OSNews

Nah, he's just softening up the ground so that the left side of the community doesn't get furious when the OSI approves Microsoft's licenses. This is politics. This is what politicians say when they're about to vote against popular opinion. This is how they pander to the masses while siding with the few. It works really well.

The OSI has to approve Microsoft's licenses. Otherwise they wouldn't be neutral, right? But hasn't Microsoft lost the right to neutrality yet? Between years of anti-competitive behavior and their continued manipulation of oversight and standards organizations, you'd think they'd have worn out their welcome by now.

They make unsubstantiated threats about patent infringement, scaring vendors and users into paying protection money, and they still deserve a neutral assessment and endorsement of their licenses? Man, are we suckers or what?!

But two wrongs don't make a right. The OSI can't say that Microsoft's licenses don't comply with the OSD. That would be intellectually dishonest, and that's not what we're all about. We prefer to rise above the fray and take our lickings like a man, or at least like a brave little boy.

No, what I've learned from politics is that you never allow a vote you know you can't win. You never ask a question unless you already know the answer. You never accept the premise. You never accept the inevitable. Not if there's any other option. It's time to open up the old obstructionist playbook.

Let's stonewall the sons of bitches. Filibuster. Pocket veto. Executive privilege. Just don't respond. When they ask about it, tell them these are complex issues, and we're working on it. I'm sorry, it seems we can't reach a consensus either way. No cloture. No up or down vote. It's a procedural thing, bylaws and such. We've got a busy schedule, and we have to move on to more pressing issues.

Thanks anyway!

There. We come out with our dignity and most of our honesty. If the media wants to report that Microsoft was rejected, that's fine. The OSI isn't on the record saying anything about whether or not the licenses comply with the OSD. Microsoft can create their own standards body. That's really what they want, isn't it?

Don't get me wrong, when considered in a vacuum, these licenses are a sign of progress from Microsoft. But this is a little glimmer of progress amongst a massive display of sustained confrontationalism. If this was part of a general trend toward good behavior, then we should reward them. But it's not. It really, really isn't.

Edited 2007-09-03 00:33

"When they ask about it, tell them these are complex issues, and we're working on it. I'm sorry, it seems we can't reach a consensus either way. No cloture. No up or down vote. It's a procedural thing, bylaws and such. We've got a busy schedule, and we have to move on to more pressing issues."

"Creative Inertia" - Sir Humphrey would be smiling

Your score must have wrapped, it was 62 couple minutes ago

I think you are a genius .

I don't really consider this as a matter of Eric having second thoughts.

And I *really* don't think that we can treat licenses differently based upon who presented them. Just the content, please. Just the facts, ma'am.

I dislike Microsoft. It's a secondary effect of them being in the way of what I have recognized, over the years, as superior solutions.

But their licenses need to be given the same consideration as are any others which are presented.

Raymond is still an arrogant ass. And I'll tell you that whether I am agreeing or disagreeing with him. ;-)

And I *really* don't think that we can treat licenses differently based upon who presented them. Just the content, please. Just the facts, ma'am.

It was bound to happen one day, but I agree with you.

I don't care if Hannibal Lecter himself submitted the license - it ought not influence whether or not said license is approved by the OSI. Last time I checked, the OSI is not the Moral Police Corps. Just handle the license as it is presented to you, and disregard who submitted it.

Let the moral judgement be done by users (developers, in this case).

Thom,

I'm pleased to be in agreement. But you are simply FUDing Hanible Lecter, and that is all there is to it. ;-)

Seriously, though, I can't believe that we FOSS advocates, who so often claim the moral high ground, even have to discuss the matter.

Of *course* we need to treat each license that is offered in an objective fashion. If license proliferation is a concern, that concern needs to be applied equally to all licenses which are submitted. (I mention that since it seems to be a preferred rationalization for dismissing MS's licenses.)

