| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
ISO approval 'unlikely for Microsoft Open XML' | |
|
||
| Time: 11:54 EST/16:54 GMT | News Source: CNET | Posted By: John Quigley | ||
|
The International Organization for Standardization is unlikely to adopt Microsoft Office Open XML format, now that it has approved the OpenDocument Format, according to analyst group Gartner. There is a 70 percent probability that the standards organization will not approve multiple XML document formats, according to a research note published by Gartner last week. It also predicted, with the same probability, that "by 2010, ODF (OpenDocument Format) document exchange will be required by 50 percent of government and 20 percent of commercial organizations." Microsoft submitted its Office Open XML file formats to the European standards body, ECMA International, last year, as a prelude to seeking ISO standardization. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:26:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2006 1:16:13 PM |
| Truly open standards are a good thing. Closed, proprietary formats are bad, unless you're a predatory monopolist trying to lock in your customers in which case they're very good (substitute "profitable" for "good" here). |
| #2 By 2459 (24.175.137.39) at 5/16/2006 2:10:39 PM |
| I think Gartner is as clueless on this issue as they were about Vista being delayed past January. Since when has ISO or other like organizations denied approval of a standard just because there's something similar? Besides this, ODF isn't a catchall format. There are problems Open XML solves that ODF can't currently represent. |
| #3 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/16/2006 2:16:17 PM |
| Sun has patents that impact ODF. That means ODF is not "truly open". |
| #4 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/16/2006 3:49:49 PM |
| #4: Bzzt, wrong. The Sun patent is defensive. Sun has declared that they won't enforce any terms -- that's what makes it truly open. Anyone can use it for anything. However, the patent they have prevents others, like monopolistic predators, from filing a patent on it themselves. That's the problem with a first-to-file system patent system. Meanwhile, the MS equivalent has strings attached to deliberately prevent F/OSS from using it, so it certainly isn't truly open no matter how many times MS uses the word 'open' in their spin. |
| #5 By 2459 (24.175.137.39) at 5/16/2006 4:59:37 PM |
| Bzzt, wrong, Sun only says they won't sue if you use thier patented works in the process of creating an ODF implementation -- the same as MS. Further, MS has a simple covenant not to sue that says you're free to create an OXML implementation as long as you don't sue them or other implementors over technology covered by OXML. |
| #6 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/16/2006 5:00:01 PM |
|
#4 " The Sun patent is defensive."
Translation: Sun has patents on ODF and will use them if necessary "Sun has declared that they won't enforce any terms " Translation: Sun has patents on ODF and will use them if necessary. "the MS equivalent has strings attached" Translation: Same "strings" as Sun. But OSS people hate Microsoft and don't trust them. |
| #7 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/16/2006 5:06:00 PM |
|
"Sun makes no assurance, covenant or commitment not to assert or enforce any or all of its patent rights against any individual, corporation or other entity that asserts, threatens or seeks at any time to enforce its own or another party's U.S. or foreign patents or patent rights against any OpenDocument Implementation."
Sun owns ODF. It isn't open. It reserves the right to sue anyone. ODF is not truly open. |
| #8 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2006 8:46:15 AM |
| #5-7: Keep spinning, guys. Anyone can use the ODF & PDF implementattion. MS' sub-licensing nonsense deliberately excludes the GPL and, by extension, open source. ODF & PDF are truly open, while MS is not. End of story. |
| #9 By 32132 (64.180.219.241) at 5/17/2006 9:02:55 AM |
|
#8 The GPL is a coercive license that Microsoft is smart to stay away from.
The OSS definition of "open" = Not Microsoft. Latch, you are hilarious. |
| #10 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2006 9:38:35 AM |
|
#9: I may be hilarious, but you're just obtuse and pathetic. What part of a voluntary license is coercive again? btw, I fixed your equation for you:
Microsoft = NOT Open |
| #11 By 2459 (24.175.137.39) at 5/17/2006 10:09:00 AM |
|
Latch, you're the one spinning. The sublicensing clause was part of the older license. Microsoft since replaced it with the covenant not to sue. You have a choice of continuing to use the old license, or going with the CNS if the old license isn't suitable.
Also, WRT the old license, claims about its sublicensing clause are hypocritical since the GPL contains similar language against sublicensing. |
| #12 By 2459 (24.175.137.39) at 5/17/2006 10:11:06 AM |
|
What part of a voluntary license is coercive again?
Then why are you arguing about MS' voluntary license (again, which was replaced w/ the CNS)? |
| #13 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2006 10:59:48 AM |
|
#11: "Microsoft since replaced it with the covenant not to sue. You have a choice of continuing to use the old license, or going with the CNS if the old license isn't suitable."
Could you post a link to that? Me and most of the IT world must have missed it. |
| #14 By 2459 (24.175.137.39) at 5/17/2006 11:26:31 AM |
|
You may have forgotten about it, but you didn't miss it.
Announcement: http://www.activewin.com/awin/comments.asp?HeadlineIndex=32565 Covenant (will also cover 2007 formats once they are finalized): http://www.microsoft.com/office/xml/covenant.mspx More Info: http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/search.aspx?q=covenant&p=1 |
| #15 By 37047 (216.191.227.68) at 5/17/2006 12:19:06 PM |
|
Based on what I have read of the Open XML covenant, it sounds to me like MS is saying that anyone can use it for any purpose, commercial or open source, but if you try to sue them for infringing on your patents, they will use theirs to counter-sue you into oblivion. Just like the Sun patents on ODL.
Having looked at a lot of licensing schemes, including GPL 1.0 - 3.0 beta, LGPL, Apache, BSD, etc., and several commercial licenses for different proprietary products (I can read legalese fluently, and never recommend a product or solution to my employer without an understanding of the license agreements that would be in effect), I personally believe that the GPL is the most restrictive of the open source licenses, especially if you are a commercial entity. Using GPL'd code forces you to license your own code under the GPL. If I were to develop an open source product, I can assure you that the GPL would not be the one I'd use. I'd likely use a version of the Apache or Mozilla license, which are modelled on the BSD license. These licenses (Apache, Mozilla, BSD) are truly open, enabling EVERYONE to use the code / technologies. Since I can take the Open XML standard, and make a proprietary product from it, or an open source product from it, depending on the OS license used, I would have to say that the MS license is actually more lenient than the GPL. And the GPL 3.0 license will likely be worse than the 2.x versions as far as restrictions go. Some of the extra restrictions will be good, and some won't, depending on who you ask. So basically, to sum up, the MS Open XML "license" / covenant is roughly on par with the Sun OpenDocument license / "covenant". GPL is more restrictive than either of the two licenses from MS and Sun. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 320 Last | Next |
The time now is
11:26:35 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
