Eric S. Raymond writes on his blog: "There's been a lot of debate in the community about how OSI should properly handle Microsoft's planned submission of some of its licenses for OSD certification. That debate has been been going on within OSI, too. OSI's official position, from the beginning, which I helped formulate and have expressed to any number of reporters and analysts, is that OSI will treat any licenses submitted to Microsoft strictly on their merits, without fear or favor. That remains OSI's position. But I find that my resolve is being sorely tested."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-02
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...)
Member since:2007-02-22
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.
Member since:2006-07-04
"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
Member since:2006-01-06
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.
Member since:
2007-02-22
The article in short: A license morally the equivalent to the BSD, and a license morally the equivalent to the GPL, are having a hard time being 'legitimized' by an arbitrary-selected committee (the OSI). The reason they're having a hard time is because their author is Microsoft, who is finally succumbing to the open-source bandwagon. In defense for this hard time, the OSI state 'monopolism,' despite the fact that Microsoft is virtually handing their most profitable business (office suites) over to the open-source movement (in the form of OOXML).
The article in short-short: Microsoft is holding out the requisite pound of flesh, the OSI is holding out for more.