Anyway. I don't think that we actually disagree on all that much, Thom. We just make a bigger thing over it when we do. ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I think from a strictly legal point of view, the OSI should look at the licenses purely on their own merit...but perhaps they should qualify them, i.e. "the license respects the letter of the OSD, however we must advise against using it considering the hostile nature of Microsoft against FOSS", or something like that.

I don't know, I'm as conflicted as ESR is on this issue (and yes, I do believe he's an arrogant SOB as well, but I agree with his sentiments here).

MS undermining something as vital as the ISO should be of concern to *everyone* in the industry.

Edited 2007-09-02 19:45

Okay, then what do you propose should be done about the unethical (if not technically illegal) behavior displayed by MS as it tries to stack the committees to push OOXML as an ISO standard? What happened in Sweden recently is a fine example of how you can bend the rules if you've got enough money and power.

With its latest shenanigans involving OOXML, it's clear that MS has not abandoned its shady practices of the past. This is not a purely technical discussion anymore; whether you like it or not, MS's actions have made this a political issue, one that is starting to make waves too (witness India and Brazil's rejection of OOXML). People may not want to take sides, saying that they are only interested in the technical aspect, but in this situation - as is so often the case - choosing to remain neutral *is* taking sides.

What happened in Sweden recently is a fine example of how you can bend the rules if you've got enough money and power.

I hope you are aware of the fact that IBM contacted the same companies and tried to make them vote against MS.

And even before that, they made sure that others would join for the single purpose of voting against.

You don't see people complain about that. Because it happens to be in their own interest to prevent MS from doing anything at all.

IBM turned it all into a political/economical issue before MS could start anything similar, and not as a reaction to anything MS did.

"Okay, then what do you propose should be done about the unethical (if not technically illegal) behavior displayed by MS as it tries to stack the committees to push OOXML as an ISO standard?"

What has this got to do with their proposed OSS license?
Nothing. Either their license is suitable or it isn't. It has nothing to do with who MS are or how they otherwise behaves.

OSI decides whether or not it can accept a license. The moral and legal judgement is solely OSI's since the trademark belongs to OSI.

The rest of us can then decide whether we agree with OSI or not.

But OSI has EVERY moral and legal right to make moral and legal judgements on any license submitted. And ESR have seconds thoughts due to Microsofts possibly illegal actions in regard to ISO.

OSI, OSI. If OSI is about *community, ESR is refering to, then community rules.

Just handle the license as it is presented to you, and disregard who submitted it.

It doesn't work like that. Collaborative organisations such as the ISO, OSI and others are based on track record, what you have given and most of all, how you have manage to get along with your peers. That's the only way they can work effectively. You can't just wander on to a mailing list or a committee that you've never given the time of day to before and say "Here's our license, we believe it meets OSI's criteria so approve it".

They owe you nothing, and the OSI should have that attitude with every vendor who wanders in out of nowhere on to the list with a new license. It's not just Microsoft. Other vendors such as CA have done it to claim that they're an open source company.

Edited 2007-09-02 21:32

To disregard Microsoft's past and ongoing behavior and to help them shoot the whole open source movement down by allowing them to claim that even OSI stands behind its license choices is foolhardy.

Any organization needs to have strategic objectives and to assess those when it deals with other organizations such as Microsoft. Let Microsoft establish itself as a bona-fide partner of the open source community by submitting encumbered and really open networking protocols for file servers and office formats and then we'll talk.

As long as Microsoft continues to use lock-in as part of its business strategy, OSI should refuse this or any license submitted by Microsoft. You want OSI's seal of approval. Meet both the printed letter of our licenses, but more importantly their spirit.

I mean, one minute, they are talking about how Linux infringes on their patents and making "SCOesque" claims about intellectual property, the next minute you actually tell me that open source licenses are useful and that you want to join our club.

Start by showing some respect and picking one of the existing licenses would be a good way to do it.

Of course, I meant unencumbered file and wire protocols.

But at the end of the day people do decide whether or not the licence is classed as opensource. It doesn't matter how much the source of judgement protests, its going to be influenced by bias. That is what Raymond is pointing out, it is going to be incredibly hard to take a unbiased moral high ground given the current state of affairs.

