Your analysis doesn't seem to make much sense. Those aren't two clauses, they're the same clause, they just have a parenthetical in the middle to explain the meaning version, as such, yes.. the second part of the sentance does modify the first part "in which" is a clear sign of modification. There is nothing in there that says "irrevocable" (Microsoft's does). And, more importantly, I can't see how this license would be GPL compatible, since it doesn't offer a perpetual patent amnesty.
Sun's patent pledge also only lists ODF 1.0, though they also include any subsequent versions in which Sun participates, meaning that any version sun does not participate in will not be covered by the patent pledge. That also means that if you create your own version based on it, you won't be covered.
As opposed to Sun's covenant not to sue in which they only agree not to sue you if you are implementing ODF 1.0 or a later version in wich Sun actively participates? In other words, if sun drops out after ODF 1.2, then they could sue anyone for implementing version 1.3 or later?
No, actually, ODF was designed by Sun. It was donated to OASIS with a patent pledge similar to Microsoft's, and minor changes were made to it at OASIS. You do realize that the ODF committee is chaired by a Sun employee. Over half of it's members are Sun or IBM employees.
You are aware that Sun has issued a similar pledge. What's worse, is that they only agree not to sue so long as they are taking part in the development process. Read their covenant:
Note the weasel words about version 1.0 and any version that sun actively participates in. Further, by naming the exact version of the ODF, and claiming that they must take active part in it's devleopment, that means any non-conforming implementation isn't covered by the pledge.
OOXML can be fully supported only by Microsoft, because for various items, the "standard" effectively just says it should work the way Office 95 etc. works without giving details.
You parrot the party line well. Maybe you should actually READ the specification yourself. If you did, you'd realize that you're spreading misinformation. Or maybe you know that.
The elements that you mention, that reference existing implementations, are deprecated, and actively discouraged in the documentation from third party implementation, because they will be dropped from a future version of the standard. They're only there for conversion of existing documents to allow full fidelity.
In other words, you're not *SUPPOSED* to implement them. They're not part of the requirements for standards conformance.
I'd jump on it if they did something like what mozy does. You can generate your own strong encryption key, and only encrypted data will get stored on the server. All encryption/decryption occurs locally on your computer. That way, nobody can get any data out of the files on the server.
The problem, of course, is whether or not the software to access the service will generate "backup" keys for hive.
You can always download the free server trial, which is good for a year. You could run it in a virtual machine on any OS you like.
For good or bad, IIS is tied pretty heavily to the version of the OS it ships on. That helps them secure it more effectively. There's a reason IIS 6 has only had 3 vulnerabiliies in 4 years, and none of them critical or remote. It uses a lot of security features, and they're just not present on earlier versions. IE7 was initially only going to be available on Vista as well, but Microsoft was able to make it work on XP minus a boatload of security features (for example, no protected mode). If they were to do the same with IIS, it would make it impossible to secure to the same level, and when dealing with an internet facing service, that's just not acceptable.
We're talking Longhorn server here (ie Windows Server 2008), not Vista. It's a significantly different OS.
You've never been able to download a new version of IIS for any version of Windows, what's more IIS7 relies heavily on Longhorn features that just aren't present in earlier versions.
Of course you knew this already, I'm sure... and you just wanted to be disingenuous.
I know it's all trendy to hate Microsoft and all, but honestly, have you looked at IIS lately? Especially IIS7?
IIS has had less than half a dozen security flaws *IN 4 YEARS*, compared to Apache which has had tons..NET has had about the same, compared to PHP which has also (and continues to have) tons of security flaws. Hell, one of the biggest names in PHP quit recently in protest over the poor security of PHP.
The fact of the matter is, IIS and.NET are very attractive, powerful, secure, and easy to use technologies. Whatever microsofts faults on the desktop, they are not present in.NET and IIS.
Microsoft could have adapted their software to fit the business requirements.
