Hi,
I was mildly surprised not to see the URL below hit this list.
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/novells_danaergeschenk
However this could be because this list is for discussion. Well to overcome that issue, perhaps we need to discuss how to get this information in front of every possible purchaser of the named software packages perhaps is as I view it important.
Maybe a slogan could be one like this:
Find out if OpenXML(r) is actually useful to your business. Answer these Questions: ...
Or perhaps this:
Now that you must change, why not abandon those who tell you how to run your business, gain freedom to think and don't be dictated to.
Or even this: Innovate, adapt, exceed your own expectations.
Or this: Who said you can't?
Arm people with the information about who is cutting down on if not orphaning their existing information transfer ability. Enlightenment may follow.
Regards,
Paul
|| On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 20:17:04 +0000 || Paul O'Malley ompaul@eircom.net wrote:
po> I was mildly surprised not to see the URL below hit this list.
po> http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/novells_danaergeschenk
My apologies, I forgot. :-/
But at least I can point out this one, which is a followup that I've just put online:
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/openxml_wrap_up_after_d12k
po> However this could be because this list is for discussion. Well po> to overcome that issue, perhaps we need to discuss how to get po> this information in front of every possible purchaser of the po> named software packages perhaps is as I view it important.
I think that is an excellent idea.
See also
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/fellow_me_say_no_to_vienna_ma...
for possible inspiration.
Maybe it would be interesting to have a set of web banners to support ODF and Open Standards that people could put up?
Regards, Georg
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 08:34 +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/openxml_wrap_up_after_d12k
I have to confess to being worried about asking people not to improve free software applications for specific political purposes.
For example, the comments on the Microsoft-funded ODF<->OXML converter (which is actually the software Novell propose to use, in the short term) really confuse me. We should improve software for users of proprietary systems, but not use that functionality ourselves?!
Making ODT export from Word easy is one thing. Enshrining Office's continuing position as the number 1 implementer of office file formats is quite another. For example, I have a document preparation system based entirely on ODF, because it's an easy format to develop for, but also because by building on top of OpenOffice.org, I can output to a variety of other formats.
By giving Office the lead in that area, people like me are going to stop using tools like OpenOffice.org and use Office instead, because their output will be more widely compatible (if they even care about ODF support at all - last time I looked, there were fewer than six hundred ODF documents on the *entire* web according to Google, and those few webservers which make them available using the correct MIME type do so mostly at my persuasion).
*By all means*, people need to support OpenDocument. There are many, many useful things people can do - for example, login to Apache's bugzilla and vote on my bug to make OpenDocument mime types work by default:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38301
(This bug is almost a year old, even though I supplied a patch!)
I agree with much of Michael Meeks' analysis:
http://www.gnome.org/~michael/activity.html#2006-12-11
The "open standards" thing is less important than getting people to use free software. Improving the quality of the software and the feature set, especially in the office world, is one of the main drivers we have to get people to use it.
Militating against OXML may end up serving no useful purpose than to make OpenOffice.org and friends more unusable than they are now.
Cheers,
Alex.
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:36:44 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> I have to confess to being worried about asking people not to ah> improve free software applications for specific political ah> purposes.
That sentence is based on the assumption that adding OpenXML support to OpenOffice.org is an improvement of OpenOffice.org.
But as the articles explain, I don't think that "more code" is always a good thing. Supporting OpenXML will mainly serve to undermine what has just become a truly Open Standard for that purpose.
Support for OpenXML will be a strong argument against ODF usage in various institutions, which will create inherent pressure to migrate to Microsoft Office for full OpenXML support.
Putting ODF into Microsoft Office is the much more interesting path, and people have been pushing for this on various levels. It seems that getting OpenXML into OpenOffice.org now is the pushback.
Regards, Georg
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 10:49 +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 09:36:44 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> I have to confess to being worried about asking people not to ah> improve free software applications for specific political ah> purposes.
That sentence is based on the assumption that adding OpenXML support to OpenOffice.org is an improvement of OpenOffice.org.
Not really.
Adding extra file format compatibility is pretty obviously an improvement to an application.
