EditorsAbout the SiteComes vs. MicrosoftUsing This Web SiteSite ArchivesCredibility IndexOOXMLOpenDocumentPatentsNovellNews DigestSite NewsRSS

01.09.09

Interview with Non-Sun OpenOffice.org Contributor, Charles-H. Schulz

Posted in Debian, Fork, Interview, Microsoft, Novell, Office Suites, Open XML, OpenDocument, OpenOffice, Patents, Standard at 3:07 pm by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Novell’s promotion of Go-OO has earned it a lot of attention recently because Novell ridicules OpenOffice.org and harms the brand [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6]. There is a lot more to OpenOffice.org than just the software; there are translations, ISVs, support firms and so on.

Quite a few people were unhappy with what Novell had done. And yes, Michael Meeks cannot magically disassociate himself from Novell and use the “I’m just a hacker” defence (ironically enough, Meeks has obtained software patents, which he filed with Novell). As critics of the cannibalistic approach taken by Novell, we decided to approach other people who are affected, merely reaching out for their opinion.

We had the opportunity to do an interview with one of the better-known OpenOffice.org people and — just to clarify in advance — it ought to be stated that:

  1. He does not work for Sun
  2. He’s an independent OpenOffice.org contributor (lead of the native-language confederation of OpenOffice.org: http://projects.openoffice.org/native-lang.html )
  3. His view are solely his

BN: As a bit of introduction, please tell us about yourself and your latest activities.

Charles-H. Schulz: My name is Charles-H. Schulz, I’m French and I live in Paris. I’ve been contributing to OpenOffice.org for over eight years now, and I started doing so around the launch of the 1.0 release. I am presently lead of the Native-Language Confederation of OpenOffice.org, which is the category of worldwide communities localizing and providing support, documentation, QA and marketing in languages other than English. I recently got involved in the ODF-at-WWW project that is a fantastic place in OpenOffice.org where you can really work on bringing OpenOffice.org to the next level and that includes, among other things, the Web.

I’m a founding parter of Ars Aperta (www.arsaperta.com) — a small, independent consultancy in the fields of corporate strategy and management related to FOSS and Open Standards.

I’m also working with FFII, and the Digital Standards Organisation (aka Digistan), of which I’m a founding member.

BN: How receptive has Sun been to contributions from the outside, based on your experience?

CS: I think this deserves both a simple and a complex answer. The simple answer is that Sun has built a fully open source — even Free Software — project though OpenOffice.org. By this I mean that contributions, code contributions among others are tested and integrated in the software we release. The source code is out there, the binaries as well, development process is done by collaboration through mailing lists and wiki, CVS (and now SVN).

“…independent contributors outnumber Sun engineers by 10 to 1 inside the QA project.”Going more into details, Sun has the technical leadership in the OpenOffice.org project. I personally don’t have a problem with that. What this means is that sometimes, patches are refused on purely technical merit. Whether those decisions are technically debatable might perhaps be the case sometimes. But generally speaking there is no problem. It is — I believe — quite easy to find both corporate and independent contributors who submitted patches, code or anything you can find in the way of contributions who were able to do so without any difficulty, provided they were following the guidelines and that their contributions were technically acceptable. That being said, OpenOffice.org has a very, very complex code base. This in turn causes a problem that is often overlooked: you need to study the code and the architecture, and thus devote a significant amount of your time doing so before efficiently contributing to OpenOffice.org. That’s why we always find it hard to recruit engineering resources: you don’t contribute code with your left foot when you’re patching OpenOffice.org. But I agree that everything should be done in order to lower the barriers of participation to our project.

BN: What role does QA play in the lifecycle of OOo development?

CS: Since we’re developing an end-user software suite we cannot tolerate leaving our software at a low level of quality. Of course, there are always bugs and we have ramped up our QA teams and resources significantly over time. QA gets to register the builds, test them at various levels according to the development, localization and QA processes. It also approves and decides whether the builds should be released or not. So to answer your question directly: QA and the QA project play a central role in our development and release process. By the way, it should perhaps be noted that independent contributors outnumber Sun engineers by 10 to 1 inside the QA project.

BN: Would you classify Go-OO as a branch or a fork?

CS: Both. I would have rather liked to answer: a branch, mostly, but some recent developments about Go-OO have obviously changed this situation. What should perhaps be reminded is that Go-OO is a Web site that hosts a concurrent build system to the one existing on the OpenOffice.org web site, called “ooo-build”. This build system has been around for ages. In fact, it’s been used by many Linux distributions that found it more convenient for various reasons (basically, the builds were optimized for Linux).

