recently resisted pressure to convert to RAND patent requirements, but it was close. The community's support in this was very important. The problem with these royalty-free standards is that they are incompatible with the GPL[1] due to 'field of use' restrictions, although people generally ignore this issue, which is dangerous. There should be more resistance to patented standards, but people have grown complacent, or simply don't understand the issues. Standards organizations that allow RAND or worse off the top of my head: ISO, ECMA, IETF, WS-I. Ones that allow RF or less: W3C. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/w3c-patent.html |
| jimf Dec 07, 2006 3:23 PM EDT |
> It /is/ a standard. The problem here is the confusion about what 'standard' means, and why we have people supporting so many completely unusable standards organizations. I have no trouble with that. Any 'standard' that is not open or proprietary is unusable, i.e. misnamed or the standards committees are just plain stupid or corrupt. > There should be more resistance to patented standards, but people have grown complacent, or simply don't understand the issues. It would appear so. The IEC standards that I dealt with were pretty straightforward, apparently they have really gone to hell. Proprietary or patented elements are always a serious impediment to interoperability. Business knows this, and, if more were aware of what's happening, I think we'd see things change. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!