The assumption is that by withholding (or, equally, by pushing for) certain features, political goals can be achieved - that, by direction, some greater good can be attained.
I outlined to you at least one practical scenario where the political goal would not be achieved with that tactic: in fact, it would do entirely the opposite - it would enshrine Microsoft Office further. I can think of other ways in which this tactic would be entirely damaging to OpenDocument migration.
I don't believe that OpenOffice.org, or any other free suite, inability to read OXML will have any effect on the take-up of OXML. I also don't believe that their lack of support will detract in any way from OXML being seen as an open standard, if/when ISO approves it.
On the other hand, I could readily believe that by asking OOo not to support OXML, we are preventing people from using OOo in scenarios that it would otherwise be suitable for.
I personally believe the "open standards" thing is more or less a red herring. My Government already specifies Word 97 for interoperability and accessibility purposes. They define their technical standards not on the whimsy of some international standards org, but on the marketplace reality of what software is on offer. For OpenDocument to succeed in this marketplace, the ISO marque is vastly less important than OpenOffice.org being seen to be a reliable and credible competitor - and we have one Council actually using it now. Asking OOo to be less competitive in the future is commercial suicide IMHO.
Cheers,
Alex.
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:17:19 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
That sentence is based on the assumption that adding OpenXML support to OpenOffice.org is an improvement of OpenOffice.org.
ah> Not really.
ah> Adding extra file format compatibility is pretty obviously an ah> improvement to an application.
This brings to mind the old quote
"For every complex problem there is a simple and wrong solution."
Once again: I think that most of these points were made in the articles, but the reason Microsoft tries to market OpenXML as an "alternative standard" to ODF is precisely that more and more governments around the world start to mandate Open Standards.
The strategy to declare OpenXML "another accepted standard" aims at maintaining their ability to keep OpenOffice.org and other programs out of the market.
Once OpenOffice.org has rudimentary OpenXML support, because it is the flagship of ODF, Microsoft will turn around to governments and say: See, you can stay with Microsoft office, even OpenOffice.org supports the format, but look, in OO.org the graphics are so broken, and these little images don't display, at all. So stay with us.
Supporting OpenXML means keeping the situation as it is now, while I believe we have a real chance to improve it -- there is a strong drive to allow more competition, which is backed by pretty much everyone but Microsoft.
Regards, Georg
Alex Hudson wrote:
By giving Office the lead in that area, people like me are going to stop using tools like OpenOffice.org and use Office instead, because their output will be more widely compatible [...]
I don't understand why and when you stop(ped) using OpenOffice.org. The output of it is maximally compatible.
*By all means*, people need to support OpenDocument.
So what are you arguing about in this list? I guess we all here support OpenDocument.
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 11:04 +0100, Max Moritz Sievers wrote:
Alex Hudson wrote:
By giving Office the lead in that area, people like me are going to stop using tools like OpenOffice.org and use Office instead, because their output will be more widely compatible [...]
I don't understand why and when you stop(ped) using OpenOffice.org. The output of it is maximally compatible.
Well, I haven't yet (and am unlikely to!), but I can give you a firm example from a recent project.
I have a set of documents which are generated from an automated system, which comprise many hundreds of pages and are turned into OpenDocument. Now, Word support is a must, but converting them into Word is pretty difficult (e.g., OpenOffice.org is unable to handle numbered lists with breaks in them, when converting). However, this pain is less than trying to do it in Office and trying to do the other conversions (HTML, PDF).
If Office gains excellent OpenDocument support, but going from OpenOffice.org -> Office remains as painful as today, Office then becomes the obvious place to do this kind of work.
You're right, today OOo output is maximally compatible. Without OXML support, though, tomorrow it won't be. If you make decisions purely on that basis, you wouldn't choose OOo in the future. That would harm OOo.
*By all means*, people need to support OpenDocument.
So what are you arguing about in this list? I guess we all here support OpenDocument.
I'm talking about militating against OpenXML support in free software, which I think actually harms those applications which support OpenDocument, and provides disincentives to people using it.