Bias appears everywhere, look in politics, for example - an election that might been seen as by the UN as absolutely flawed could be used by a certain super power as an example of progress. Same will occur here. Submitting to a standards body is as much to do about the facts as it is to do with the any possible relationship which Microsoft might have with those who are in the standardisation process.

You will realize one day that the intellect is not consistent. If somebody is willing to spin you in a loop or two, you will surely loose every but the simplest of intellectual battles.

It is the end result that matters. Closed software makes people criminals, takes away their rights to learn and cooperate. Yes, it is an ethical issue, it is a financial battle and I bet it looks like a religion to the uninitiated.

MS have never been shy of breaking the rules to achieve their goals so why should we play ball with them the one time they work to our system?

Personally I don't trust users and/or developers to be the moral judges. Most users don't give a toss what system they use so long as it's packaged nicely and a lot (not all or even most - but a sizable number none-the-less) can be influenced by big bucks. So I'm all for an impartial 3rd party organisation taking the moral high ground.

Principles are all very good and well, but you don't win a war by principle alone.

Just my 2c anyway.

I don't have much time for Raymond either and agree with your assessment of him being an arrogant ass. But I do think that the FLOSS community needs to make a stand when it comes to stuff like this.

If MS wants to use they're own license for they're own projects, fine but trying to get OSI approval for these licenses is like getting slapped in the face. Furthermore, license proliferation is already an issue, we don't need MS to muddy the water even more.

I agree with Raymond on this one. Watching MS make a mockery of the ISO is already hard enough. Letting them off without some form of retribution would be far to hard to deal with.

I should say right now that the "arrogant ass thing" is off-topic. I brought it into the thread. But I'd hate to have it dominate. I retract it now.

Now, as to making a stand. I don't think we can. And I don't think we should. If we are a meritocracy, we cannot simply stop being a meritocracy when it seems convenient for us, or when someone whom we don't like, or we distrust, offers up a license.

Remember, this is a license. It can be used by others against MS as much as it could be used by MS against others. Now, if there *is* a hidden land mine in the license, or licenses... let's work hard to find that, expose it, and reject the license based upon that *real* reason.

But if it meets the OS definition, it needs to be approved. Or that definition needs to be changed.

Aaawwwhh... I didn't even get a chance to defend him. Evil you

Meh, why? It's true
I guess it's like mentioning Theo deRaadt though, it gets the freaks out of the woodwork.

"If MS wants to use they're own license for they're own projects, fine but trying to get OSI approval for these licenses is like getting slapped in the face"

Funny how no-one complained when Sun and IBM got their licenses OSI approved. Of course, Sun and IBM is everyone's darling these days and their dirty past easily forgotten.

Maybe that's because they've changed their ways, while MS hasn't.

You can't deny that IBM and Sun have been particularly FOSS-friendly over the past couple of years. Also, they recognize the need for a truly open file format unencumbered with legacy cruft and patent issues.

He is the only one who really cares about open source. A loud voice indeed, but a brilliant mind.

"""
He is the only one who really cares about open source. A loud voice indeed, but a brilliant mind.
"""

Oliver,

If you care to, please elaborate. I'm interested.

-Steve

They are not. If MS was genuinely interested in open-source, they would have included ODF support into Office and wouldn't be bending the rules in order to ram OOXML through the ISO certification process.

If OOXML was really an honest effort to move to open file formats, do you think the FOSS world would be so hostile against it?

Not only is the file format not truly open, it is not technically up to par with ODF. Check this blog for more info:

http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/

(Cue MollyC butting in with her pro-OOXML PR in 3...2...1...)

That's like saying "If FreeBSD was genuinely interested in open-source, they'd be using Linux." Don't confuse the technology with the politics.



This is Microsoft we're talking about. Microsoft could save children from a burning building and the OSS community would be hostile to it.

No, it's not like saying that at all. Don't confuse empty rhetoric with actual arguments.