“That furiously looks like someone is ready to fork by diverting and duplicating development resources from the original project.”At the same time, this build system was also used (even by Sun) to test new patches. The common conception here is that while the OpenOffice.org -Sun- build system (simply called “vanilla” for convenience purposes) is sometimes more conservative in that it does not integrate all the patches that fast. The reason for that is simple: QA. The ooo-build does not really test the patches it integrates, while the vanilla build system does. In short, the ooo-build is faster and easier to use, but produces builds that crash more often and have more bugs. You can experience that if you use any *Suse distribution or Ubuntu. Most of the other distributions have gradually stopped using it, precisely because of a certain lack of reliability that was experienced. The OpenOffice.org project now provides OpenOffice.org packages in .rpm, .deb and .tgz formats. We are also looking to improve our packaging on Linux: While straightforward anywhere else, the OpenOffice.org installation is still complex for an inexperienced end-user on Linux.

But the ooo-build has its own relevance and its own use. In this sense, it was a branch for a long time, and there was a widely-held view among the OpenOffice.org community that its existence was actually helpful.

The way you transition from a Web site with a separate build system to a fork is in fact quite easy. And what is only needed is the will for those Web site owners to decide to create a fork. At this stage, we can still keep a status quo, make sure we work out on any technical issues we can to have the two kinds of builds produced compatibly (that means mostly directly upgradeable from one another) and there, there will not be a fork, mainly a branch. Unfortunately go-oo has turned from an “annex” web site where several specific resources were available to a development platform parallel to what exists on OpenOffice.org: mailing lists, patches, builds, etc. That furiously looks like someone is ready to fork by diverting and duplicating development resources from the original project.

BN: Would you feel more comfortable if it was a project like Debian that deviated and managed a derivative of OOo?

CS: Anyone has the right to fork. It’s Free and Open Source Software anyway. But I don’t think a fork is a solution as it does all but adding up resources. Rather, it divides them, duplicates efforts and confuses users. There is worse stuff: in our case, I don’t think that the forker would have the necessary resources to maintain the development efforts and have a coherent roadmap. At this stage, I would even be curious to know how bug squashing and issue management would be properly handled. As an example, I wonder how some of the large deployments of this particular flavour of OpenOffice.org would react if they were told that their own feedback was going to a fork of OpenOffice.org.

There is another couple of things that are of importance to me. Go-OO, if we are to believe its credentials, belongs to Novell. Now it is worth pointing out that at no point in the history of OpenOffice.org we ever got anything in the way of an official statement about Novell. That means that this is a silent fork. There is, if that is the intent of this company, no word, no declaration, nothing that basically says: “we feel we’re doing a better job than you do” or “ we feel we’re being unfairly treated”. That is something I find odd. The second element of importance is that we should get some sorts of governance structure and charter by Novell. You don’t send your code in the wild and not asking yourself some questions. I know that OpenOffice.org was fiercely criticized by some people employed by Novell for having a copyright assignment, something Novell often demands in its own sponsored projects. But this legal vagueness of sorts is a bit odd: whom does your builds belong to? What happens in case of a legal problem? Is there a code steward? You don’t need to be a consultant to ask those questions. And so far we have no answer.

BN: What role has the Novell-implemented OOXML translator played in allowing Microsoft’s plot against ODF to carry on?

CS: Common work on OOXML and a translator was part of the Novell and MS agreement, as far as we know. Having played a role in the OOXML standardization “adventure”, Novell was being constantly taken as an example of “another open source implementation” of OOXML. Sometimes, as it was the case in Mexico we had Novell employees, such as Miguel de Icaza, sitting on the Mexican standards organization and strongly advocating for OOXML to be standardized. To me it looks like Novell has been vassalized and under the influence of Microsoft to the point where they had to defend the indefensible. Now, I was not born yesterday, and I know that in theory as well as in practice, corporations’ primary role is to generate revenue. Hence you will find several corporations out there who will help FOSS with the right hand and promote the exact opposite with the left. Novell strikes me as different: it blurs the lines, puts a little bit of this in a little bit of that, calls a cat a dog and delivers software that is open source with conditions.

BN: What role, if any, do you believe Novell/Microsoft patents play here? What about Sun?

CS: It’s very hard to tell. My personal view is that Microsoft does not have many patents and that most them are low quality assets. In short, when Microsoft makes claims about owning some significant amount of IP inside Linux for instance, it spreads FUD, and does just this. Anything further directly coming from Redmond would be very unlikely, because they have nothing. In short, it’s “all hat no cattle” as they say in Texas. But they keep on applying pressure and make extravagant claims about their supposed ownership of every bit of open source code out there. I am in favour of full disclosure. Open Source code is, well, open source. It’s out there. Anyone can grab it, freely modify and redistribute it. Proprietary code? I’m sure we would find some code blurbs that could turn out to be funnier than Easter eggs.