Actually, they did. Shortly after Peter Quinn first announced support for ODF, and denial of Office, he said rather matter of factly that Mass. would consider Office if they opened up their format (note, made and ISO standard was not a requirement since ODF wasn't an ISO standard at the time either). Note that in 2005, this is what quinn said:
"In fact, one important point that has so far gotten no attention in the coverage of the Massachusetts decision is that the door is actually still open for Microsoft's format's get back on the list. In a telephone interview, CIO Quinn made it clear that if Microsoft fixed its patent license to meet the state's requirements, the state would reconsider the Office XML Reference Schema for inclusion in its standards. "We would support multiple formats as long as they're open" said Quinn. "If Microsoft were to do that, I would expect that we would add it to the list."
So, back in 2005, Quinn said, all Microsoft had to do was fix its patent license, and they were a shoe-in for consideration in addition to ODF. Microsoft did just that, issuing a patent covenant that is very similar to Sun's patent convenant for ODF.
So the question is, why are people still complaining?
Doesn't it seem like Mozilla goes through these cycles, where they add the kitchen sink, then they realize "Oh no, we're this bloated piece of crap" and so they divest themselves and try to go "back to basics", only to begin the cycle all over again?
Convenience trumps safety all the time. If we brougth your argument to it's logical conslusion, nobody would ever leave their well fortified house. They'd all grow their own food, have their own way to reprocess waste, etc... Most people, however, need and maybe even like to leave their home and interact with people who could be dangerous or whatever.
There is always a balance between safety and convenience. Sometimes one or the other wins out, depending on priorities.
Actually, there's a difference between counterfeiting and piracy. Microsoft's efforts seem to be oriented towads stopping counterfeiting (where people buy what looks like legit software, and think it's legit), rather than piracy (where people intentionally crack software). The latter is virtually unstoppable, and they know that. But they CAN make it very difficult for counterfeiters to pass off their wares (no pun intended) as the real thing.
MS regularly sits on vulnerabilities for months instead of patching them.
So does Apache, Mozilla, and pretty much any other software vendor, either open or closed source.
You don't really buy into that "flaws are fixed in 24 hours" BS that people like to claim about open source, do you?
Here's a clue. When a patch is released. Look at the date the CVE was created, in almost all cases the CVE was created weeks or months earlier. It's just that the vulnerability doesn't get publicly disclosed until a patch is made available. The only exception to this is when a highly critical flaw gets publicly disclosed by third parties before a patch is finished, then they move quickly.
Don't believe me? Do your own research. It will surprise you.
I still am hoping for a kickass version of OpenOffice though, just so that Microsoft doesn't rest on its laurels.
I checked out the developer side of OOo last night, and looked at the various development projects going on. I wasn't impressed (no pun intended).
It seems to me like OOo is dominated by engineers trying to engineer the best technical product, with a severe lack of usability focus. This is the sort of thing that leads to Java being embedded in the product, because from an engineering standpoing it makes sense. From a usability standpoint, it means slower load times and a lack of consistency.
It seems like OOo is stagnating. I could be wrong, but there's just no excitement in the OOo camp, and everyone seems to be more interested in their little part of the world than the product as a whole.
I forgot to add. Why would you search based on semantics? Because that's what a Document Management System has to do. It has to give users the ability to find documents via more than just keywords and indexing content. Yes, my example was arbitrary, but that kind of ad-hoc search happens all the time. And you're also right that in a perfect world, SGML would be used, but users use word processors, not SGML document creation tools... in the real world.
And no, having a dominant position does not excuse them from a duty to do things properly, it effectively makes it impossible for them to do so. There's more at stake than just documents. It's entire knowledge bases. It's the sum content of many institutions existence. You really don't get just how important something like this is.
By the way, there's also something else to consider here. When Microsoft began working on XML file formats for Office, ODF hadn't even been started yet. When Office 2003 shipped it's XML file format (upon which OOXML is largely based), the ODF committee had basically just been formed, and Sun hadn't even donated the file format yet. By the time ODF was anywhere near ready for release, Microsoft had basically already put 4 years of effort into OOXML (before it was called that). So now there were already legacy XML documents out there. Sun had it easy, ODF conformed to their schedule, and was based on their format. Microsoft didn't have that luxury. And they had committments to customers to meet, so they were forced to do it all themselves, rather than hope their competitors got around to finishing their work (even if they were participating) in time.
At least that's the way I see it. Things just aren't as clear cut as many would like to make them seem. It's not simply a matter of "Oh, why didn't Microsoft just use ODF?".