There is an open standard which was elaborated by OASIS, which has the support every FOSS-friendly organization and corporation out there. Microsoft, as a member of OASIS, even gave it tacit support. That file format is ODF. If MS was really interested in becoming open-source friendly, it would have included ODF support in its Office product.

Now, can you actually offer a counter-argument for this, instead of an half-assed, inappropriate analogy?



Again, that is not a logical argument, but rather an ad hominem attack against the OSS community, which in your view is incapable of rational thinking when dealing with MS. The fact of the matter is that OOXML is designed to further MS's file format monopoly, and that is why the FOSS community is against it, especially since there is a truly open alternative, ODF, which *already* has been approved by the ISO.

Stop trying to paint MS as the poor victim who is rejected by all even though it tries to make friends. It's not true, and you know it.

This is Microsoft we're talking about. Microsoft could save children from a burning building and the OSS community would be hostile to it.

microsoft is not saving children from a burning building. they're trying to give the impression that they're a-ok with OSS, and all the while undermining open standards.

corporations don't deserve second chance after second chance after second chance. there is a point at which they should just be ignored. and, as far as i'm concerned, OSI should reject any MS submissions and decline to comment. we're at a point where we have to be biased against MS. history has shown time and time again that trying to treat them like everyone else has gotten us nowhere. and there's a good reason for that. they're NOT like everyone else. previous antitrust shenanigans have illustrated that beautifully.

"If OOXML was really an honest effort to move to open file formats, do you think the FOSS world would be so hostile against it? "

The only reason MS wants OOXML to have the ISO impramature is to undercut IBM's lobbying effort to governments that their document archives' long term security depends on a publicly recognized file format specification, and ODF is the only way to do that, so all other formats must be banned for government use.

And that's why the FOSS community doesn't like OOXML, because it undercuts that grand strategy to get governments to ban MS Office and/or codify into law a format that lacks certain MS Office features, thus making those extra features quasi-illegal to use by governments, making those extra features a dis-advantage, which makes it easier for alternatives to compete.

That's a long version of what I've said before. OO.o et al couldn't compete with MS Office on features, so they said "Use us because we have a public format". MS, to the OO.o group's surprise, provided their own public spec, which brings the competition back to a features battle, which OO.o knows they can't win, so IBM and the like are fighting tooth and nail to not let OOXML be an ISO standard (despite MS not raising a fuss over ODF being recognized as such, indeed voting for ISO an ANSI approval of ODF, and not lobbying governments to ban use of ODF or any other format).

(I still find it amusing that people demand that every other app must jump through hoops (altering their code, forcefeeding their needs into ODF) to use a format built for an office suite with < 5% usage.)

If I were running Microsoft, I would terminate the OOXML fast-track process and go through the long process. The main reason being that an MS guy in Sweden tried to bribe two companies to vote for OOXML approval there, which destroys credibility of the process. Supposedly MS proactively reported this infraction to SIS (Sweden's organization that is considering OOXML approval) themselves, but the damage is still done, and MS should go the extra mile to restore credibility to the process by going through the long slow track rather than the fast track. (Although, technically, its up to ECMA, as they own OOXML, not MS, and ECMA was the group that submitted OOXML to ISO for fast-track approval.)

They don't want to do that for two reasons: 1.) ODF went through the fast-track process, in fact being virtually rubberstamped (largely because most governments didn't pay attention as they didn't care about ODF to begin with), despite huge shortcomings, so it doesn't seem fair that other formats go through the high scrutiny that ODF was not subject to; 2.) It would give more time for IBM to argue that ODF is the only format that meets government needs, so governments should mandate exclusive use of ODF.

There are some things that mitigate those two items, however.
For example, ISO ODF 1.0 is no longer current. It's already obsolete. ODF 1.1 is being made to address the many shortcomings, and it will have to go through ISO process itself. ODF 1.1 will undergo much higher scrutiny than did ODF 1.0 because people won't want to rubberstamp another deficient version of ODF, and ODF has higher public awareness now, so governments will actually pay attention this time.