I have read, reread, and read again the Novell/Microsoft agreement. I think it’s not clear whether this is an outright violation of the GPL in spirit or a legal flaw that has been exploited in it. But it surely changed the strategy of Novell in a way that poses a certain number of threats to FOSS users. It is also easy to notice that Novell’s behaviour changed inside the OpenOffice.org community right after that agreement.

BN: Going forward, how do you suggest that the projects target their main competitor, Microsoft Office, rather than one another?

CS: First, remember that Novell acquired both Suse and Ximian. The Ximian team is still working inside Novell, and it looks like the Ximian business model got ultimately translated inside Novell’s own strategy. Basically, when it comes to its open source offerings, Novell implements the Ximian strategy of taking the code, branching it, repackaging it and generating revenue from it. The way Ximian was doing it was a bit problematic, as it was not really beneficial to the communities it was deriving the code from and the value proposition to their customers wasn’t clear either. I guess it’s not my business, but such a mindset has partly led us to where we are today.

“We want to take OpenOffice.org to the next level, because we don’t use office suites the same way were using them five years ago.”At this stage, I don’t see any plans -nor any relevance- for the OpenOffice.org project to target go-oo. It just doesn’t make any sense: what would be talking about? Different patches? I don’t think the market even cares about that, I don’t think it’s even an audible message. I know that some people send messages out there, “my build is better than yours, I don’t like your community”, but these same people should think: does it really benefit customers?

In regards to Microsoft Office, which is the true competitor to OpenOffice.org, our value proposition is clear: we are a full-featured office suite that brings its users the benefits of true open standards, quality, stability and Free Software. We want to take OpenOffice.org to the next level, because we don’t use office suites the same way were using them five years ago. So we will increasingly interact with the Internet and on an online level, becoming the hub for creative writing, design and office work for everyone. That’s what we stand for, and we will remain true to our mission and to our soul.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • co.mments
  • DZone
  • email
  • Google Bookmarks
  • LinkedIn
  • NewsVine
  • Print
  • Technorati
  • TwitThis
  • Facebook

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

38 Comments

  1. AlexH said,

    January 9, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Gravatar

    Interview with a Non-Novell Go-OOo contributor next?

  2. Baby In The Bath Water said,

    January 9, 2009 at 4:52 pm

    Gravatar

    Wow, congrats on finding an anti-Novell biased OOo contributor to interview as if he were “unbiased”.

    That makes all the difference in the world.

    Note: this comment was posted from Novell’s headquarters.

  3. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:00 pm

    Gravatar

    So every critic of Novell’s actions is now biased? I guess there are more “biased” people and groups out there, such as:

    1. FSF/GNU/SFLC
    2. GNU/Linux developers
    3. Samba developers
    4. Wine developers
    5. Many businesses, including (former) Novell/SUSE customers
    6. Red Hat, Canonical, Mandriva and other Linux vendors
    7. Lots of users
    8. Some Novell employees who left as a result of the deal
  4. Baby In The Bath Water said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:11 pm

    Gravatar

    Point is that if you look for a specific person who will say anti-Novell things and then interview them and publish the results as if the person represents what the majority think, then that’s disingenuous.

    And that’s exactly what you did.

    Note: this comment was posted from Novell’s headquarters.

  5. Jose_X said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:28 pm

    Gravatar

    [AlexH] >> Interview with a Non-Novell Go-OOo contributor next?

    Would Roy be the best person to draw up the questions? Why doesn’t a go-ooo supporter give it a shot?

    Perhaps it would be a good idea if BN would carry out that interview, but this may open up to some criticism if the questions are viewed as unfair.

    BTW, haven’t various go-ooo devs (or at least one) done interviews already which have been featured here? What is wrong with those?

    ***

    On the meaning of “fork”:

    [blog piece] >> Unfortunately go-oo has turned from an “annex” web site where several specific resources were available to a development platform parallel to what exists on OpenOffice.org: mailing lists, patches, builds, etc. That furiously looks like someone is ready to fork by diverting and duplicating development resources from the original project.

    basic wikipedia def:
    >> In software engineering, a project fork happens when developers take a copy of source code from one software package and start independent development on it, creating a distinct piece of software.

