Now the question is...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| land0 Sep 04, 2007 8:50 AM EDT |
will the comments on the no votes contain requirements and stipulations too steep to change them? From the same article 4th and 5th paragraph at http://www.iso.org/iso/pressrelease.htm?refid=Ref1070 "Comments that accompanied the votes will be discussed at a ballot resolution meeting (BRM) to be organized by the relevant subcommittee of ISO/IEC JTC 1 (SC 34, Document description and processing languages) in February 2008 in Geneva, Switzerland. The objective of the meeting will be to review and seek consensus on possible modifications to the document in light of the comments received along with the votes. If the proposed modifications are such that national bodies then wish to withdraw their negative votes, and the above acceptance criteria are then met, the standard may proceed to publication." If so this has truly been a significant statement if not a big blow to M$. This will be the next item to track. |
| Sander_Marechal Sep 04, 2007 2:49 PM EDT |
From Andy Updegrove's article:Quoting:Step seven: SC 34 reviews the suggestions, and forms its opinion on what should be done with each comment. One task would be to determine whether some issues are "irresolvable." If yes, then cancel the BRM, and the process ends From the comments seen so far, I would be surprised if not at least one of them is found to be "irresolvable." |
| dinotrac Sep 04, 2007 4:11 PM EDT |
>From the comments seen so far, I would be surprised if not at least one of them is found to be "irresolvable." I'm not sure I quite agree, but, from a practical standpoint, you are almost certainly right. To get the standard approved, Microsoft almost certainly would have to modify it sufficiently to be an actual open standard. That, to my understanding, would defeat their purpose. |
| moopst Sep 04, 2007 7:42 PM EDT |
>> That, to my understanding, would defeat their purpose. Dino, what do you deem their purpose to be? My money is on marketing a proprietary format with counterfit credentials and to weaken the standards process. |
| tracyanne Sep 04, 2007 8:01 PM EDT |
My Money is on Microsoft doing it's damndest to hang on to their monopoly |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 04, 2007 8:16 PM EDT |
> what do you deem their purpose to be?
Two fold. 1) Marketing. "Look, we're standards based! You can trust us, since we're implementing an international standard, not just an internal-Microsoft format." 2) And more important: End-run around the growing disgust with long-term un-viability of Microsoft proprietary file formats. I'm not the only person who has Word2 files, imagine what it's like for a government or large business with document retention policies. Just look at what Microsoft pulled in Massachusetts. Just for a moment, imagine the IRS comes to you and says, "Where are your tax records from 7 years ago?" "Right here. Umm... Gee, they're here in a .doc, but the formatting is all gone. I can't tell what numbers line up with what headings." "Oh. Then the IRS will decide _for_ you." I have no idea how much money or political capital Microsoft had to spend just to get Massachusetts to violate the "open standard file format" policy with the approval of their Office XML non-standard. I do know what they did to Peter Quinn, and that was a coordinated multi-prong attack through media and bought-and-paid-for politicians. Then there is the cost in trying to push their Office XML non-standard through the ISO. That has cost them more than just money, too. All this to avoid the simplicity of adding ODF to their "Save As..." dialog in Office. Microsoft is very, very afraid. They are doing everything short of physical violence to hold back open adoption of the ODF standard. When Microsoft was "fined" in their "monopoly" prosecution, one of the modes of paying off the fine was in software. Microsoft gets to deduct the retail price of the software from the fine, for $.75 worth of CD, case and serial-number sticker. Would any one, be it individual or organization, wish to lose power like that? It really is all about power. People do not give up power peacefully. |
| jezuch Sep 05, 2007 3:37 AM EDT |
Quoting:Microsoft is very, very afraid. They are doing everything short of physical violence to hold back open adoption of the ODF standard. Just wait until they reach the Panic Mode. Physical violence might not be out of question then, I guess... |
| jezuch Sep 05, 2007 3:40 AM EDT |
...outside of Darth Ballmer's office, that is ;) |
| jacog Sep 05, 2007 3:42 AM EDT |
Chair-shields up. |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2007 3:55 AM EDT |
> Physical violence might not be out of question then, I guess... Well, I can see some fist-pounding in meetings, but that would be the extent of it. Although, I suppose some of those people might make really nasty drunks. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 05, 2007 5:54 AM EDT |
"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2007 5:59 AM EDT |
>"Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?" Moving through the Henry's are we? |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 05, 2007 6:09 AM EDT |
