[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
Re: [xml-dev] "Open XML" et al... Blech... Re: [xml-dev] Microsoft buys the Swedish vote on OOXML?
- From: Rick Marshall <rjm@zenucom.com>
- To: Len Bullard <len.bullard@uai.com>
- Date: Sun, 09 Sep 2007 09:36:14 +1000
I think this misses the big point. It started in MA and went around the
world - a realisation by government that electronic documentation has
really replaced paper in a very large number of cases. And from that
follows the requirements for the law to continue functioning in a fair
and open manner that electronic documents used by government and public
companies - at least - should be accessible on a permanent basis
irrespective of the existence, let alone success or failure, of the
developer of the electronic format.
So ODF and OOXML can look like they are in a titanic struggle for market
dominance - and that probably suits both of them - but it ignores the
fact that at some point the life and/or well being of an individual or
group may well depend on the ability of an independent person to stand
up in court and certify that a document says what it appears to say.
eg that has to do explicitly with whether or not key information can be
hidden in a document.
After the paper has gone and after the companies have gone the
commercial, legal, and archive worlds will depend absolutely on how
effective this process has been.
I think that makes the process and surrounding discussions, like this
one, very important.
Regards
Rick
Len Bullard wrote:
>
> The problem isn't the giving or the using of what I given. It is when
> patents are granted, the taking from the commons of what is given to
> the commons supported by taxpayer dollars and sponsored by the very
> organizations that encourage the giving.
>
>
>
> You can't separate them, Stephen. Like those who dislike these
> discussions, they blind themselves to the bad to reap the good and
> then want to squelch anyone who notices it. That is why the
> comparisons are made to the charade played in the Beltway for the last
> two administrations. It is a rip off except it is being paid in blood
> in that case. We do have a different issue here, but if the process
> at ISO plays out unencumbered by these politics as it should, that
> would work, but it seldom does because of the smoke of 'openness' or
> 'rights' or 'illegal means'. It's ALL FUD and it is sponsored FUD.
>
>
>
> I don't know of a clean way so process is what we have. David
> Megginson tries to make the case that process is bad. Process is all
> we have and those who try to take that away from you may be as Tim
> Bray labels the, "tools or fools" or both, but take notice who
> profits, who gets the fine positions in the big companies and leads
> you into the sheep shearing line and the sad bit is you are so easily led.
>
>
>
> Process is ALL you have. If MS despite their bungling plays to the
> process in accordance with the process, then they implement products
> that meet the market needs, they win fairly. If in the face of
> competition, companies like IBM, Red Hat, Sun and others put FUD on
> the street, fund the attacks, and encourage the pile on in the face of
> process, then they are the villains in this piece. I've friends in
> all of those companies but at some point the ethics have to match the
> actions or the willingness to submit to process dies. The magic dies.
>
>
>
> So here we are waiting for comments to be resolved.
>
>
>
> len
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> *From:* Stephen D. Williams [mailto:sdw@lig.net]
>
>
> Ayn Rand was right.
>
> She was, but, for the most part, this is not about that. Open source is not anti-objectivism. For many people, via the mechanisms above and others, it is in fact a good embodiement of objectivism. Power to the people by using the power of the people. Ayn was rightly denigrating the stealing / taxing / coopting of those who can to give / do / create to those who can't / won't and allowing the recipients to be guilt-free and even righteous about their "right" to receive. Open source is about giving, giving back when you receive, and a network effect / software-can-be-duplicated-for-free market where everyone benefits more than they put in. Just because dollars aren't changing hands as much doesn't mean that it isn't a market.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> XML-DEV is a publicly archived, unmoderated list hosted by OASIS to
> support XML implementation and development. To minimize spam in the
> archives, you must subscribe before posting. [Un]Subscribe/change
> address: http://www.oasis-open.org/mlmanage/ Or unsubscribe:
> xml-dev-unsubscribe@lists.xml.org subscribe:
> xml-dev-subscribe@lists.xml.org List archive:
> http://lists.xml.org/archives/xml-dev/ List Guidelines:
> http://www.oasis-open.org/maillists/guidelines.phpThis email and any
> files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you
> have received this email in error please notify the sender. This
> message contains confidential information and is intended only for the
> individual named. If you are not the named addressee you should not
> disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]