    Wikipedia further defines a “branch” as a common term for *a type of* fork that is related to the main code base in various ways (eg, branches are forks that can be used for versions of main).

    CHS appears to *differentiate* between branches and forks: you either have one or the other but not both. The rough criteria he uses to determine whether something that looks like a branch might instead be a fork is based on the degree of duplication of developer resources for this branch/fork wrt the original code base.

    In sum, wikipedia defines “branch” as a flavor of “fork”, and defines a “fork” as an independent forking from a given code base. Meanwhile, CHS and many others appear to define “fork” as a forking from a given code base, and where developer resources have been duplicated, and where the forked code base has diverged enough from the main code that the original community stops worrying about coding in a way that is consistent with the new code base. CHS defines a branch as a forking that otherwise remains “near” the main code base.

    I prefer the wikipedia definition because it seems clearer to refer to a forking as a “fork” and then use more description to describe the fork further if desired. I do recognize the usage “that is a fork” to mean what CHS means, but I find it a vague expression/notion and do prefer to still have a name for the clean concept of any forking (call any “forking”, naturally enough, a “fork”).

  6. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:33 pm

    Gravatar

    I asked another person from OOo the same question and it’s a “fork”.

  7. RLillySr said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:34 pm

    Gravatar

    “AlexH said, Interview with a Non-Novell Go-OOo contributor next?”

    dont know who you are, other than reading these threads, you can get annoying and with statements like that, pathetic

  8. Miguel de Icaza said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:40 pm

    Gravatar

    Hello,

    Charles is misrepresenting my participation in the Mexican standards group. I was an invited expert on the subject on the deliberations for OOXML as part of Linux AC (the civil association that promotes Linux in Mexico) just like a bunch of other people were.

    I do not sit in the standards group, I do not have a vote, and did not have a vote. I participated in one phone call where I explained my position to the people in the committee.

    Miguel.

  9. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:45 pm

    Gravatar

    So why did you promote/defend it?

    Why do you defend Microsoft against The European Commission?

    What do you think of Microsoft’s anti-Linux tactics, as last published this afternoon?

  10. Jose_X said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:51 pm

    Gravatar

    >> I asked another person from OOo the same question and it’s a “fork”.

    Were you replying to me? I presume then that you are using your definition of “fork”.

    I’m not interested in changing how you use that word, but understand that what you call “a fork, no more no less” ..I call.. “a fork that is being maintained independently from the original code base, as opposed to a fork that isn’t, for example, like a branch.”

    So wrt go-ooo, I would say that it seems maybe go-ooo is being taken in a direction guided by a community different than the oo.o community. Call it a rose or a fork or a foo, I don’t care.

    I don’t follow go-ooo except through what I hear on BN/LT/etc, so I don’t really know. What I know is that I don’t want dotnet hooks near me if possible because I don’t want to facilitate or encourage the growth of dotnet. If I cared that much about similar technology, I’d petition to have Java (or something else) changed to be more like X or like Y [and there likely are ways to improve Java, perhaps more in line with dotnet.. and vice-versa perhaps as well].

  11. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 5:54 pm

    Gravatar

    Were you replying to me? I presume then that you are using your definition of “fork”.

    I was referring to no definitions. I said what I was told (based on another person’s definition).

  12. saulgoode said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:10 pm

    Gravatar

    Nice interview. It covered some important issues that are of concern to any large free software project.

    I would have liked to seen the copyright assignment issue more thoroughly addressed — OO.o is likely foregoing some significant contributions with their stance — even if just to the point of future plans for resolving the problem. Not that Mr Schultz is necessarily the one to address it, but he does seem somewhat aware of the administrative structure of the project.

    I particularly appreciated Mr Schultz’s distinction when commenting about “corporations out there who will help FOSS with the right hand and promote the exact opposite with the left”. Free Software is a complex web of alternative business approaches and varying degrees of participation. Novell makes some significant contributions to Free Software; however, their efforts to leverage patent indemnities and to undermine the GPL are nonetheless deserving of the criticism they have received.

    @Jose_X,
    I disagree with regard to branching versus forking. Mr Schultz’s interpretation is much more consistent with the employment of those terms whereby a particular project may offer multiple branches within the same basic infrastructure (e.g., CVS repository, bug report mechanism, language translation, etc).

  13. Jose_X said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:12 pm

    Gravatar

    >> I was referring to no definitions. I said what I was told (based on another person’s definition).

    Then, if nothing more, my last comment served as extra clarification to the earlier longer reply.

    Some call go-ooo a fork, and some call it a foo I could imagine.

  14. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:14 pm

    Gravatar

    Either way, it’s more hostile than complementary.