Cheers,
Alex.
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:37:09 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> I'm talking about militating against OpenXML support in free ah> software, which I think actually harms those applications which ah> support OpenDocument, and provides disincentives to people using ah> it.
You are making the assumption that every Free Software project can implement a 6000 pages specification written around Microsofts quirks and bugs, which Andrew Shebanow calculated to an effort of around 150 person years according to Microsofts own information, while Steve Ballmer already stated that it won't work 100%.
But that would only give the minimal support, as it would lack all the Microsoft environment around it, which means reimplementing Microsofts proprietary version of lots of contained data.
That's why Bob Sutor of IBM said that people would probably have to clone much of the Windows infrastructure, which he considered both technologically and economically unfeasible for IBM.
Besides this being an entirely undesirable goal, I think it is totally unrealistic to believe that Free Software projects would be able to do this well enough in one or even five years.
Whatever the support would be, it would only be good enough to allow migration from Free Software to Microsoft Office, which is why Bob Sutor calls it a "one-way standard."
Indeed I don't think we should invest any time into undermining our own efforts and wasting our own resources only to create a channel that will only serve one purpose: allowing people to migrate away from Free Software towards Microsoft Office.
Regards, Georg
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 11:57 +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 10:37:09 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> I'm talking about militating against OpenXML support in free ah> software, which I think actually harms those applications which ah> support OpenDocument, and provides disincentives to people using ah> it.
You are making the assumption that every Free Software project can implement a 6000 pages specification
No, I'm not.
I'm specifically questioning the tactic of asking our primary office suite, OpenOffice.org, to not support that file format.
Indeed I don't think we should invest any time into undermining our own efforts and wasting our own resources only to create a channel that will only serve one purpose: allowing people to migrate away from Free Software towards Microsoft Office.
You're arguing that, but you're not addressing the concerns I'm raising.
OXML doesn't open up a new migration route away from free software: we already have one, the binary formats. The support will be basically equivalent.
OXML does open up a migration route, though - it would allow people who have documents in OXML format to migrate *to* OpenOffice.org. The OpenDocument route will not be sufficient to do that: OpenDocument cannot represent all the features of an OXML file (e.g., some types of page break). Also, by asking people to install the OpenDocument converter, you're asking them to install .NET and all sorts of other Microsoft technology, and it won't help those users of Microsoft Office who aren't able to install that stuff (e.g., Office 2000 users).
If the issue of OXML becoming an international standard came down to whether or not OpenOffice.org supported that format, I might agree with you. The truth of the matter is that it doesn't - instead, we're asking developers to effectively try to lock users into OpenOffice.org.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 11:35 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
OpenDocument cannot represent all the features of an OXML file (e.g., some types of page break).
does anybody know if there is a feature comparison between the two standards, ODF and OOXML?
Also, is there a legal analysis of how safe Microsoft's standard is safe to implement in free software? I know SFLC analised ODF (here are the results http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/OpenDocument.html).
thanks stef
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 15:02 +0100, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 11:35 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
OpenDocument cannot represent all the features of an OXML file (e.g., some types of page break).
does anybody know if there is a feature comparison between the two standards, ODF and OOXML?
There isn't one which is up-to-date (some were written for previous OXML drafts). In general, there isn't a lot more complexity per se in OXML - there's a lot more detail in the spec., but the only really significant feature additions are the declaration of a formula syntax and basic functionality, and the design for import of HTML/RTF/etc. built into the format.
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/blog/ and the associated test documents are one of the best places to find the interoperability differences (e.g., features that are difficult to convert from one to another).
Also, is there a legal analysis of how safe Microsoft's standard is safe to implement in free software? I know SFLC analised ODF (here are the results http://www.softwarefreedom.org/publications/OpenDocument.html).
Not one that I would trust. Some people say it's fine, others say it's not. In particular, I don't think anyone has analysed it since MS made available the Open Specification Promise, although many people started implementing OXML since before then.
It would be nice for someone like SFLC to actually have a look. If you do a side-by-side with the Sun patent agreement, there isn't a huge heap of difference.
