The problem is that with these agreements Microsoft is creating an interlocking mesh of agreements intended to prevent newcomers entering the market and to stifle small players. For a patent-invalidating wiki to succeed, you'd also need to go after Microsoft's partners - Novell, Xandros, LG, etc etc
It might be worth doing anyway just to show how ridiculous most of these patents are, but I suspect it'll be too late to save FOSS as we know it.
I fail to see how "pay us and we won't crush you" qualifies as 'doing something good.'
It's not quite that simple. What Microsoft is doing is establishing a base of transactions for the underlying concepts used in FOSS projects, so they can take the projects from the community.
The free software community works on a non-transactional basis. There's an expectation of delayed gratification from many contributors. For example, I write tools for my field, but I'm a poor coder. I taught myself programming out of desperation, because there were so few suitable programs available. Because I release those tools under the GPL, I have an expectation that they will be improved by coders with greater skills (but less knowledge of my niche field), and the improvements will be available to me.
That's the strength of the GPL, if it weren't for the copyleft provision, unscrupulous developers could simply take my code and commercialise it, and I'd see no benefit from my work.
This works with software like no other product because with software, there's no cost of duplication, and the cost of developing the tool for myself is a sunk cost. Releasing it to the community is no additional burden for me, and there's a chance I might benefit if I do release it.
Microsoft wants to create that additional burden. They're scared of a mass of developers all contributing, but not participating in a transaction for each contribution. It's why they're paying money to competitors with these agreements. They want to create a web of transactions to demonstrate there is commercial value in the ideas people like myself are contributing to the community.
They'll succeed this time too, because the business in general - not just Microsoft - doesn't like non-transactional effort. There's no opportunity to pry themselves a piece of it. That's why Microsoft is being received with open arms by so many of the Linux business community - they've found a way to introduce transactions where business can leverage value from what used to be a process that was closed to them.
In the end, it won't be Microsoft that sues someone who contributes an idea to the community, and runs foul of some undisclosed patent. It'll be a Linux business, someone like Xandros or Novell, and it'll only take a few lawsuits to take away that incentive for me (or anyone like me) to have to think twice before releasing that useful tool.
In many ways, it's another version of the embrace, extend, extinguish model, but it's starting to become clear just how long Microsoft has been planning this, and how determined they are to are to commercialise software freedom. I think it'll work for them too. They'll have a lot more support from business and government this time.
Because any old random person can make commits to repositories.
No, but well-written useful code that violates Microsoft's subterranean patents could be submitted, particularly through their new "Technology Partners" Novell and Xandros.
That's why GPL3 is so important. It specifically addresses this vulnerability in the current FOSS licensing.
You have information that says Novell has access to "secret" documentation regarding OpenXML?
It's been discussed ad nauseum here and in thousands of other forums all over the web. They're forming a joint research facility, for christ's sake! Would they need to do that if they were only relying on public information?
it's not even half as complicated as people are implying.
It doesn't matter how complicated or otherwise it is. Nobody can implement the specification without emulating Microsoft products. Ballmer's already threatened litigation over patents. It's a deeply flawed specification.
I think Microsoft has done this because they genuinely believe they can offer a commercial product that will be bought based on the merits of the application versus applications such as Star Office and/or Open Office.
Then why aren't they supporting the existing ISO document standard?
So I guess some people have managed to decipher Microsoft's documentation.
That's being a bit deceptive.
Novell is a Microsoft technology partner and has access to Microsoft's documentation. Dataviz is a Gold Certified partner to Microsoft and in any event, provides file conversion software for PDAs and only needs to implement a small subset of the document formats.
Why be disingenuous? Don't you have a valid argument to present?
You say stuff, but nothing on how it's either closed or proprietary.
I provided you with a link to explanations clearer and more concise than anything I could include here.
I'm aware you're not prepared to look at evidence which would conflict with your view, but for the convenience of other readers, I've posted the headers to the Groklaw articles which contain the complete explanations.