  15. saulgoode said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:15 pm

    Gravatar

    My apologies for misspelling Mr Schulz’s name throughout my previous post.

  16. AlexH said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:24 pm

    Gravatar

    @Jose: I’m not sure it would matter who was writing the question, although I did notice that specific answers were embedded in this set.

  17. Jose_X said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:26 pm

    Gravatar

    [saulgoode] >> Mr Schultz’s interpretation is much more consistent with the employment of those terms whereby a particular project may offer multiple branches within the same basic infrastructure (e.g., CVS repository, bug report mechanism, language translation, etc).

    His branch and fork definitions may be more consistent with and/or shared as definitions by a majority of the people, at least under certain context. I am not disputing that.

    I am adding that Wikipedia has a set of definitions that is different but which is itself consistent and which I prefer to use many times because I think it makes sense to have a term for referring to an arbitrary (eg, private) copy/change done to any code base.

    If I copy your project and start playing with it on my PC, would you consider it a fork.. a branch.. ?

    I’d consider it a “fork” quite simply ..no matter what my future intentions were; no matter what opinion you had formed about my “derived” project; no matter how large of a diff I had developed to date; no matter how I was managing the code “repository”; no matter how many people were helping me and how we were communicating with each other as developers on this new code base; etc.

    In any case, we can use many different words. The important point I’m trying to bring up is that some people use “fork” for what I am stating (and which coincides with the Wikipedia definition) and that is the simple notion that someone has copied code and has begun to make changes.

  18. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Gravatar

    Labels like “fork” (or “foo”, to borrow Jose’s humour) don’t matter much. We know where Go-OOXML stands wrt OOo and it’s not helpful. It’s not a positive thing for the Free desktop; it’s good for Novell and for SUSE.

  19. Jose_X said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:52 pm

    Gravatar

    Alex, if people here really want to pursue the opinions key individuals have on this topic, maybe it would be a good idea to keep interviewing people. We can start with a set of standard questions, and then come up with individual follow-up questions.

  20. Jose_X said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:55 pm

    Gravatar

    ..and see who is interested in answering them.

    Maybe gather/archive the answers from anyone anywhere interested in replying.

  21. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    Gravatar

    We can accumulate some here in this thread and then serve them separately for answering.

  22. Victor Soliz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 7:53 pm

    Gravatar

    Point is that if you look for a specific person who will say anti-Novell things and then interview them and publish the results as if the person represents what the majority think, then that’s disingenuous.

    And that’s exactly what you did.

    You know, You Novell guys sometimes do the sins you blame Roy of. Noticed how you are blaming Roy of claiming that he represents the majority? I don’t see such claim, in fact, your comment was the first appearance of the word majority. Time to panic?

  23. Victor Soliz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 7:55 pm

    Gravatar

    Interview with a Non-Novell Go-OOo contributor next?

    What would the point be? The Novell FUD was that Sun wouldn’t allow other contributors in OOo, and hence go-ooo was created. I don’t think Sun or Roy ever claimed something similar about goooo.

  24. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 9, 2009 at 8:01 pm

    Gravatar

    I doubt they’d choose to talk to this audience. Hustler does not publish an interview with the pope (Novell talking to BN) and likewise, the pope does not talk to the girls from Hustler (that would be us talking to Novell PR bunnies).

  25. Needs Sunlight said,

    January 10, 2009 at 12:57 pm

    Gravatar

    Nice interview. It cleared up a lot about the Novell fork of OpenOffice.org.

    I have a lot of respect for Charles’ work and independence. He was a good choice for a neutral, outside view. I’m disappointed in the whining and attacks subsequently coming from DeIcaza and the other microsofters.

  26. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 10, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Gravatar

    If it evokes this, it’s likely to have touched a nerve.

  27. AlexH said,

    January 10, 2009 at 3:22 pm

    Gravatar

    Not surprising that a one-sided line of questioning would touch a nerve, would it?

  28. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 10, 2009 at 3:23 pm

    Gravatar

    Novell had its side heard.

  29. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 10, 2009 at 3:25 pm

    Gravatar

    “Interesting and reasonably balanced article on the endless and fruitless debate Novell is generating. I’m not aware that the author sought any input from Sun; I’d be pleased to explore some of the things he’s asked.”

    http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/thursday_s_links_january_8th

  30. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 10, 2009 at 4:04 pm

    Gravatar

    Bruce Byfield didn’t seem to talk to Novell either, for that matter. You might note the comments after the story.

  31. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 10, 2009 at 4:07 pm

    Gravatar

    He has always been defensive about Novell.