Two, if OOXML goes through the slow rather than fast track, it's shortcomings will be addressed and will have all the more credibility at the end. It will be better for it, and won't need the 1.1 rush job the ODF is doing now.


--------------
"Not only is the file format not truly open, it is not technically up to par with ODF. Check this blog for more info:

http://ooxmlisdefectivebydesign.blogspot.com/

(Cue MollyC butting in with her pro-OOXML PR in 3...2...1...)"
--------------

hehe :-)
Yes, that's a very cute attempt to pre-emptively dismiss my arguments (easier to do that than to address them directly), but you're not in any position to call someone out for posting PR when you link to an obvious propaganda hit piece.

I'm well aware of Stephen Rodriguez' writings. He regularly trolls OOXML lead Brian Jones' blog, using all kinds of personal insults against him. It's said that he runs a business maintaining excel documents and OOXML threatens his business. Whatever.

BTW, the main argument Stephen Rodriguez puts forth is that because a user changing a piece of the XML text of an Excel document, must make corresponding changes in other parts of the file in order for the file to remain consistent with itself, then its not true XML, and therefore OOXML is a "fraud" (this is his basic summary of his piece, which he posted to Brian Jones' blog). That argument is one of the most absurd arguments ever. Even you would have to admit as much. Just because a format is stored as XML text doesn't mean a user can blithely alter any portion of that XML text without regard to how it might affect the rest of the file.

As for this and his other complaints that Stephen described in his blog, Miguel (of Mono fame) completely destroys nearly every one of his arguments here:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=279895&cid=20363627


All this has nothing to do with OSI. OSI is a self-appointed group that takes it upon itself to decide what constitutes an open source license. They have no *inherent* credibility or authority; what credibility they do have depends on the perecption that they impartially weigh wether a license meets their criteria. If they want to start playing favorites or being moral police then they need to publicly change their mission statement accordingly.

Edited 2007-09-02 20:55

Well, Dansk Standard just voted no with comments to OOXML (despite some attempted cheating from Microsoft) because of the many unspecified elements in OOXML making it impossible for anyone but Microsoft to create a full implementation of OOXML.

Dansk Standard is more credible to me than Slashdot.

They also included elements in their comments that are factually incorrect (OOXML does not specify the ZIP file formats that it uses... even though it does) and they include comments such as "OOXML must support such and such a feature merely because ODF does." One gem is that "OOXML must not support OLE linking because it's a Windows-dependent technology" (ODF supports OLE). Clearly their comments were not sufficiently vetted by the actual NB, so I don't know why you need to have any trust in them.

Well, Ms. Cieslinski, the difference is that I'm not employed by a PR company that counts MS as one of its clients.

As far as "competing on features" goes, ODF is extensible, and new features can be added. There's *no* reason to believe that it can't compete. So there goes 90% of your argument.

The Rodriguez piece is only one particular criticism of OOXML - there are others. But the crux of the matter is in fact something that you admit yourself: that governments want open standards for their archives. That is a legitimate issue, and *nothing* is preventing MS from making Office ODF-compatible. Therefore, it is a bold-faced lie (the staple of PR professionnals, might I add) that IBM wants government to "ban MS Office". Rather, it is MS itself that is voluntarily excluding itself through its purely strategic refusal to support ODF and its anti-competitive push for OOXML, perverting the ISO certification standard in the process (something which you tacitly admit when you say that MS should abandon its fast-track efforts).

The issue is really very simple. MS could have supported ODF, but it chose not to simply because it wants to keep the advantage as far as file formats go. After all, and even Bill Gates admitted this in past memos, file formats are the angular stone to Microsoft's near-monopoly.

A personal attack in your first line...

"""
Well, Ms. Cieslinski, the difference is that I'm not employed by a PR company that counts MS as one of its clients.
"""

I really, really wish that Molly would answer one way or the other on this. Either she is Molly Cieslinski, or she is not. I've asked directly. No response.

Either her job, and the reason she receives paychecks, is to promote Microsoft... or it is not.

Now I'm asking point blank. Is it? Or isn't it.