# 7 Ecma 376 contradicts numerous international standards
* 7.1 The Gregorian Calendar
* 7.2 ISO 8601 (Representation of dates and times)
* 7.3 ISO 639 (Codes for the Representation of Names and Languages)
* 7.4 ISO/IEC 8632 (Computer Graphics Metafile)
* 7.5 ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (OpenDocument Format for Office Applications)
* 7.6 W3C SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)
* 7.7 W3C MathML (Mathematical Markup Language)
* 7.8 ISO/IEC 10118-3, W3C XML-ENC, and other cryptographic hash standards
* 7.9 W3C SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language)
# 8 Ecma 376 is immature and inconsistent
* 8.1 Fabricates units of measurement
* 8.2 Internal inconsistencies: the w:sz element
* 8.3 Internal inconsistencies and omissions: ST_Border
* 8.4 Confusing and inconsistent definitions of lengths of hexadecimal numbers
* 8.5 Unspecified terms: plain text
* 8.6 Poor names and inconsistent naming conventions for elements and attributes
* 8.7 Inflexible notation for percentages
* 8.8 Inappropriate non-document settings (application settings)
* 8.9 Non-XML formatting codes
* 8.10 Inflexible numbering format
* 8.11 Uses a Microsoft-specific namespace
# 9 Ecma 376 uses bitmasks, inhibiting extensibility and use of standard XML tools
* 9.1 Background: bitmasks
* 9.2 Bitmasks in Ecma 376
* 9.3 Bitmasks are not extensible
* 9.4 Bitmasks cause significant validation problems
* 9.5 Bitmasks defeat XSLT manipulation
* 9.6 Bitmasks conflict with the Ecma TC45 charter
# 10 Ecma 376 relies on undisclosed information
* 10.1 Undisclosed proprietary specifications
* 10.2 Cloning the behaviour of proprietary applications
* 10.3 Relies on application-defined behaviors
# 11 Ecma 376 cannot be adequately evaluated within the 30-day evaluation period
* 11.1 Ecma 376 has not met the stability requirement
# 12 Ecma 376 cannot be reasonably implemented by other vendors
* 12.1 Ecma 376 requires implementation of undisclosed specifications
* 12.2 The "compatibility with legacy formats" can only be implemented by Microsoft
* 12.3 Patent rights to implement the Ecma 376 specification have not been granted
o 12.3.1 The Microsoft covenants not to sue grant no rights
o 12.3.2 Microsoft licensing documents are ambiguous
+ 12.3.2.1 The Microsoft Open Specification Promise is ambiguous
+ 12.3.2.2 The Microsoft Covenant Not to Sue is irrelevant and ambiguous in any event
* 12.4 End-User License Agreements (EULAs) may forbid full implementation
Anyone wishing to understand the full risks of implementing OOXML in their own software should read the Groklaw page very carefully.
So it's neither closed, nor proprietary as you claim.
It's both closed and proprietary.
OOXML is a dump into XML of all the data from existing Office formats. It can only be fully implemented by the vendor of MS Office.
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=2007011 720521698
it's pretty clear that Microsoft accepts that people want their information in easy to work with document formats, that are freely licensed and developed against.
No, it's absolutely clear that Microsoft wants the opposite of free formats.
If Dell makes money selling GNU/Linux desktops, it's all over for M$. If they don't, someone else will.
It's already happening where I live.
Most of the wholesalers and whitebox distributors here are offering budget computers with Ubuntu installed. They're cheaper and perform better than the Windows equivalents.
Dell can survive without offering a Linux alternative since they pay little or nothing for their Windows licenses, but they risk being swamped by the next wave of boxshifters if they hold back too long.
Also, they're not stupid (or poor) enough to drag companies into court over software patents
No, they're not trying to crush Linux.
What they're trying to do is pry the whole of FOSS development out of the community and into the commercial arena by creating a mesh of patent agreements with other commercial organisations.
They've used the SCO lawsuits to move the focus of software IP from copyright to patents, and now they're establishing a financial base to a massive collection of patents as transactions between them and their partners. What that does is create a value for the lost revenue which they can claim as a result of any infringement. Once this is in place, Microsoft themselves don't need to sue anyone directly. They can use a sock-puppet partner, or just wait for the inevitable, given the US's litigious patent history. In either case, it will provide a massive chilling effect to independent and FOSS software.
By indemnifying those who've established those transactions, they can do this in a way which won't invite reprisals from their existing competitors. However, any developer not affiliated with one of MS's patent partners will be treading a minefield, and a minefield in which the cost of a false step is clearly established and very large.It's a very clever move, and I think it will succeed in marginalising FOSS developers who aren't protected by large organisations.
