Comments on: On timing and developers’ethic http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/ A weblog by Charles-H. Schulz. Mon, 26 Jul 2010 17:53:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Boycott Novell » OOXML Causes Trouble in the Business World http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-540 Boycott Novell » OOXML Causes Trouble in the Business World Sun, 23 Dec 2007 22:56:38 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-540 [...] getting help from the FOSS world. Danijel Orsolic (Webmaster of Libervis) has just posted a good comment to express his feelings about this: I’m not so deeply in-the-know about this whole issue, but I [...] [...] getting help from the FOSS world. Danijel Orsolic (Webmaster of Libervis) has just posted a good comment to express his feelings about this: I’m not so deeply in-the-know about this whole issue, but I [...]

]]> By: Danijel Orsolic http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-539 Danijel Orsolic Sat, 22 Dec 2007 17:54:27 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-539 I'm not so deeply in-the-know about this whole issue, but I have been following it for a while, and I mostly tend to agree with what Charles says here. I can't possibly believe OOXML is an open standard and I can't possibly believe that it's propagation is in ANY way good or necessary in light of the increased ODF adoption. So excuse me to say this as a layman, the *user*, the one in the *market* who will be forced to deal with the consequences of what GNOME and others do here, but I see a lot of nonsense going on and am not in the least surprised that some people believe "conspiracy theories" like those on Boycott Novell. It sometimes seems to me as if people get into some sort of a suspense mode and totally start ignoring certain memes which have been around for so long that they're practically common sense. How the hell can you trust in ANY sort of collaboration with Microsoft or giving in to Microsoft just because they are ubiquitous and expect not to get hurt? Why can't we stick to our own damn guns? Remember? Free Software, Open Standards? If you ask me the whole "interoperability" thing is just an MS-serving FUD. Supporting OOXML is not about interoperability. How can supporting a closed standard be for interoperability when the whole idea of a closed standard is diametrically opposed to the idea of interoperability! So I'm sorry if I'm starting to believe that some in our community have simply been played by Microsoft and Novell and that Microsoft IS actually getting what they want. If it wasn't this way why are we even having this discussion? Step back and think, why are we finding ourselves worried about *ourselves* playing their game at all? ODF is better. Free Software is better. Stick to it and don't freaking give in! You can ignore this comment as a rant of an "uninformed", but I assure you it will keep popping up. As Charles well said, in this community users are equal to the mighty developers and "luminaries" of the community. Free Software is an user-oriented movement. And guess what. I'm a user, a very concerned and involved one as well! Thank you. I’m not so deeply in-the-know about this whole issue, but I have been following it for a while, and I mostly tend to agree with what Charles says here.

I can’t possibly believe OOXML is an open standard and I can’t possibly believe that it’s propagation is in ANY way good or necessary in light of the increased ODF adoption. So excuse me to say this as a layman, the *user*, the one in the *market* who will be forced to deal with the consequences of what GNOME and others do here, but I see a lot of nonsense going on and am not in the least surprised that some people believe “conspiracy theories” like those on Boycott Novell.

It sometimes seems to me as if people get into some sort of a suspense mode and totally start ignoring certain memes which have been around for so long that they’re practically common sense. How the hell can you trust in ANY sort of collaboration with Microsoft or giving in to Microsoft just because they are ubiquitous and expect not to get hurt?

Why can’t we stick to our own damn guns? Remember? Free Software, Open Standards? If you ask me the whole “interoperability” thing is just an MS-serving FUD. Supporting OOXML is not about interoperability. How can supporting a closed standard be for interoperability when the whole idea of a closed standard is diametrically opposed to the idea of interoperability!

So I’m sorry if I’m starting to believe that some in our community have simply been played by Microsoft and Novell and that Microsoft IS actually getting what they want. If it wasn’t this way why are we even having this discussion? Step back and think, why are we finding ourselves worried about *ourselves* playing their game at all?

ODF is better. Free Software is better. Stick to it and don’t freaking give in!

You can ignore this comment as a rant of an “uninformed”, but I assure you it will keep popping up. As Charles well said, in this community users are equal to the mighty developers and “luminaries” of the community. Free Software is an user-oriented movement.

And guess what. I’m a user, a very concerned and involved one as well!

Thank you.

]]> By: Jeff Waugh http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-537 Jeff Waugh Fri, 21 Dec 2007 13:05:47 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-537 I don't assume OSP is safe -- note "attempt". Microsoft have done nothing to win our trust, so it's fair to assume a certain level of risk. But there is risk inherent in all software development. I don’t assume OSP is safe — note “attempt”. Microsoft have done nothing to win our trust, so it’s fair to assume a certain level of risk. But there is risk inherent in all software development.