Cheers,
Alex.
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 14:31 +0000, Alex Hudson wrote:
http://odf-converter.sourceforge.net/blog/ and the associated test documents are one of the best places to find the interoperability differences (e.g., features that are difficult to convert from one to another).
Thank you, it's a very interesting blog: another one in my roster :)
It would be nice for someone like SFLC to actually have a look. If you do a side-by-side with the Sun patent agreement, there isn't a huge heap of difference.
That's exactly what I was thinking: I would really like to know if the patent promise by Microsoft is fair with Free Software. If I find out I'll let you know.
bye stef
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 16:00 +0100, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
That's exactly what I was thinking: I would really like to know if the patent promise by Microsoft is fair with Free Software. If I find out I'll let you know.
I have received a link to this document:
http://openxmldeveloper.org/archive/2006/11/27/IDC_Open_Document_Standards.a...
IDC is not to be trusted, that's for sure, but it's still a nice reading :)
bye stef
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 17:13 +0100, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 16:00 +0100, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
That's exactly what I was thinking: I would really like to know if the patent promise by Microsoft is fair with Free Software. If I find out I'll let you know.
I have received a link to this document:
http://openxmldeveloper.org/archive/2006/11/27/IDC_Open_Document_Standards.a...
IDC is not to be trusted, that's for sure, but it's still a nice reading :)
No, it is obscene, a waste of time imo (I wasted that time to go through it).
Simo.
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:35:36 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> You're arguing that, but you're not addressing the concerns I'm ah> raising.
I did address your concerns in the first article
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/novells_danaergeschenk
because it essentially confirms and reiterates the first mechanism that MS tries to bring to bear against ODF, which I called
1. Incompatibility is always the fault of the competitor
As I agreed in the article, that mechanism is undoubtedly powerful, and there are indeed many people who are likely to punish the competitor for misbehaviour of the dominant player by choosing the dominant players' product.
But putting OpenXML into OO.org will not solve that problem in reality, as there will be plenty of incompatibility left that can be blamed on OO.org, which people will use as justification to switch to Microsoft Office -- theoretical OpenXML support or not.
As explained, having such theoretical OpenXML support in OO.org WILL serve to undermine ODF, however, and make sure that it will not get the wide adoption it deserves.
ah> OXML doesn't open up a new migration route away from free ah> software: we already have one, the binary formats. The support ah> will be basically equivalent.
See above. I also addressed the difference between those situations in the wrap-up, available at
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/openxml_wrap_up_after_d12k
in the section "Difference to .doc import?"
Regards, Georg
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 15:48 +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 11:35:36 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> You're arguing that, but you're not addressing the concerns I'm ah> raising.
I did address your concerns in the first article
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/novells_danaergeschenk
To be honest, you didn't - you're looking just at potential danger of supporting OXML. You're ignoring the potential danger of _not_ supporting it, and I don't see how you can reach a conclusion without doing so.
But, this isn't an argument about OXML in general. I may or may not agree with your points about OXML being undermining as an international standard; but I don't think that has any bearing on OpenOffice.org.
I don't see people walking away from OOo in droves because the OXML filter isn't amazing; we have that problem already (.doc) and people live with it.
I also don't see that ISO or a Government or anyone else is going to give two figs as to whether or not OOo implements OXML when deciding whether or not OXML is an international standard. They don't care about a single product.
What I *do* see is that opportunities like Bristol Council in the UK, who deployed StarOffice, would be missed in the future if OOo didn't have generous multi-file format support.
Out of, "I can't use OpenXML because OpenOffice.org doesn't support it", and "I can't use OpenOffice.org, because it doesn't read OpenXML" - I know which one is more likely.
OpenDocument is a lovely file format, and has many things going for it. It won't succeed, however, just because public organisations mandate it and because software which uses it doesn't interoperate. If nothing else, we'll get half-assed situations like MA where they stick with Office and try to use an ODF plugin.
What we _need_ is people using free software which talks OpenDocument natively. Like Bristol, not MA.
ah> OXML doesn't open up a new migration route away from free ah> software: we already have one, the binary formats. The support ah> will be basically equivalent.