I'm not, necessarily, defending OOXML. What I am doing, however, is arguing that ODF isn't the be all, end all. In particular when it comes to legacy documents. And extending the standard would be a HUGE can of worms. you know as well as I do that Microsoft can't extend anything without being accused of attempting to pervert and control the standard. In a perfect world, i'd agree with you. But in todays world, I would say that Microsoft is damned either way they go, so in their eyes it's likely a lot easier to just define their own format than put themselves at the mercy of IBM and Sun.
It was an example. The fact that you seem unable to grasp that says you're more interested in finding reasons to reject the argument than consider it.
You're absolutely right that XML is capable of supporting anything you like, but if you do, it's no longer ODF. You've extended it. And the moment Microsoft were to extend ODF, the cries of "embrace, extend, extinguish" would fly from every blog and newsgroup. So don't even pretend that's an option.
I call BS - PDF does not require a Postscript engine - one can extract the content using zlib and a couple of buffers, and Google regularly indexes PDFs.
PDF doe require a postscript engine if you want to truly understand the entire semantic markup of a document. Let's say you want to return all documents that use an underlined strikethrough text. How are you going to do that without a deep understanding of the PDF language? What's more, XML is more or less human readable, PDF isn't. Why do you think Sun chose XML for it's file format?
Yes, Google indexes PDF's, but I wasn't talking about just indexing the text. Document management systems have to understand the document as a whole (well, they don't HAVE to, but they really really want to, and it makes them much more useful). Look at projects like DataStore for a good example:
Go home, Microtroll!
You make stupid arguments without understand the full context, and you accuse me of trolling? I work on document managements systems. I know WTF i'm talking about. The document marketplace is a lot more involved than you think it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Your analysis doesn't seem to make much sense. Those aren't two clauses, they're the same clause, they just have a parenthetical in the middle to explain the meaning version, as such, yes.. the second part of the sentance does modify the first part "in which" is a clear sign of modification. There is nothing in there that says "irrevocable" (Microsoft's does). And, more importantly, I can't see how this license would be GPL compatible, since it doesn't offer a perpetual patent amnesty.
Sun's patent pledge also only lists ODF 1.0, though they also include any subsequent versions in which Sun participates, meaning that any version sun does not participate in will not be covered by the patent pledge. That also means that if you create your own version based on it, you won't be covered.
You forgot the part that comes after "in which development Sun participates..."
How, precisely, did you miss that? Especially after I stated it explicitly?
You do realize that *ANY* office format has to support undefined blobs, including ODF (which it does). Right?
As opposed to Sun's covenant not to sue in which they only agree not to sue you if you are implementing ODF 1.0 or a later version in wich Sun actively participates? In other words, if sun drops out after ODF 1.2, then they could sue anyone for implementing version 1.3 or later?
No, actually, ODF was designed by Sun. It was donated to OASIS with a patent pledge similar to Microsoft's, and minor changes were made to it at OASIS. You do realize that the ODF committee is chaired by a Sun employee. Over half of it's members are Sun or IBM employees.
You are aware that Sun has issued a similar pledge. What's worse, is that they only agree not to sue so long as they are taking part in the development process. Read their covenant:
h p
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/office/ipr.p
Note the weasel words about version 1.0 and any version that sun actively participates in. Further, by naming the exact version of the ODF, and claiming that they must take active part in it's devleopment, that means any non-conforming implementation isn't covered by the pledge.
OOXML can be fully supported only by Microsoft, because for various items, the "standard" effectively just says it should work the way Office 95 etc. works without giving details.
You parrot the party line well. Maybe you should actually READ the specification yourself. If you did, you'd realize that you're spreading misinformation. Or maybe you know that.
The elements that you mention, that reference existing implementations, are deprecated, and actively discouraged in the documentation from third party implementation, because they will be dropped from a future version of the standard. They're only there for conversion of existing documents to allow full fidelity.
In other words, you're not *SUPPOSED* to implement them. They're not part of the requirements for standards conformance.
Convenience. There's no way i'm paying that kind of money if it's not safe AND convenient.