If I am in error, I apologize in advance.

I'm serious. Are you. Or are you not?

Edited 2007-09-02 21:34

"Well, Ms. Cieslinski, the difference is that I'm not employed by a PR company that counts MS as one of its clients.

Huh? Who's Ms. Cieslinksi?
I don't know who Cieslinski is, but if you think it's me, you're barking up the wrong tree. LOL Anyway, I'm not employed by a PR company, I don't know why you continue to imply such, other than that it's a cheap way to dismiss my arguments, or you're hopelessly confused that I'm this "Cieleniski" character. I'm literally laughing out loud right now. LOL

Wait, it just occurred to me. Have I gotten under your skin so much, that you decided to try to do a background check on me? That's hilarious!! And you concluded that I'm "Cielsinski"? You'll never get work as a detective.

I'll ignore your personal attack. It seems to be a common trait amongst your ilk, but "what can you do".


"The Rodriguez piece is only one particular criticism of OOXML - there are others. "

Hey, you cited Rodriguez piece, so you can either stand by it or not. But if you do decide to stand by it, make sure that you first read Miguel's slashdot post that completely destroys it.


MS could have supported ODF, ...

But WHY? I posted about this in the iWork Pages thread too, where your ilk are up in arms that Apple's not supporting ODF. ODF is based on OO.o XML 1.0. It is built for OO.o. For an app to adopt ODF as its native format is for that app to adopt as its native format, a format of an office suite with < 5% share. There is no logical reason to do that.

Microsoft didn't participate in development of ODF because they never intended to use it. It doesn't meet their needs, and forcing their needs into OO.o's format makes less sense than simply opening up their own format. Same goes for Pages.

Also, check out this blog:
http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2007/07/09/open-xml-timel...

It's main point is that it shows that OOXML was under development concurrently with ODF, but it includes a reference to a blog by Gary Edwards, one of the ODF 1.0 leads (one of the two members of the OASIS committee that attended 75% of the meetings), where Edwards himself admits that Sun blocked attempts to include features in ODF that would make it more compatible with MS Office.

BTW, Sun actively blocked attempts to include features in ODF to make it more compatible with MS Office.
"Everyone on that first TC group supported full interoperability with Microsoft applications and documents, except for one company - Sun.

There are three areas of "interoperability" that Sun opposed then, and continues to oppose today. The only difference being that after their 2004 deal with Microsoft, Sun has been uncompromisingly determined to block the interoperability the marketplace demands.

…

If Micrsoft were to join the OASIS ODF TC today, seeking to adapt ODF to meet the legacy document-MSOffice features-line of business integration needs of their monopoly base, the TC would have to deal with the exact same issues as they have summarily rejected with current compatibility-interoeprability-convergence disussions!

There is no possible way anyone can claim that today's OASIS ODF TC would welcome Microsoft and make accomodating changes to the specification! No way! And the proof of this hostility can be seen in the actual disussions and rejections of Micrsoft specific interoperability proposals. "


Edit: OK, I did a Google for "Molly Cieslinksi", and found two references:
http://netzoomuniversal.com/about/index.php?mid=433

http://download.microsoft.com/download/6/E/B/6EB7AE64-FA6D-4CCA-8EC...

I didn't read the second link (it's a Word document that appears to talk about Visio's file format), but I skimmed the first, and Molly Cielinski does seem to be employed by a PR firm that does work for Microsoft, and here email is, get this, "mollyc@wagged.com".
Molly Cieslinski, Waggener Edstrom, (503) 443-7000, mollyc@wagged.com

LOL That's just too funny. I can see where people might jump to conclusions, but that ain't me! But what's more funny is that people tried to find out who I am (I guess for the purpose of discreditting my arguments, but maybe there's some other reason). Actually, the funniest thing about this is that someone would think that a real PR person would spend time posting here at all. I enjoy this site for entertainment value (and even the occassional technical insight), but were I a PR person, I'd think this site would not be worth spending any of my "PR" time on. I guess I should feel flattered that some have mistaken me for a real life PR person.