See above. I also addressed the difference between those situations in the wrap-up, available at
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/openxml_wrap_up_after_d12k
You're addressing a different argument.
My point is that if you think OXML is simply a migration path, then we're already in that situation and OpenDocument is already undermined, because we have the binary formats.
The corollary to that is that I don't believe OXML is only good for migrating people to Office.
Cheers,
Alex.
The question is, isn't OXML a binary format, too?
For what I understood OXML seems to be a fully documented container, which get's filled with tons of proprietary contents. That makes it de-facto useless for exchanging documents between applications of the Microsoft Windows technology family and the rest of the IT.
I see the scenario, where someone produces a document with a Microsoft application and sends it, in the standardized OXML format to a OpenOffice.org user. Let's say OOo has already been extended by Novell to fully support OXML. But the OOo user doesn't use the Microsoft Windows operating system and therefore the incorporated content cannot be interpreted. The user will be unable to fully enjoy the content of the document and will be forced to switch to Microsoft technology.
Today decision makers have in some extend understood the difference between a binary, proprietary format and open standards. But will they understand the difference between a standardized container format with lots of proprietary undocumented content in it and a fully documented Open Standard like ODF?
Will they go on with their plans to migrate to free software applications like OpenOffice.org or will they stop migrating and just answer there is no need anymore, because they now, after migrating to the new MsOffice, use a standardized open format called OXML?
I think today the most important thing is advocating for the use of ODF and for Free Software applications supporting it. We have the chance to get a well documented open format become the de-facto standard and let MS deal with it. It's not like the DOC/XLS/PPT infection we were faced the all this years, it's a different situation and we have to preserve our advantage.
Happy hacking! Patrick
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 17:44:40 +0100 || Patrick Ohnewein patrick.ohnewein@lugbz.org wrote:
po> I think today the most important thing is advocating for the use po> of ODF and for Free Software applications supporting it. We have po> the chance to get a well documented open format become the po> de-facto standard and let MS deal with it. It's not like the po> DOC/XLS/PPT infection we were faced the all this years, it's a po> different situation and we have to preserve our advantage.
Agreed.
The merit lies in promoting ODF & Free Software while keeping OpenXML at bay and/or pushing Microsoft to work with ODF.
Our main question is: How?
Regards, Georg
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 15:53:30 +0000 || Alex Hudson home@alexhudson.com wrote:
ah> To be honest, you didn't - you're looking just at potential ah> danger of supporting OXML. You're ignoring the potential danger ah> of _not_ supporting it, and I don't see how you can reach a ah> conclusion without doing so.
The whole point is about the danger of incompatibility.
But as I wrote, that danger seems only partially dependent on whether OpenXML will be officially included, as too many of the containers will never be supported and there are too many quirks to really get things right.
In other words: Yes, if you put OpenXML into OO.org, people will be able to read parts of the documents, some parts won't work at all, others will display in broken ways and their general impression will be that OpenOffice is crap because they see how it all works marvellously at their friends machine that is running MS office.
To some extent a similar problem exists with binary formats, yes, but those were never supposed to be interoperable, so people are less critical about such bugs. Also I expect these problems to be worse.
ah> What we _need_ is people using free software which talks ah> OpenDocument natively. Like Bristol, not MA.
On this we agree entirely.
ah> My point is that if you think OXML is simply a migration path, ah> then we're already in that situation and OpenDocument is already ah> undermined, because we have the binary formats.
Yes, I understood that you tried to say that, but it seems that I am not able to explain to you why I see the situations as fundamentally different.
Regards, Georg
|| On Tue, 12 Dec 2006 22:34:06 +0100 || Max Moritz Sievers mms@fsfe.org wrote:
My point is that if you think OXML is simply a migration path, [...]
mms> Today no one is using OXML. There will be very few in the near mms> future. So I can't see OXML as a migration path.