  32. Dan O'Brian said,

    January 10, 2009 at 4:16 pm

    Gravatar

    Doesn’t seem that way to anyone who reads his article from a neutral position.

    He criticizes both Novell and Sun in his article, concluding that both have good and bad points.

  33. Andre said,

    January 13, 2009 at 6:41 am

    Gravatar

    Charles is very diplomatic and raises valid points. M. Meek’s criticism remains to be a valid issue for all enthusiasts of the platform: How to better scale development and open up the development process? So we should carefully keep these two issues distinct and consider the political agenda of Novell.

    The third question is: How to make OpenOffice.org independent from dominant vendors?

    Maybe a bailout plan is worth to get considered. A proposal would be to ask for a one billion EUR European FLOSS Fund which aims to lower dependencies of European enterprises and citizens on Microsoft Office and strategically funds alternatives as Openoffice.org which promote competition. This would be a minor lobbying effort and feasible in the current environment. If there is political agreement in Europe to become software-independent the means would be found, e.g. a contract with the French military etc.

    I mean, we accepted oil and gas to be strategic resources and supprt our military to deal with these dependencies. Why overlook the software related dependencies of our economy which enable a vendor to milk our economy, and undermine and endanger European democratic decision making procedures?

    You just need a sponsor for an anti-lockin and Eurofloss campaign.

  34. Alberto Barrionuevo said,

    January 13, 2009 at 11:11 am

    Gravatar

    Miguel,

    in the Mexican standardization committee you represented the interests of Novell and Microsoft: in other words, the approval of the DIS 29500 (OOXML) as in the precarious status that it was at the time. It was, and still is, totally biased and discriminatory to the interests of the FLOSS community and Microsoft/Novell competitors, so not fulfilling by far indeed the neutrality that you must expect from an international standard.

    Apart from that, you can dress your participation in the committee as you like. The fact that you had voting rights or not has little value, since everybody could vote if s/he would wanted (actually, it was the way used to hijack the final result with several hundred votes coming up and down from everywhere with many ballot recounts and recounts always getting out different “final” results… until extremely late in the night).

    So at the end, only your words were the fact to take in account to judge your participation. And, so sorry, but they spoke enough about who was your master voice at that time.

    Un saludo,
    //Alberto Barrionuevo
    FFII Vice President at the time
    NoOOXML.org campaign leader for LatAm

  35. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 13, 2009 at 11:39 am

    Gravatar

    Get a load of this, will you? Participants at the BRM were told that only technical issues can be addressed. Bill Gates, however, reportedly contacted the president of Mexico to try to influence Mexico to accept OOXML. Unless, of course, they were talking about representing dates in Excel or other technical issues. Hardy har. Like, totally. I’m sure.

    http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080327104739103

  36. Scott said,

    January 13, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    Gravatar

    How much credibility accrues to Miguel’s ridiculous protestations from being the founder of the GNOME project? It must be enormous.

  37. Andre said,

    January 14, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    Gravatar

    What concerns me, Alberto, is not that persons have business affiliations but the hypocrisy of the standard process. Prior to the Open XML debate I thought standard committees can be compared with courts or unpolitical expert fora. You raise issues and if they are valid they have to get considered. When you actually have a conflict of interest and happen to be in the Committee you try to be even more neutral in your decision making. The engineering attitude, let’s make it work and fix the bugs.

    It is well documented that Novell is actually contractually obliged to support Open XML. The company became a drone. Roy is very emotional and attached about this but it also makes way for Microsoft technology on other platforms. Nothing wrong to buy companies or make business deals as such. My personal opinion with a grain of salt.

    So it is two levels of questionable standard committee behaviour:
    1. Objections are technically valid and you vote they are not and cover them (unprofessional attitude)
    2. You serve an agenda but fake a community guy and accuse others

    My assumption is that there are also objective and universal criteria that determine standard quality. You can even argue that Open XML is good enough as a standard because there are worse standards, compare the Open XML specification with other undocumented parts of IT infrastructure, bug level of productive software or websites and you might get another perspective. We both had the controversy before we started with the disapproval campaign.

    It is also acceptable for others to take commercial avantage for unprofessional actions. It is a matter of compensation for you as you risk your reputation. When your company is contracted to do what you do. Roy will disagree and has every right to think Novell does ‘evil’. His opinion.

    It is the same with an army. You may personally politically disagree with the invasion of Iraq but as a commander of troops you have to carry out your mission and likewise order your troops to carry it out. Roy would then so to speak argue for conscientious objection to the mission. No one should expect that from a soldier who made the decision for this job. Of course your rank makes a difference in terms of responsibility. And as a soldier don’t take it personal when you get shot. And mercanaries soldiers who talk about their personal convictions deserve medical treatment.