Edited 2007-09-02 21:53

There's *no* reason to believe that it can't compete.

Ok, then do it. Compete on features.

And that's why the FOSS community doesn't like OOXML, because it undercuts that grand strategy to get governments to ban MS Office and/or codify into law a format that lacks certain MS Office features, thus making those extra features quasi-illegal to use by governments, making those extra features a dis-advantage, which makes it easier for alternatives to compete.

Are you serious? This is a bunch of nonsense. Nobody is trying to ban Microsoft Office or require governments to legalise ways of throwing it out of the competition. Not that we don't want to. God, if only it were that easy for little people to get the gov's of the world to do something.

The only thing we want is a document format that is completely open. Complete openness has multiple advantages. Among them, gives all software products a level playing ground, allowing them to compete on fair criteria, such as price and features. It also makes it impossible for documents to become unusable if the software they were created with dissapears.

The OpenOffice team invented such a format. OASIS took it and refined it. ISO and IEC accepted it as a standard (for real).

Why didn't Microsoft get up first and invented such a format? Because they don't want to, that's why. They like people and governments having to buy MS Office and depend on it.

And now, since there's already an established open format, the logical thing to do would be to add full support for it into MS Office. But nooo. Can't have that, can we? That would allow people to convert all their MS Office documents and escape. Instead, let's create a mockery of a spec, call it a confusing name (Office Open XML) and play ISO into saying it's also a standard. Once that happens, those fools in the governments won't know the difference anyway.

Well, excuse us if we want to fight against that.

Ad-hominem attacks on those you disagree with (OSI is a self-appointed group), vagaries, empty words, promoting a point time and time again in the face of all evidence and disregarding any evidence that doesn't support your point and you expect us to believe that you have no vested interest in the positions you take.

You just happen to love OOXML and Microsoft. What a joke!

By the way, the fact that Gnumeric, Koffice, Abiword, Lotus, GoogleDocs and more are all able to add support for ODF should tell you a lot about how hard it is for any office suite to support it.

What's also striking about these code bases adding support for ODF is that they have very different origins, are written in different languages and yet they are all making great strides in reaching full support for ODF.

And you have the gall to tell me that Microsoft wants to compete on features. Most people are more than happy with Openoffice, the only occasional complain is about dealing with their legacy documents and it's been literally over a year since I have heard that.

Well, ODF is after all designed from the ground up to be platform-independent and OS-independent.

It shouldn't take Microsoft barely any effort at all to support ODF fully and natively in MS Office. Microsoft engineers (ie not MS managers and not MS PR people) have apparently been quoted off the record (in discussions with Massachusetts officials) as assesing that the task of adding full native support for ODF in MS Office would take about two weeks of effort.



Precisely. Where is Microsoft's effort to compete on the "native support for ODF" feature? We (the public, the end-users) have been waiting for quite a while now for that feature. It doesn't make sense that Microsoft can't compete on that much-desired feature ... so the only conclusion to reach is that Microsoft has made a political (not technical) decision to forbid full support of ODF by MS Office.

It would seem that the feature Microsoft is keenest to support in its products are the plentiful "lock-in" features, the "requires a Windows platform" features and the "screw the customer" features. One finds these features at their greatest concentration in MS Office.

The only reason MS wants OOXML to have the ISO impramature is to undercut IBM's lobbying effort...

Is this the lobbying effort that is flooding ISO's international committees with new members in order to get its format approved come what may? Oh sorry, that's Microsoft.............

And that's why the FOSS community doesn't like OOXML, because it undercuts that grand strategy to get governments to ban MS Office and/or codify into law a format that lacks certain MS Office features...

No one needs to ban Microsoft Office (which created this unfair trade, monopoly situation in the first place). If it conforms to an internationally recognised standard that everybody can implement, no problem! That's Microsoft's problem, no one elses'.

Many standards are mandated worldwide that companies in many industries have to conform to, and they all can equally. I know of no company that has whined at an internationally recognised and implementable standard, there to promote equality and fair trade that everyone can implement, because they couldn't go off and invent their own. The childishness and foot stamping is beyond belief.