If a road is in construction, nobody is using it either, but that does not mean we cannot tell where it is leading. :)
Regards, Georg
Hi,
Am Di, 12.12.2006, 10:36, schrieb Alex Hudson:
On Tue, 2006-12-12 at 08:34 +0100, Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
http://www.fsfe.org/fellows/greve/freedom_bits/openxml_wrap_up_after_d12k
I have to confess to being worried about asking people not to improve free software applications for specific political purposes.
Why? OpenXML is a political issue, Free Software is a political issue.
For example, the comments on the Microsoft-funded ODF<->OXML converter (which is actually the software Novell propose to use, in the short term) really confuse me. We should improve software for users of proprietary systems, but not use that functionality ourselves?!
OpenXML will never work for users of Free Software (as has been pointed out now so many times), so every effort to use it is wasted (at best) or even counterproductive by weakening the only standard Free Software can implement: ODF.
Making ODT export from Word easy is one thing. Enshrining Office's continuing position as the number 1 implementer of office file formats is quite another. For example, I have a document preparation system based entirely on ODF, because it's an easy format to develop for, but also because by building on top of OpenOffice.org, I can output to a variety of other formats.
By giving Office the lead in that area, people like me are going to stop using tools like OpenOffice.org and use Office instead, because their output will be more widely compatible
Nobody here wants to give MSOffice a lead in this area (ODF is really a standard, so no one leads here). Better ODF handling is a primer for that, giving enterprises the chance to a) cooperate with users using Free Software b) switch to Free Software
[snip]
The "open standards" thing is less important than getting people to use free software.
No, as should get clear from the above.
Improving the quality of the software and the feature set, especially in the office world, is one of the main drivers we have to get people to use it.
I don't want 6000+ pages of "features". I don't need them and they never can be got working.
Militating against OXML may end up serving no useful purpose than to make OpenOffice.org and friends more unusable than they are now.
Trying to include OpenXML would break OOo entirely.
Just my 2 cents Michael Kallas
Ter, 2006-12-12 às 09:36 +0000, Alex Hudson escreveu:
I have to confess to being worried about asking people not to improve free software applications for specific political purposes.
For example, the comments on the Microsoft-funded ODF<->OXML converter
Huge interpretation problem on *your* *side*:
It's not <->, but only ->
<- is impossible to do fully by definition of OXML
Hence it's an ODF->OXML Microsoft-funded converter.
To reject this backstage deal is not a specific political purpose, but a matter of survival.
Would you build a perfect gun if you knew your slaverer was going to use it on you?
Rui
Ter, 2006-12-12 Ã s 09:36 +0000, Alex Hudson escreveu:
Huge interpretation problem on *your* *side*:
It's not <->, but only ->
<- is impossible to do fully by definition of OXML
Hence it's an ODF->OXML Microsoft-funded converter.
To reject this backstage deal is not a specific political purpose, but a matter of survival.
To reject an extension to a free software program is trying to make it non free. Freedom in software must extend even to unwanted acts. Fortunately the freedoms of really free software can't be taken back.
Who do you think we are to reject free software contributions ? You may simply not install it on your systems. You could try to persuade the OOo team not to accept it in the "official" version, and if successful you would see a kind of fork somewhere and see which one gets more users. And I think many users will want an OXML export feature, unfortunately. Freedom brings this. The solution is not to reject contributions, it is to teach users. Users are the most powerful part of any infomration system, much more so in free software. This means they can do more good and more bad. As always, with more freedom comes more responsability, so we should try to convince users, not restrict them.
Would you build a perfect gun if you knew your slaverer was going to use it on you?
No, but then I wouldn't be a slave ? . Someone else would. But I use free software in order to be less slave. I wouldn't code the ODF->OXML filter myself nor will I encourage (much less pay) anyone to do so. But MS or Novell or whoever will. And it will be written. And we need this to be possible in order not to lose a greater good, freedom in OOo.
Now it would be much more interesting to teach people why OXML is a bad format (essentially because it is designed to the features of a single program, so there'll only be one program to fully implement it, and even if there were more this would give little choice since they would all be alike, by OXML design). So that people don't use OXML, don't use .doc, and use open standards. Maybe we'll be luckier this time than we were with the .doc format. At least OXML is still just beginning...