    *But* people should not make their defense against standard war critics or opponents let them sacrifice personal dignity and respect:

    “Charles is misrepresenting my participation in the Mexican standards group. I was an invited expert on the subject on the deliberations for OOXML as part of Linux AC (the civil association that promotes Linux in Mexico) just like a bunch of other people were.”

    We know that the situation was different in Mexico and there is no benefit to play games. Probably Charles misrepresented the Ximian business model, it is a bit polemic and sticks, but there should not be any desire to see others proof the “just an invited Linux expert” story wrong.

    I don’t really see an advantage to let Novell become a next Caldera. Fair enough it does not seem to be the objective behind the Novell investment.

    – André

    When I did lobbying in Parliament I often used to get “invited” by MPs. That is the process to enter the building if you don’t have a permanent badge (which makes MPs believe you are a professional lobby gun, has also sometimes disadvantages).

  38. Roy Schestowitz said,

    January 14, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    Gravatar

    You may personally politically disagree with the invasion of Iraq but as a commander of troops you have to carry out your mission and likewise order your troops to carry it out.

    The “above my pay grade” remark springs to mind.

What Else is New


  1. Team UPC and CIPA Are Lobbying, Publishing Puff Pieces, and Rewriting the Law for Unitary Patent (UPC) Behind Closed Doors

    A collection of the latest news and views on the UPC, which is being lied about by those who stand to benefit from it and is probably going nowhere because Brexit means that the UK stays out, in which case it must be reset and pertinent ratifications done all over again



  2. China's Suffering From Patent Maximalism Has Europe Forewarned

    The parasitic elements inside China -- those that just want lots of litigation (even if from patent trolls) -- are winning over, much to the detriment of the Chinese economy, and Team UPC threatens to do the same in Europe with help from Battistelli



  3. Links 27/4/2017: Mesa 17.0.5 RC1, Git 2.13.0 RC1, and Linkerd 1.0

    Links for the day



  4. The Latest Expensive PR Blitz of the EPO, Led by Jana Mittermaier and Rainer Osterwalder Under the 'European Inventor Award' Banner

    The PR agencies of the Corsican in Chief, who appears to be buying political support rather than earning any, are very busy this week, as yet another reputation laundering campaign kicks off



  5. Links 26/4/2017: SMPlayer 17.4.2, Libreboot Wants to Rejoin GNU

    Links for the day



  6. PatentShield is Not the Solution and It Won't Protect Google/Android From Patent Trolls Like Microsoft's

    A new initiative called "PatentShield" is launched, but it's yet another one of those many initiatives (Peer-to-Patent and the likes of it, LOT Network, OIN, PAX etc.) that serve to distract from the real and much simpler solutions



  7. Patent Quality Crisis and Unprecedented Trouble at the European Patent Office (EPO) Negatively Affect Legitimate Companies in the US As Well

    The granting en masse of questionable patents by the EPO (patent maximalism) is becoming a liability and growing risk to companies which operate not only in Europe but also elsewhere



  8. Blog 'Takeovers' by Bristows and Then Censorship: Now This Firm Lies About the Unitary Patent (UPC) and Then Deletes Comments That Point Out the Errors

    Not only are Bristows employees grabbing the mic in various high-profile IP blogs for the purpose of UPC promotion (by distortion of facts); they also actively suppress critics of the UPC



  9. Links 25/4/2017: Kali Linux 2017.1 Released, NSA Back Doors in Windows Cause Chaos

    Links for the day



  10. Astoundingly, IP Kat Has Become a Leading Source of UPC and Battistelli Propaganda

    The pro-UPC outlets, which enjoy EPO budget (i.e. stakeholders' money), are becoming mere amplifiers of Benoît Battistelli and his right-hand UPC woman Margot Fröhlinger, irrespective of actual facts



  11. EPO Fiasco to be Discussed in German Local Authority (Bavarian Parliament) Some Time Today as the Institution Continues Its Avoidable Collapse

    Conflict between management and staff -- a result of truly destructive strategies and violations of the law by Benoît Battistelli -- continues to escalate and threatens to altogether dismantle the European Patent Office (EPO)



  12. In the US and Elsewhere, Qualcomm's Software Patents Are a Significant Tax Everyone Must Pay

    The state of the mobile market when companies such as Qualcomm, which don't really produce anything, take a large piece of the revenue pie