Hehehe. "Every day is St. Crispin's Day!" "Once more into the compiler!" But right now I'm working through Steve Balmer in the Monty Python "hospital for Richard the 3rd over-actors". "A chair! a chair! My corner office for a chair!" |
| dinotrac Sep 05, 2007 6:18 AM EDT |
Quit, Steve, and I'll help you to a chair. |
| hkwint Sep 05, 2007 6:52 AM EDT |
Microsoft effectively created what could be seen as (at least) the fourth platform that will strive exactly in the contrary of its own purposes. The first was the open source community, which couldn't have existed as if it does today if people weren't that dissatisfied with the current available dominant software - as a result of Microsofts monopoly. This coalition is led by FSF and also the Linux Foundation and Open Invention Network these days. RMS and Linus deserve a honorable mention here. The second platform it created, is the anti-software-patent coalition, mainly in Europe (especially FFII & allies, and to a lesser degree EFF, FSF and FSFE, and the SMB's in Europe joined forces in the anti-software-patent coalition). This is the coalition which managed to stop software patents, even though Microsoft hired lots of expensive lobbyists, and also causing conflict of interests and general dissatisfaction with the way the European Government (and especially the European Council) works. Countries were 'bought' in this issue too; but by means of employment(threats); like the MS Europe headquarters in Ireland, Luxembourg and Bill Gates himself blackmailing Denmark (does this sound familiar?). At this point, Microsoft also 'stuffed' SMB committees to lobby in the interest of Microsoft (sounds familiar too, eh?). A honorable mention for Poland here. The third platform it created, is the anti-DRM movement, led by the FSF. If you'd ask me, a honorable mention should go to Peter Guttman. The fourth platform it created, is the anti-OOXML movement, (mainly) led by FFII and Groklaw, which - for now - managed to stop ISO-adoption of OOXML. Andy Updegrove, Rob Weir and Bob Sutor deserve a honorable mention here. All those platforms are watching Mircosoft closely now, and there isn't any chance Microsoft can do things in secret when it comes to the issues above. I'm predicting those four platforms will give / are giving Microsoft a hard time (if not nightmares). The only platform we miss as far as I'm aware, when striving for software freedom, is a good marketing platform, though work is done on that one. |
| moopst Sep 05, 2007 8:46 PM EDT |
Very good summary hkwint. I also remember an article in Outdoor Photographer about how Corbis was changing the customary rules regarding licensing of photographs. It amounted to "now we own all the rights" and the photographer got nothing but a one time payment when for over 100 years photogs used to retain some rights (including ownership). It was about 18 years ago and I can't remember it clearly. I tried to find it on the web but can't. The sense I got was that it was as creepy and sinister as everything else Microsift does with licenses and eulas. It was perfectly clear to me that Microsoft / Bill Gates wanted to own all information and intellectual property for all time. DRM and unintelligible (or unintelligent!) file formats and patents are just the technical means to that end. |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2007 3:07 AM EDT |
>The first was the open source community, which couldn't have existed as if it does today if people weren't that dissatisfied with the current available dominant software - There has alway been free software. Always. There was free software for mainframes. In the early PC days, programs were published in magazines. The FSF was founded in 1985, before many people had computers, let alone any great reason to be unhappy with Microsoft. Microsoft is simply there, being it's big and ugly self. What has powered the free software movement is the internet, which has enabled communication and collaboration between people who otherwise would never find each other. |
| hkwint Sep 06, 2007 9:17 AM EDT |
Well, OK, maybe I should mention Linux and maybe Firefox instead of free or open source software?Quoting:when for over 100 years photogs used to retain some rights (including ownership) I believe that's the same for copyright? Or am I wrong here? Anyway, I do remember copyright for music lasts about 30 years I believe. |
| dinotrac Sep 06, 2007 10:14 AM EDT |
> I do remember copyright for music lasts about 30 years I believe. Sadly, I don't remember the current terms, but it's a lot longer than 30 years in the US, and, I believe, everywhere else. It gets tricky because there is a difference between works for hire and copyrights held by the author and already my head is starting to hurt. |
| Bob_Robertson Sep 06, 2007 10:46 AM EDT |
Copyright used to be 7 years _if_ you sent a copy to the Library of Congress, and another 7 years if you made an application to extend. However, copyright is now automatic on everything you write. The term is, as of the last "The Mouse Will Never Go Public Domain!" extension, thank you very much Dead Rep. Sonny Bono, is 70 years past the author's death. What the particular distinctions are that Dino alludes to, I don't know. If people are interested, Mises.org has several articles and discussions on the subject of copyright and patent abuse. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!