Mr. Wilcox's criteria of openness seem to be unduly strict. His definition of "open" is something like "submitted to a standards body, and is public domain". If there's a license attached, however permissive, then (in his view) it's closed and proprietary. I can understand his position, but it's not the only one possible.
They stopped distributing the fonts. You can still download them legally, if you know where to look, just not from microsoft.com. The license is in effect.
if you sue Microsoft or any of Microsoft's affiliates for patent infringement over claims relating to reading or writing of files that comply with the Office Schemas.
If you want to use MS's patents for free, give them your related patents for free. If you don't patent your stuff at all, you can't sue them over patent infringement. If you don't sue them over patent infringement, they can't terminate the license. Fair, no?
It may be incompatible with GPL in letter, but not in spirit. GPL doesn't allow you to alter copyright notices of other contributors anyway. The required attribution is not a copyright notice, but there's no reason why some next version of the GPL can't allow for such things.
It does plainly state that I can create a program, place it under GPL, and ignore patent ussues altogether as long as I add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding shitholes that permit software patents. You're living in one of them? Sucks to be you.
Summary: if you absolutely must use their patent in order to read or write one of their XML formats, you have a license to do so. You cannot use their patents for any other purpose.
Fuggedaboutit. There's a central server with an account for each user. There's a new GUI mail client (!) There's no compatibility with existing formats like S-MIME or PGP/GPG. Thanks, but no thanks.
Slashdot Mirror
Anyone can use MS schemas too, and even distribute software that does so. Not without conditions, naturally. Where's the difference?
GPL is closed. Glad we are coming to an agreement.
Googlebombs only work because of PageRank. PageRank is patented by Google. WHAT IS GOING ON?
I figure if there's a license, it's not open enough for you. Then be prepared do throw away all your GNU/GPL/BSD/MPL/whatever stuff.
Google finds 57 results. MSN search finds 317 results. That's what they say on the first page, at any rate. On the next page the number of hits somehow magically shrinks to 20.
Mr. Wilcox's criteria of openness seem to be unduly strict. His definition of "open" is something like "submitted to a standards body, and is public domain". If there's a license attached, however permissive, then (in his view) it's closed and proprietary. I can understand his position, but it's not the only one possible.
Move along, nothing to see here.
"license is not a contract" -- 211 hits.
I win!
By the way, if you need legal adwice you should talk to a lawyer.
Read a book, willja? A license is a contract. Contracts cannot be changed just because one of the parties wants so.
They stopped distributing the fonts. You can still download them legally, if you know where to look, just not from microsoft.com. The license is in effect.
This a dupe article dupe!
If you want to use MS's patents for free, give them your related patents for free. If you don't patent your stuff at all, you can't sue them over patent infringement. If you don't sue them over patent infringement, they can't terminate the license. Fair, no?
It may be incompatible with GPL in letter, but not in spirit. GPL doesn't allow you to alter copyright notices of other contributors anyway. The required attribution is not a copyright notice, but there's no reason why some next version of the GPL can't allow for such things.
It does plainly state that I can create a program, place it under GPL, and ignore patent ussues altogether as long as I add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding shitholes that permit software patents. You're living in one of them? Sucks to be you.
See section 8 of the GPL :)
Summary: if you absolutely must use their patent in order to read or write one of their XML formats, you have a license to do so. You cannot use their patents for any other purpose.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment ... like the body or the subject!)
Fuggedaboutit. There's a central server with an account for each user. There's a new GUI mail client (!) There's no compatibility with existing formats like S-MIME or PGP/GPG. Thanks, but no thanks.
At the server side I'll use a proper programming language and DOM, and do it in about 1/50th of time and LoC count.
You mean, I can hand IE an XML+XSLT combo, today, and it will turn out a beautifully printed document?
It's enough to create TOC, list of figuires, footnotes, what have you. Enjoy: CSS3.
If you were an intelligent carbon-based lifeform, you would illustrate your point by posting an IMG- and EMBED-enhanced comment right here.
You just have mathematically demonstrated that you have no clue whatsoever about Gödel's theoretical work. Way to establish your street creed.