Sex, 2006-12-22 às 10:31 +0100, Xavi Drudis Ferran escreveu:
Ter, 2006-12-12 Ã s 09:36 +0000, Alex Hudson escreveu:
Huge interpretation problem on *your* *side*:
It's not <->, but only ->
<- is impossible to do fully by definition of OXML
Hence it's an ODF->OXML Microsoft-funded converter.
To reject this backstage deal is not a specific political purpose, but a matter of survival.
To reject an extension to a free software program is trying to make it non free. Freedom in software must extend even to unwanted acts. Fortunately the freedoms of really free software can't be taken back.
Who do you think we are to reject free software contributions ?
If you notice, I said "reject this backstage deal".
There's no need for this "backstage deal" in order for OO.o to support OpenXML. This was a deal which has had already achieved enormous success:
LOOK HOW WE'RE FIGHTING EACH OTHER OVER THIS SUBJECT!
Rui
Sex, 2006-12-22 Ã s 10:31 +0100, Xavi Drudis Ferran escreveu:
Ter, 2006-12-12 Ã s 09:36 +0000, Alex Hudson escreveu:
If you notice, I said "reject this backstage deal".
Then I must beg your pardon but I thought "this backstage deal" meant an arragement between Novell and MS to develop and distribute an extension to OpenOffice.org that will export OXML files from ODF documents. I'd like you to elaborate what did you mean by backstage deal.
There's no need for this "backstage deal" in order for OO.o to support OpenXML. This was a deal which has had already achieved enormous success:
Now, I'm completely lost. So you think it would be good if OO.o was able to export to OpenXML as long as it wasn't MS who payed for it ? Or are you talking some other functionality?. I guess you mean OpenXML _import_ into OO.o ? But not far in this thread this was said to be unfeasible, and from what I hear I think it is unfeasible, since completely importing OpenXML documents would mean implementing all MS Offisce and most MS Windows functionality with possibly third party add ons.
LOOK HOW WE'RE FIGHTING EACH OTHER OVER THIS SUBJECT!
Are we ? . At least it's not my intention. I'm still in the phase of trying to understand you, since it seems I didn't. Once I understand I may give opinion on your opinion or not. Fighting you seems unnecessary. I'd be surprised if you ever became any form of threat after being helpful all along. But I'd like not to happen to me, that's why I'm listening.
Sex, 2006-12-22 às 11:03 +0100, Xavi Drudis Ferran escreveu:
Sex, 2006-12-22 Ã s 10:31 +0100, Xavi Drudis Ferran escreveu:
Ter, 2006-12-12 Ã s 09:36 +0000, Alex Hudson escreveu:
If you notice, I said "reject this backstage deal".
Then I must beg your pardon but I thought "this backstage deal" meant an arragement between Novell and MS to develop and distribute an extension to OpenOffice.org that will export OXML files from ODF documents. I'd like you to elaborate what did you mean by backstage deal.
The deal was negotiated in backstages, and presented as a consumated fact, co-announced by Microsoft and Novell.
There's no need for this "backstage deal" in order for OO.o to support OpenXML.
Now, I'm completely lost. So you think it would be good if OO.o was able to export to OpenXML as long as it wasn't MS who payed for it ? Or are you talking some other functionality?. I guess you mean OpenXML _import_ into OO.o ? But not far in this thread this was said to be unfeasible, and from what I hear I think it is unfeasible, since completely importing OpenXML documents would mean implementing all MS Offisce and most MS Windows functionality with possibly third party add ons.
I don't think supporting it at all has any particular relevance. Taking in account all the non implementable stuff, what's the difference between using Microsoft's format, as currently done, and yet another "denial of service" format?
This was a deal which has had already achieved enormoussuccess: LOOK HOW WE'RE FIGHTING EACH OTHER OVER THIS SUBJECT!
Are we ? . At least it's not my intention. I'm still in the phase of trying to understand you, since it seems I didn't. Once I understand I may give opinion on your opinion or not. Fighting you seems unnecessary. I'd be surprised if you ever became any form of threat after being helpful all along. But I'd like not to happen to me, that's why I'm listening.