Microsoft know it can deal with businesses, they're terrified by the amorphous mass of developers fostered by licenses like the GPL. By isolating small developers and hobbyists, they can make community software development irrelevant. This also explains why there's been so much astroturf trying to demonize GPL3 lately, both here and in the wider computer community. I suspect however, that GPL3 will be too little, too late, given the scope of Microsoft's patent strategy.
It will be interesting times ahead, but I think Microsoft's picked a winner here.
The sun would have to either be almost directly above
Look at the shadows and highlights - the sun's coming from the bottom left of the picture, looks like an elevation of about 60 degrees. If that's the case, for the sun not to be directly illuminating the bottom, the cavity would be more than 180m deep.
Agreed, but I have recorded CDRs that can no longer be read. Same for Iomega ZIP and JAZ disks (no drives).
So do I, but the data that was on them now occupies a tiny portion of the hard drives in my current computers. It's been copied onto half a dozen different backup formats, and I expect it'll migrate across a multitude more in the course of my life.
Preserving digital information takes less effort than storing paper prints.
Disclaimer: I write PDA applications for a living.
Funny thing is, I used to do that too - I wrote an auditing tool and an explosives management app that we used to load onto ruggedised Palms and sell to mining companies. It was simple enough that you could hand it to a field assistant and expect they'd be able to use it.
I still believe that's what the design brief for PDA phones should be - not this mess of arcane menus and half-arsed apps that you can't even be confident will sound it's alarms when you need it to.
of course there are zillions of alternate ROMS available for most of the WM devices at places like www.xda-developers.com
Not any more, there aren't.
Microsoft insisted that all ROMs be removed as of February this year. They're all gone now.
Offering these ROMs has been an invaluable resource to many developers and enthusiasts. Every once in a while someone uploaded an image that was not supposed to be released yet, but when Microsoft or someone else complained we immediately took it down. Recently Microsoft has begun to complain on a different level, asking us to remove _all_ the ROM images.
http://www.xda-developers.com/modules.php?name=New s&file=showarticle&threadid=294142
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, if you compress all your data into a single block with no spacing, it becomes unclear and unpleasant to contemplate.
They don't want to turn it into the standard. They're just using it to kill the real standard so people will keep using binary .docs.
It's an excellent idea in some ways. Not too hard to find Microsoft's patents:
Search Results for microsoftResults 1 - 70 of 23926 (0.27 seconds)
http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/search-results.
The problem is that with these agreements Microsoft is creating an interlocking mesh of agreements intended to prevent newcomers entering the market and to stifle small players. For a patent-invalidating wiki to succeed, you'd also need to go after Microsoft's partners - Novell, Xandros, LG, etc etc
It might be worth doing anyway just to show how ridiculous most of these patents are, but I suspect it'll be too late to save FOSS as we know it.
It's not quite that simple. What Microsoft is doing is establishing a base of transactions for the underlying concepts used in FOSS projects, so they can take the projects from the community.
The free software community works on a non-transactional basis. There's an expectation of delayed gratification from many contributors. For example, I write tools for my field, but I'm a poor coder. I taught myself programming out of desperation, because there were so few suitable programs available. Because I release those tools under the GPL, I have an expectation that they will be improved by coders with greater skills (but less knowledge of my niche field), and the improvements will be available to me. That's the strength of the GPL, if it weren't for the copyleft provision, unscrupulous developers could simply take my code and commercialise it, and I'd see no benefit from my work.
This works with software like no other product because with software, there's no cost of duplication, and the cost of developing the tool for myself is a sunk cost. Releasing it to the community is no additional burden for me, and there's a chance I might benefit if I do release it.
Microsoft wants to create that additional burden. They're scared of a mass of developers all contributing, but not participating in a transaction for each contribution. It's why they're paying money to competitors with these agreements. They want to create a web of transactions to demonstrate there is commercial value in the ideas people like myself are contributing to the community.
They'll succeed this time too, because the business in general - not just Microsoft - doesn't like non-transactional effort. There's no opportunity to pry themselves a piece of it. That's why Microsoft is being received with open arms by so many of the Linux business community - they've found a way to introduce transactions where business can leverage value from what used to be a process that was closed to them.
In the end, it won't be Microsoft that sues someone who contributes an idea to the community, and runs foul of some undisclosed patent. It'll be a Linux business, someone like Xandros or Novell, and it'll only take a few lawsuits to take away that incentive for me (or anyone like me) to have to think twice before releasing that useful tool.