They don't want to do that for two reasons: 1.) ODF went through the fast-track process, in fact being virtually rubberstamped...

ODF was around within the OASIS committee for four years before it got near the ISO. Track record is everything, and OOXML just doesn't have that.

Two, if OOXML goes through the slow rather than fast track, it's shortcomings will be addressed and will have all the more credibility at the end.

Wishful thinking. Microsoft will not address any concerns with OOXML because:

1. It is out in the world as part of Office 2007.

2. Microsoft is flooding ISO committees all over the world in order to make sure that the comments are glossed over, giving it an apparent air of credibility.

3. Technically, many of the shortcomings cannot be solved unless large parts of the standard are junked and started again.

Yes, that's a very cute attempt to pre-emptively dismiss my arguments (easier to do that than to address them directly)

I have done, and you've never addressed mine because you've been taken to the cleaners every time. So has Rick Jelliffe, but I admire you both for soldiering on - no matter how much you've been paid. Can't be easy ;-).

I'm well aware of Stephen Rodriguez' writings. He regularly trolls OOXML lead Brian Jones' blog, using all kinds of personal insults against him.

Rick Jelliffe uses the same tactic. When you have no arguments left, wheel out the personal insults and attacks card. Can Microsoft's strategy department not give you anything better?

Just because a format is stored as XML text doesn't mean a user can blithely alter any portion of that XML text without regard to how it might affect the rest of the file.

Sweetheart, the whole point of XML (supposedly) is that it is human readable and editable text. It should be editable and parsable by other applications. If Microsoft Office throws a wobbler because you've put in what should be a valid element then you've got a problem.

Miguel (of Mono fame) completely destroys nearly every one of his arguments here

Ahhhh, Miguel. His credibility just keeps diving through the floor. First of all he dismisses the exploding spreadsheets point by saying that Stephane hasn't read the schema. However, all he has done is insert a value in a cell that is consistent with all the other XML for doing the same thing. They are not indexes to other parts, just regular data consistent with other XML elements in the same block.

He then tells us that entered versus stored values are different because of double format precision. That's great, apart from the fact that this is supposed to be a human readable format and shouldn't need to be shoved through an application to get the right value without the execution environment being described. What is a dumb XML parser supposed to do with this? It will take it as-is. Microsoft, and Miguel, just don't get this it seems.

Miguel then helpfully tells us that VML is deprecated, just as Rick Jelliffe tells us that the word95 elements are deprecated. Well thanks very much, but quite what deprecated elements are doing in a completely new format, I really have no idea. Presumably all those old Microsoft Office documents that get converted will be continuing to use these deprecated extensions, so Miguel is wrong, VML is very much still in use - which is kind of the point ;-).

OSI is a self-appointed group that takes it upon itself to decide what constitutes an open source license. They have no *inherent* credibility or authority

Microsoft doesn't seem to agree with you.

If they want to start playing favorites or being moral police then they need to publicly change their mission statement accordingly.

They are no different to any other collaborative group. You get along with your peers and contribute. If you don't then they owe you nothing Don't pull the moral or equality arguments, because they mean nothing in such organisations. It's about building your reputation within the group.

Microsoft, who is finally succumbing to the open-source bandwagon

Microsoft isn't "succumbing to the open-source bandwagon". They're attempting to expand the definition of what "open-source" means. Which is fine. Open source means different things to different people, and it would be the height of hypocrisy for OSI to exclude MS simply because (a) it doesn't like MS or (b) MS's licensing model is different.

Microsoft is virtually handing their most profitable business (office suites) over to the open-source movement (in the form of OOXML).

Nonsense. I don't see many organizations moving away the binary formats. Microsoft is only doing this because certain customers (ie. governments) now require "open" file formats. But even the ones who called for these formats (ie. Massachusetts) are still using binary formats.

Are you really suggesting that FOSS advocates support the extermination of those who disagree with them?