I'd jump on it if they did something like what mozy does. You can generate your own strong encryption key, and only encrypted data will get stored on the server. All encryption/decryption occurs locally on your computer. That way, nobody can get any data out of the files on the server.
The problem, of course, is whether or not the software to access the service will generate "backup" keys for hive.
My appologies.
You can always download the free server trial, which is good for a year. You could run it in a virtual machine on any OS you like.
For good or bad, IIS is tied pretty heavily to the version of the OS it ships on. That helps them secure it more effectively. There's a reason IIS 6 has only had 3 vulnerabiliies in 4 years, and none of them critical or remote. It uses a lot of security features, and they're just not present on earlier versions. IE7 was initially only going to be available on Vista as well, but Microsoft was able to make it work on XP minus a boatload of security features (for example, no protected mode). If they were to do the same with IIS, it would make it impossible to secure to the same level, and when dealing with an internet facing service, that's just not acceptable.
We're talking Longhorn server here (ie Windows Server 2008), not Vista. It's a significantly different OS.
You've never been able to download a new version of IIS for any version of Windows, what's more IIS7 relies heavily on Longhorn features that just aren't present in earlier versions.
Of course you knew this already, I'm sure... and you just wanted to be disingenuous.
Well, you can read a great deal about it at http://www.iis.net/
/ lhs/default.mspx
You can also download a free evaluation good until April 2008 of Windows Server 2008 Beta 3 here:
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/beta
I know it's all trendy to hate Microsoft and all, but honestly, have you looked at IIS lately? Especially IIS7?
.NET has had about the same, compared to PHP which has also (and continues to have) tons of security flaws. Hell, one of the biggest names in PHP quit recently in protest over the poor security of PHP.
.NET are very attractive, powerful, secure, and easy to use technologies. Whatever microsofts faults on the desktop, they are not present in .NET and IIS.
IIS has had less than half a dozen security flaws *IN 4 YEARS*, compared to Apache which has had tons.
The fact of the matter is, IIS and
Microsoft could have adapted their software to fit the business requirements.
? tag=st.next
Actually, they did. Shortly after Peter Quinn first announced support for ODF, and denial of Office, he said rather matter of factly that Mass. would consider Office if they opened up their format (note, made and ISO standard was not a requirement since ODF wasn't an ISO standard at the time either). Note that in 2005, this is what quinn said:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5893208-9.html
"In fact, one important point that has so far gotten no attention in the coverage of the Massachusetts decision is that the door is actually still open for Microsoft's format's get back on the list. In a telephone interview, CIO Quinn made it clear that if Microsoft fixed its patent license to meet the state's requirements, the state would reconsider the Office XML Reference Schema for inclusion in its standards. "We would support multiple formats as long as they're open" said Quinn. "If Microsoft were to do that, I would expect that we would add it to the list."
So, back in 2005, Quinn said, all Microsoft had to do was fix its patent license, and they were a shoe-in for consideration in addition to ODF. Microsoft did just that, issuing a patent covenant that is very similar to Sun's patent convenant for ODF.
So the question is, why are people still complaining?
Doesn't it seem like Mozilla goes through these cycles, where they add the kitchen sink, then they realize "Oh no, we're this bloated piece of crap" and so they divest themselves and try to go "back to basics", only to begin the cycle all over again?
Convenience trumps safety all the time. If we brougth your argument to it's logical conslusion, nobody would ever leave their well fortified house. They'd all grow their own food, have their own way to reprocess waste, etc... Most people, however, need and maybe even like to leave their home and interact with people who could be dangerous or whatever.
There is always a balance between safety and convenience. Sometimes one or the other wins out, depending on priorities.
Why should it have access to anything other than the cache directory?
So where should downloaded files go? In with all the other cache files?
Actually, there's a difference between counterfeiting and piracy. Microsoft's efforts seem to be oriented towads stopping counterfeiting (where people buy what looks like legit software, and think it's legit), rather than piracy (where people intentionally crack software). The latter is virtually unstoppable, and they know that. But they CAN make it very difficult for counterfeiters to pass off their wares (no pun intended) as the real thing.
MS regularly sits on vulnerabilities for months instead of patching them.
So does Apache, Mozilla, and pretty much any other software vendor, either open or closed source.