In many ways, it's another version of the embrace, extend, extinguish model, but it's starting to become clear just how long Microsoft has been planning this, and how determined they are to are to commercialise software freedom. I think it'll work for them too. They'll have a lot more support from business and government this time.
No, but well-written useful code that violates Microsoft's subterranean patents could be submitted, particularly through their new "Technology Partners" Novell and Xandros.
That's why GPL3 is so important. It specifically addresses this vulnerability in the current FOSS licensing.
It's been discussed ad nauseum here and in thousands of other forums all over the web. They're forming a joint research facility, for christ's sake! Would they need to do that if they were only relying on public information?
it's not even half as complicated as people are implying.
It doesn't matter how complicated or otherwise it is. Nobody can implement the specification without emulating Microsoft products. Ballmer's already threatened litigation over patents. It's a deeply flawed specification.
I think Microsoft has done this because they genuinely believe they can offer a commercial product that will be bought based on the merits of the application versus applications such as Star Office and/or Open Office.
Then why aren't they supporting the existing ISO document standard?
That's being a bit deceptive.
Novell is a Microsoft technology partner and has access to Microsoft's documentation. Dataviz is a Gold Certified partner to Microsoft and in any event, provides file conversion software for PDAs and only needs to implement a small subset of the document formats.
Why be disingenuous? Don't you have a valid argument to present?
I provided you with a link to explanations clearer and more concise than anything I could include here.
I'm aware you're not prepared to look at evidence which would conflict with your view, but for the convenience of other readers, I've posted the headers to the Groklaw articles which contain the complete explanations.
# 7 Ecma 376 contradicts numerous international standards* 7.1 The Gregorian Calendar
* 7.2 ISO 8601 (Representation of dates and times)
* 7.3 ISO 639 (Codes for the Representation of Names and Languages)
* 7.4 ISO/IEC 8632 (Computer Graphics Metafile)
* 7.5 ISO/IEC 26300:2006 (OpenDocument Format for Office Applications)
* 7.6 W3C SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics)
* 7.7 W3C MathML (Mathematical Markup Language)
* 7.8 ISO/IEC 10118-3, W3C XML-ENC, and other cryptographic hash standards
* 7.9 W3C SMIL (Synchronized Multimedia Integration Language)
# 8 Ecma 376 is immature and inconsistent
* 8.1 Fabricates units of measurement
* 8.2 Internal inconsistencies: the w:sz element
* 8.3 Internal inconsistencies and omissions: ST_Border
* 8.4 Confusing and inconsistent definitions of lengths of hexadecimal numbers
* 8.5 Unspecified terms: plain text
* 8.6 Poor names and inconsistent naming conventions for elements and attributes
* 8.7 Inflexible notation for percentages
* 8.8 Inappropriate non-document settings (application settings)
* 8.9 Non-XML formatting codes
* 8.10 Inflexible numbering format
* 8.11 Uses a Microsoft-specific namespace
# 9 Ecma 376 uses bitmasks, inhibiting extensibility and use of standard XML tools
* 9.1 Background: bitmasks
* 9.2 Bitmasks in Ecma 376
* 9.3 Bitmasks are not extensible
* 9.4 Bitmasks cause significant validation problems
* 9.5 Bitmasks defeat XSLT manipulation
* 9.6 Bitmasks conflict with the Ecma TC45 charter
# 10 Ecma 376 relies on undisclosed information
* 10.1 Undisclosed proprietary specifications
* 10.2 Cloning the behaviour of proprietary applications
* 10.3 Relies on application-defined behaviors
# 11 Ecma 376 cannot be adequately evaluated within the 30-day evaluation period
* 11.1 Ecma 376 has not met the stability requirement
# 12 Ecma 376 cannot be reasonably implemented by other vendors
* 12.1 Ecma 376 requires implementation of undisclosed specifications
* 12.2 The "compatibility with legacy formats" can only be implemented by Microsoft
* 12.3 Patent rights to implement the Ecma 376 specification have not been granted
o 12.3.1 The Microsoft covenants not to sue grant no rights
o 12.3.2 Microsoft licensing documents are ambiguous
+ 12.3.2.1 The Microsoft Open Specification Promise is ambiguous
+ 12.3.2.2 The Microsoft Covenant Not to Sue is irrelevant and ambiguous in any event
* 12.4 End-User License Agreements (EULAs) may forbid full implementation
Anyone wishing to understand the full risks of implementing OOXML in their own software should read the Groklaw page very carefully.
