Linked by jonas.kirilla on Mon 7th Feb 2011 22:37 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source "One member of the European Parliament and a handful of their advisors and assistants started a free software group last Saturday, aiming to increase the use of Free and open source software in the European Parliament's IT infrastructure. The user group is open to all who work in the European Parliament, including staff and assistants working in political groups."
Thread beginning with comment 461288
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: EU giving in to MS
by manjabes on Tue 8th Feb 2011 06:33 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: EU giving in to MS"
manjabes
Member since:
2005-08-27

Anyone at all should be able to implement a specification free of royalty charges or threats of lawsuit ... that is what is meant by "open specification".

(emphasis mine)

No, that's what YOU mean by "open specification". Others might just mean something like "a published specification that I may obtain (either by buying or downloading for free) and implement" (versus "a specification only known inside [microsoft|apple|google|etc] that I have to reverse-engineer to be compatible with") without any implied additions like the "royalty-free" that you seem to be implying.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: EU giving in to MS
by Fergy on Tue 8th Feb 2011 09:19 in reply to "RE[3]: EU giving in to MS"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

No, that's what YOU mean by "open specification". Others might just mean something like "a published specification that I may obtain (either by buying or downloading for free) and implement" (versus "a specification only known inside

You would be correct when it comes to businesses. If the EU pays for the development of a standard they should demand a totally free standard.

When _people_ hear open standard they think _totally free without strings_.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: EU giving in to MS
by cheemosabe on Tue 8th Feb 2011 09:23 in reply to "RE[3]: EU giving in to MS"
cheemosabe Member since:
2009-11-29

Others might just mean something like "a published specification that I may obtain (either by buying or downloading for free) and implement


Are you #&^@#*&^ serious? ActiveSync then is and open protocol by your definition.

Edited 2011-02-08 09:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: EU giving in to MS
by JAlexoid on Tue 8th Feb 2011 12:14 in reply to "RE[4]: EU giving in to MS"
JAlexoid Member since:
2009-05-19

Are you #&^@#*&^ serious? ActiveSync then is and open protocol by your definition.

Yep. That is why it's being used in gov't institutions and that is why I believe I am being ripped off by Microsoft and have 0 shame in saying that I don't pay for their software a single penny. Every single other piece of software I own is legally obtained through.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: EU giving in to MS
by Thom_Holwerda on Tue 8th Feb 2011 11:24 in reply to "RE[3]: EU giving in to MS"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

No, that's what YOU mean by "open specification". Others might just mean something like "a published specification that I may obtain (either by buying or downloading for free) and implement" (versus "a specification only known inside [microsoft|apple|google|etc] that I have to reverse-engineer to be compatible with") without any implied additions like the "royalty-free" that you seem to be implying.


Well, both the EU and Microsoft consider "royalty-free" to be a prerequisite for a standard to be called "open". So, it's not just him.

Reply Parent Score: 2