]]> By: Charles http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-536 Charles Fri, 21 Dec 2007 09:05:31 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-536 @Jeff: Unfortunately, the OSP has many legal flaws and is something of a trap as it only partially covers implementors and in a very limited way. Moreover, the OSP only covers parts of the OOXML spec itself. For instance, you cannot benefit from the OSP if you try to implement the specific layout behavior of some paragraphs of Word97. I have something like ten specific and quotable exemple of this kind, so please, do not assume that OSP is safe... Thanks, Charles. @Jeff: Unfortunately, the OSP has many legal flaws and is something of a trap as it only partially covers implementors and in a very limited way.

Moreover, the OSP only covers parts of the OOXML spec itself. For instance, you cannot benefit from the OSP if you try to implement the specific layout behavior of some paragraphs of Word97. I have something like ten specific and quotable exemple of this kind, so please, do not assume that OSP is safe…

Thanks,
Charles.

]]> By: Boycott Novell » From Fighting for Standard to Fighting Against Them (Novell) http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-535 Boycott Novell » From Fighting for Standard to Fighting Against Them (Novell) Fri, 21 Dec 2007 04:57:28 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-535 [...] onto other projects and a fine desktop environment such as GNOME. This issue is explored further in the following long piece. What is this all about? The Gnome Foundation’s behaviour in front of the OOXML controversy. I [...] [...] onto other projects and a fine desktop environment such as GNOME. This issue is explored further in the following long piece. What is this all about? The Gnome Foundation’s behaviour in front of the OOXML controversy. I [...]

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-534 Roy Schestowitz Fri, 21 Dec 2007 02:10:19 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-534 Bruce, you said that to me as well. I still suspect that I know which side (theory) you're leaning towards. The Foundation's deeds speak louder than their words(yes there's division of opinion /therein/). Bruce, you said that to me as well. I still suspect that I know which side (theory) you’re leaning towards. The Foundation’s deeds speak louder than their words(yes there’s division of opinion /therein/).

]]> By: Jeff Waugh http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-532 Jeff Waugh Thu, 20 Dec 2007 22:01:20 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-532 To start with, OOXML is already an ECMA standard (which doesn't mean a lot, but there it is). The specification itself is openly available. The 'Open Specification Promise' is an attempt to ensure that it's implementable by anyone. I'm not saying all of these things are iron clad or perfect, but they exist. Certainly, it is not a specification that has been influenced significantly by anyone other than Microsoft. Why would the GNOME Foundation get involved in ECMA? For precisely the reason we said so: To suck as much documentation out of them as we possibly can, in their own venue, in order to provide interoperability for FLOSS users. To start with, OOXML is already an ECMA standard (which doesn’t mean a lot, but there it is). The specification itself is openly available. The ‘Open Specification Promise’ is an attempt to ensure that it’s implementable by anyone.

I’m not saying all of these things are iron clad or perfect, but they exist. Certainly, it is not a specification that has been influenced significantly by anyone other than Microsoft.

Why would the GNOME Foundation get involved in ECMA? For precisely the reason we said so: To suck as much documentation out of them as we possibly can, in their own venue, in order to provide interoperability for FLOSS users.

]]> By: Charles http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-531 Charles Thu, 20 Dec 2007 20:55:20 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-531 Bruce, I am sorry to hear that but there was no malign intention from my side. Please feel free to express or clarify here, or elsewhere what I misunderstood in what you were saying. Cheers, Charles. Bruce,
I am sorry to hear that but there was no malign intention from my side. Please feel free to express or clarify here, or elsewhere what I misunderstood in what you were saying.

Cheers,
Charles.

]]> By: Bruce Byfield http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/comment-page-1/#comment-530 Bruce Byfield Thu, 20 Dec 2007 19:16:49 +0000 http://standardsandfreedom.net/index.php/2007/12/20/on-timing-and-developersethic/#comment-530 I haven't time for a full rebuttal, but I did want to mention that you have comprehensively misrepresented or misunderstood what I have said, and associated me with all sorts of beliefs that I don't share. Interestingly enough, the exact opposite opinions are being attributed to me by people who share the GNOME Foundation's opinion. I haven’t time for a full rebuttal, but I did want to mention that you have comprehensively misrepresented or misunderstood what I have said, and associated me with all sorts of beliefs that I don’t share. Interestingly enough, the exact opposite opinions are being attributed to me by people who share the GNOME Foundation’s opinion.

]]>