Not "we" in particular, but there's a lot of angst and mild irritation over this subject mostly everywhere.
Peace :)
Rui
|| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:31:49 +0100 (CET) || "Xavi Drudis Ferran" xdrudis@tinet.cat wrote:
xdf> To reject an extension to a free software program is trying to xdf> make it non free.
No. Freedom includes also the freedom to not want something.
Many of the best Free Software projects are good because they have avoided feature bloat -- in other words have declined extensions.
Regards, Georg
|| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:31:49 +0100 (CET) || "Xavi Drudis Ferran" xdrudis@tinet.cat wrote:
xdf> To reject an extension to a free software program is trying to xdf> make it non free.
No. Freedom includes also the freedom to not want something.
Many of the best Free Software projects are good because they have avoided feature bloat -- in other words have declined extensions.
Sure. That's why I added "You may simply not install it on your systems.". you are free to choose the features of the free software you develop and are even free to choose the features of non free software you develop (no offense intended). That's obvious. Software patents prevent this but this is another story.
Additionally you are free to remove features from free software (non-free software does not enjoy this advantage), because you are free to develop versions of it. But you can't choose for others what features go in their versions of any free program. That's what I meant.
If you could reject what features other people put in their versions of a program, then the program would not be free. Freedom menas you can take your choices and others can too.
If I reject feature Z in free program A this is irrelevant to anyone else (as it should be). Except when everyone gets their program from me to save themselves the trouble of adding or removing features. But when I reject feature Z in program A and people want it, then someone else may offer a version of program A with feature Z included. If someone couldn't then A wouldn't be free software (only recipients of the software get the freedom, not the whole world, but let's not make it unnecessarily complicated).
So I don't think calling that "I reject feature Z in program A" is very meaningful in free software.
I don't think we should expect to change MS policy, so if they pay for ODF->OXML conversion and make it available as free software, it will be available (assuming it can be programmed which everyone seems to think it can). Once it is available freedom allows you to choose whether to take it in your version of OOo or not. Freedom allows you to distribute OOo without ODF->OXML export, but it does not allow you to prevent MS, Novell or the Pope to distribute OOo with OXML export.
If you convince the OOo team of not including it then people who want it will simply get it from Novell, MS or the Pope. You can make it slightly more expensive for them to mantain their version, that's all. And you risk losing users which would defeat your purpose.
But you could also convince the OOo team of accepting the contribution after changing it to try to educate the user, highlight problems as they appear, etc. Give warnings and title them "consumer information notice", link them to the SELF project resources, highlight features in OOo not present in OXML, highlkight bloat in OXML not present in ODF, give additional warnings if the user tries to send it by email, even include a text in the converted document warning of its inability to work and the way to obtain an ISO 26300 or PDF/A version (as far as posible, you could ask the user the necessary info about where it will be stored or published), etc.
Then, if you manage to get the information accross, to convince users that information is useful and not make it too much of a nuisance. Then maybe users will prefer this version than the MS, Novell or catholic OOo. And maybe we get something out of it.
It can also be decided than even thus this feature is bloat and OOo is better without it. It's less code, less maintenance, likely less requirements... You could even try to educate users without including the feature. I don't know which is best. But I know that you can't decide this feature won't be available to users. you can only decide it won't be in the official OOo version (if you convince them).
Georg C. F. Greve wrote:
|| On Fri, 22 Dec 2006 10:31:49 +0100 (CET) || "Xavi Drudis Ferran" xdrudis@tinet.cat wrote:
xdf> To reject an extension to a free software program is trying to xdf> make it non free.
No. Freedom includes also the freedom to not want something.
Many of the best Free Software projects are good because they have avoided feature bloat -- in other words have declined extensions.
True; but I read his comment to mean "to argue against adding an extension to a free software program is to try to argue away freedom (of the other)".
Of course we see both sides; and as has clearly been acknowledged, it's up to the maintainers and all that they can do is increase the cost of the fork.
Sam