Comments on: Then, They Fight You… by Buying Some New Laws

By: Bogdan

Bogdan — Mon, 26 May 2008 11:41:14 +0000

Please read: http://www.microsoft.com/interop/osp/default.mspx
Because the General Public License (GPL) is not universally interpreted the same way by everyone, we can’t give anyone a legal opinion about how our language relates to the GPL or other OSS licenses

There is no legal assurance in here. Until proven by an advocate (better: in a Court of Law) the OSP does not make any legal assurance.

I had never heard of a “promise” being held in a law court (judges, jurors, audience). I know of contracts, donations & other legal bonds, but there is no “promise” in my juridical/legal vocabulary.

US Court system follows the rule of precedence – is there another precedent of this kind of promise being enforced by a judge?

Until proven otherwise, a promise is made to be broken.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 25 May 2008 16:49:50 +0000

You dodge my point, Alex. There’s the OSP. It assures developers that there is a form of ‘protection’ (from Microsoft). The GPL is implicitly excluded.

By: Victor Soliz

Victor Soliz — Sun, 25 May 2008 16:39:25 +0000

“Proof by OpenOffice”, such an amazing way to back up arguments…

By: AlexH

AlexH — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:36:02 +0000

The license is irrelevant to patent terrorism: if someone else has patents on something you’re doing, then no GPL, BSD or other license is going to give you any protection; the threat is exactly the same.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:25:55 +0000

It may make it more susceptible and sensitive to the aforementioned “patent terrorism”, in my humble assessment.

By: AlexH

AlexH — Sun, 25 May 2008 15:17:24 +0000

@Woods: it’s a new implementation, not the quick hack Novell put together, and it will be in the general edition of OOo, not go-oo.

@Roy: don’t bring Mono into this; it’s irrelevant. The question is OOXML. Are you saying that by including OOXML, OOo is somehow less free? Because that’s what it sounds like.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:46:33 +0000

OOo3 has import filters only. Novell’s ‘enterprise’ thingie has Mono-based ‘translators’, which have the whole covenant strings attached to them.

It’s important to fight for ODF at the moment, at all costs.

By: Woods

Woods — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:36:50 +0000

Is OpenOffice’s implementation of OOXML going to be in the general version or in the “Novell edition” of OO?

If the latter, isn’t it automatically a non-issue because of the patent covenant?

(insert a *big* IANAL-disclaimer here…)

By: AlexH

AlexH — Sun, 25 May 2008 14:34:59 +0000

So… you’re saying OpenOffice.org 3 users won’t have free software and/or full peace of mind?

Gimme a break, Roy, you’re like a broken record.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 25 May 2008 13:53:48 +0000

You sort of put words in my mouth too. I did not say that OOXML cannot be implemented; I said it would be unwise to do so (RAND+OSP exclude/discriminate against the GPL), especially if your end users require free software and full peace of mind. Even *without* OOXML, let me remind you of May 2007 when Microsoft specifically pulled the “patent terrorism” card (Sun’s words) against OpenOffice.org users. It remains to be seen if they have anything. Threats are tactless. Words are cheap.

By: master_chief

master_chief — Sun, 25 May 2008 13:21:28 +0000

Considering OOXML is like a tiny fraction of OpenOffice which can easily be removed, and there seem to be no other way…

By: AlexH

AlexH — Sun, 25 May 2008 11:00:10 +0000

Firstly Roy, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say RAND was a question of practicability, and please don’t say that I did.

Second, you keep sidestepping the issue. It’s very simple: you can’t simultaneously claim that OOXML cannot be implemented in GPL’d software without casting FUD on OpenOffice.org 3′s status as free software. It’s logically impossible. So, which claim do you want to keep?

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 25 May 2008 10:23:29 +0000

RAND is /inherently/ incompatible with the conditions of Free software (redistribution gotcha), so it’s not a question of practicability as you put it.

By: AlexH

AlexH — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:52:47 +0000

I don’t need an alternative; I don’t buy the “OOXML cannot be implemented by GPL’d software” FUD. I’m just pointing out the logical inconsistency.

FWIW, btw, the EU are generally pretty OK with RAND terms – e.g., the patents mentioned in the Samba docs are under RAND terms. Samba also had to pay up front for their docs. I’m not saying that’s good, I’m just saying that their history indicates RAND isn’t a problem.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:45:28 +0000

What’s the alternative, Alex? Remember that these are filters.

By: AlexH

AlexH — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:31:58 +0000

@Roy: so you think that OpenOffice.org is relying on the EU stepping in to prevent any legal issues with OOXML?

Considering how fast the EU moves, that wouldn’t be an entirely clever move, but thankfully I’m pretty sure that their plan isn’t to rely on the EU at all.

By: master_chief

master_chief — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:28:04 +0000

MS and likes are in a software patenting business

By: master_chief

master_chief — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:26:36 +0000

OpenOffice is implementing it without taking any permission from MS. I guess except for Novell and their buddies everyone is under a bit of threat from MS regarding this.

By: Roy Schestowitz

Roy Schestowitz — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:22:16 +0000

If OOXML is “protected” from the GNU GPL, how come OpenOffice.org is implementing it?

I believe the EC would have something to say about this. While ISO won’t challenge RAND, those above ISO might.

By: master_chief

master_chief — Sun, 25 May 2008 09:21:07 +0000

OpenOffice could support OOXML as a seperate plugin I suppose.