[odf-discuss] OpenDocument traps, was: UPGRADE monograph about OpenDocument and OOXML

Thomas Zander zander at kde.org
Sun Apr 1 13:16:54 EDT 2007


On Sunday 01 April 2007 19:11, M. Fioretti wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 01, 2007 13:07:37 PM +0200, Thomas Zander (zander at kde.org) 
wrote:
> > On Sunday 01 April 2007 12:49, M. Fioretti wrote:
> > > Feedback is welcome,
> >
> > Your part about patents is not entirely well thought out.
> > A file format is pretty hard to patent; there tend to be ways to
> > write a piece of software to convert it to another file format and
> > 'free' the document.
>
> I know, but this would only be enough (at least for a Public
> Administration which _should_ do everything by the letter of the law,
> which is the main context I worry and write about) if it were legal to
> write, distribute and publicly use (even once) that piece of software
> converter to free the document. At least as far as Free software is
> concerned.

And that would not be a problem, as I stated there are ways to sidestep the 
patent.
Or simply get 1 license to convert stuff.  Point is; your article claims that 
doom is impending while you are clearly leaving out all the legal ways of 
dealing with the issues you bring up.

> > But, sure, like mp3 has patent probems, there is some truth in it.
> > The bigger issue I have with your story is that this specific item
> > does not give problems for long term storage of the content. For the
> > simple reason that a patent is time limited.
>
> I *assume* you refer to this sentence:
>
> 1)	it is possible to have a perfectly Free as in Freedom XML
> 	container which is full of patent-ridden components
>
> If this is the case, please note that I say, in the previous
> paragraph:
>
> 2)	Objects of this kind can be placed inside an OpenDocument file
> 	even if their format is accessible only through patent-covered
> 	or otherwise proprietary software
>
> where "otherwise" includes trade secrets, documentation which was
> never written or destroyed after a while or everything else whose
> effects are not time-limited. This said, even in sentence (1) I _did_
> have in mind both patent-ridden or "otherwise proprietary software".

So, what you are saying is that besides patent problems there are other 
problems. Fine.
Then please remove all references to 'patent' where they are false and 
undermine the real argument you are trying to make.

-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.opendocumentfellowship.com/pipermail/odf-discuss/attachments/20070401/38be4a8d/attachment-0001.pgp


More information about the odf-discuss mailing list