You don't really buy into that "flaws are fixed in 24 hours" BS that people like to claim about open source, do you?
Here's a clue. When a patch is released. Look at the date the CVE was created, in almost all cases the CVE was created weeks or months earlier. It's just that the vulnerability doesn't get publicly disclosed until a patch is made available. The only exception to this is when a highly critical flaw gets publicly disclosed by third parties before a patch is finished, then they move quickly.
Don't believe me? Do your own research. It will surprise you.
I still am hoping for a kickass version of OpenOffice though, just so that Microsoft doesn't rest on its laurels.
I checked out the developer side of OOo last night, and looked at the various development projects going on. I wasn't impressed (no pun intended).
It seems to me like OOo is dominated by engineers trying to engineer the best technical product, with a severe lack of usability focus. This is the sort of thing that leads to Java being embedded in the product, because from an engineering standpoing it makes sense. From a usability standpoint, it means slower load times and a lack of consistency.
It seems like OOo is stagnating. I could be wrong, but there's just no excitement in the OOo camp, and everyone seems to be more interested in their little part of the world than the product as a whole.
I forgot to add. Why would you search based on semantics? Because that's what a Document Management System has to do. It has to give users the ability to find documents via more than just keywords and indexing content. Yes, my example was arbitrary, but that kind of ad-hoc search happens all the time. And you're also right that in a perfect world, SGML would be used, but users use word processors, not SGML document creation tools... in the real world.
And no, having a dominant position does not excuse them from a duty to do things properly, it effectively makes it impossible for them to do so. There's more at stake than just documents. It's entire knowledge bases. It's the sum content of many institutions existence. You really don't get just how important something like this is.
By the way, there's also something else to consider here. When Microsoft began working on XML file formats for Office, ODF hadn't even been started yet. When Office 2003 shipped it's XML file format (upon which OOXML is largely based), the ODF committee had basically just been formed, and Sun hadn't even donated the file format yet. By the time ODF was anywhere near ready for release, Microsoft had basically already put 4 years of effort into OOXML (before it was called that). So now there were already legacy XML documents out there. Sun had it easy, ODF conformed to their schedule, and was based on their format. Microsoft didn't have that luxury. And they had committments to customers to meet, so they were forced to do it all themselves, rather than hope their competitors got around to finishing their work (even if they were participating) in time.
At least that's the way I see it. Things just aren't as clear cut as many would like to make them seem. It's not simply a matter of "Oh, why didn't Microsoft just use ODF?".
I'm not, necessarily, defending OOXML. What I am doing, however, is arguing that ODF isn't the be all, end all. In particular when it comes to legacy documents. And extending the standard would be a HUGE can of worms. you know as well as I do that Microsoft can't extend anything without being accused of attempting to pervert and control the standard. In a perfect world, i'd agree with you. But in todays world, I would say that Microsoft is damned either way they go, so in their eyes it's likely a lot easier to just define their own format than put themselves at the mercy of IBM and Sun.
It was an example. The fact that you seem unable to grasp that says you're more interested in finding reasons to reject the argument than consider it.
You're absolutely right that XML is capable of supporting anything you like, but if you do, it's no longer ODF. You've extended it. And the moment Microsoft were to extend ODF, the cries of "embrace, extend, extinguish" would fly from every blog and newsgroup. So don't even pretend that's an option.
I call BS - PDF does not require a Postscript engine - one can extract the content using zlib and a couple of buffers, and Google regularly indexes PDFs.
PDF doe require a postscript engine if you want to truly understand the entire semantic markup of a document. Let's say you want to return all documents that use an underlined strikethrough text. How are you going to do that without a deep understanding of the PDF language? What's more, XML is more or less human readable, PDF isn't. Why do you think Sun chose XML for it's file format?
Yes, Google indexes PDF's, but I wasn't talking about just indexing the text. Document management systems have to understand the document as a whole (well, they don't HAVE to, but they really really want to, and it makes them much more useful). Look at projects like DataStore for a good example:
Go home, Microtroll!
You make stupid arguments without understand the full context, and you accuse me of trolling? I work on document managements systems. I know WTF i'm talking about. The document marketplace is a lot more involved than you think it is.