  13. In South Asia, Old Myths to Promote Patent Maximalism, Courtesy of the Patent Microcosm

    The latest example of software patents advocacy and patent 'parades' in India, as well as something from IPOS in Singapore



  14. Links 24/4/2017: Linux 4.11 RC8, MPV 0.25

    Links for the day



  15. Why Authorities in the Netherlands Need to Strip the EPO of Immunity and Investigate Fire Safety Violations

    How intimidation and crackdown on the staff representatives at the EPO may have led to lack of awareness (and action) about lack of compliance with fire safety standards



  16. Insensitivity at the EPO’s Management – Part IX: Testament to the Fear of an Autocratic Regime

    A return to the crucial observation and a reminder of the fact that at the EPO it takes great courage to say the truth nowadays



  17. For the Fordham Echo Chamber (Patent Maximalism), Judges From the EPO Boards of Appeal Are Not Worth Entertaining

    In an event steered if not stuffed by patent radicals such as Bristows and Microsoft (abusive, serial litigators) there are no balanced panels or even reasonable discussions



  18. EPO Staff Representatives Fired Using “Disciplinary Committee That Was Improperly Composed” as Per ILO's Decision

    The Board of the Administrative Council at European Patent Organisation is being informed of the union-busting activities of Battistelli -- activities that are both illegal (as per national and international standards) and are detrimental to the Organisation



  19. Links 23/4/2017: End of arkOS, Collabora Office 5.3 Released

    Links for the day



  20. Intellectual Discovery and Microsoft Feed Patent Trolls Like Intellectual Ventures Which Then Strategically Attack Rivals

    Like a swarm of blood-sucking bats, patent trolls prey on affluent companies that derive their wealth from GNU/Linux and freedom-respecting software (Free/libre software)



  21. The European Patent Office Has Just Killed a Cat (or Skinned a 'Kat')

    The EPO’s attack on the media, including us, resulted in a stream of misinformation and puff pieces about the EPO and UPC, putting at risk not just European democracy but also corrupting the European press



  22. Yann Ménière Resorts to Buzzwords to Recklessly Promote Floods of Patents, Dooming the EPO Amid Decline in Patent Applications

    Battistelli's French Chief Economist is not much of an economist but a patent maximalist toeing the party line of Monsieur Battistelli (lots of easy grants and litigation galore, for UPC hopefuls)



  23. Even Patent Bullies Like Microsoft and Facebook Find the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Useful

    Not just companies accused of patent infringement need the PTAB but also frequent accusers with deep pockets need the PTAB, based on some new figures and new developments



  24. Links 21/4/2017: Qt Creator 4.2.2, ROSA Desktop Fresh R9

    Links for the day



  25. At the EPO, Seeding of Puff Piece in the Press/Academia Sometimes Transparent Enough to View

    The EPO‘s PR team likes to 'spam' journalists and others (for PR) and sometimes does this publicly, as the tweets below show — a desperate recruitment and reputation laundering drive



  26. Affordable and Sophisticated Mobile Devices Are Kept Away by Patent Trolls and Aggressors That Tax Everything

    The war against commoditisation of mobile computing has turned a potentially thriving market with fast innovation rates into a war zone full of patent trolls (sometimes suing at the behest of large companies that hand them patents for this purpose)



  27. In Spite of Lobbying and Endless Attempts by the Patent Microcosm, US Supreme Court Won't Consider Any Software Patent Cases Anymore (in the Foreseeable Future)

    Lobbyists of software patents, i.e. proponents of endless litigation and patent trolls, are attempting to convince the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to have another look at abstract patents and reconsider its position on cases like Alice Corp. v CLS Bank International



  28. Expect Team UPC to Remain in Deep Denial About the Unitary Patent/Unified Court (UPC) Having No Prospects

    The prevailing denial that the UPC is effectively dead, courtesy of sites and blogs whose writers stood to profit from the UPC



  29. EPO in 2017: Erroneously Grant a Lot of Patents in Bulk or Get Sacked

    Quality of patent examination is being abandoned at the EPO and those who disobey or refuse to play along are being fired (or asked to resign to avoid forced resignations which would stain their record)



  30. Links 21/4/2017: System76 Entering Phase Three, KDE Applications 17.04, Elive 2.9.0 Beta

    Links for the day


CoPilotCo

RSS 64x64RSS Feed: subscribe to the RSS feed for regular updates

Home iconSite Wiki: You can improve this site by helping the extension of the site's content

Home iconSite Home: Background about the site and some key features in the front page

Chat iconIRC Channel: Come and chat with us in real time

CoPilotCo

Recent Posts