Yep, and the GPL3 stories seem to draw a lot of flies as well. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/07/149 240
Makes you think the FSF might be on the right track after all.
It's both closed and proprietary.
OOXML is a dump into XML of all the data from existing Office formats. It can only be fully implemented by the vendor of MS Office.1 720521698
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200701
No, it's absolutely clear that Microsoft wants the opposite of free formats.
No, that's just the best you have chosen to find yet.
Others have documented plenty of flaws and contradictions within the OOXML spec, including here http://www.consortiuminfo.org/standardsblog/articl e.php?story=20070117145745854.
If you choose to ignore the evidence, that's up to you. It doesn't change anything else though.
It's already happening where I live.
Most of the wholesalers and whitebox distributors here are offering budget computers with Ubuntu installed. They're cheaper and perform better than the Windows equivalents.
Dell can survive without offering a Linux alternative since they pay little or nothing for their Windows licenses, but they risk being swamped by the next wave of boxshifters if they hold back too long.
No, they're not trying to crush Linux.
What they're trying to do is pry the whole of FOSS development out of the community and into the commercial arena by creating a mesh of patent agreements with other commercial organisations.
They've used the SCO lawsuits to move the focus of software IP from copyright to patents, and now they're establishing a financial base to a massive collection of patents as transactions between them and their partners. What that does is create a value for the lost revenue which they can claim as a result of any infringement. Once this is in place, Microsoft themselves don't need to sue anyone directly. They can use a sock-puppet partner, or just wait for the inevitable, given the US's litigious patent history. In either case, it will provide a massive chilling effect to independent and FOSS software.
By indemnifying those who've established those transactions, they can do this in a way which won't invite reprisals from their existing competitors. However, any developer not affiliated with one of MS's patent partners will be treading a minefield, and a minefield in which the cost of a false step is clearly established and very large.It's a very clever move, and I think it will succeed in marginalising FOSS developers who aren't protected by large organisations.
Microsoft know it can deal with businesses, they're terrified by the amorphous mass of developers fostered by licenses like the GPL. By isolating small developers and hobbyists, they can make community software development irrelevant. This also explains why there's been so much astroturf trying to demonize GPL3 lately, both here and in the wider computer community. I suspect however, that GPL3 will be too little, too late, given the scope of Microsoft's patent strategy.
It will be interesting times ahead, but I think Microsoft's picked a winner here.
Look at the shadows and highlights - the sun's coming from the bottom left of the picture, looks like an elevation of about 60 degrees. If that's the case, for the sun not to be directly illuminating the bottom, the cavity would be more than 180m deep.
Yeah, but how many people let theirs post on Slashdot?
God was making gorilla biscuits and pushed a bit too hard?
Yeah, well they still offer Linux consulting services.
And since I suspect the parent poster was more interested in spreading FUD than furthering the discussion, they might be a good match for him/her.
Why would you think that?
It hasn't been happening so far. http://www.projectcensored.org/newsflash/ap_bias.h tml
Sun, IBM, Novell, Oracle, Red Hat, UTS, SCO, HP, etc, etc, etc...
So do I, but the data that was on them now occupies a tiny portion of the hard drives in my current computers. It's been copied onto half a dozen different backup formats, and I expect it'll migrate across a multitude more in the course of my life.
Preserving digital information takes less effort than storing paper prints.
Maybe. But if you'd move about six inches to the left, I'd be able to see your TV a whole lot better.
Funny thing is, I used to do that too - I wrote an auditing tool and an explosives management app that we used to load onto ruggedised Palms and sell to mining companies. It was simple enough that you could hand it to a field assistant and expect they'd be able to use it.
I still believe that's what the design brief for PDA phones should be - not this mess of arcane menus and half-arsed apps that you can't even be confident will sound it's alarms when you need it to.
Not any more, there aren't.
Microsoft insisted that all ROMs be removed as of February this year. They're all gone now.
Offering these ROMs has been an invaluable resource to many developers and enthusiasts. Every once in a while someone uploaded an image that was not supposed to be released yet, but when Microsoft or someone else complained we immediately took it down. Recently Microsoft has begun to complain on a different level, asking us to remove _all_ the ROM images.http://www.xda-developers.com/modules.php?name=Ne
Not on my version, it doesn't.
But I suppose it is more fun to hate on Microsoft.
It'd be MUCH more fun to have a decent phone/pda operating system.