I didn't hear any mention of a conversion program for any of the previous MS formats to ODF, or from OXML to ODF or any other open format. Then it may not be such a big deal, if you could do so legally, and without any type of proprietary hardware. That's what I love about the open source community though, they always find a way, regardless.
Microsoft makes me soo mad. They want to get OOXML standardized only to they can make openness harder. The lady representative asked good questions. How hard is it to see that MS is the only company to be hurt by true interoperability? I honestly hope that all those that are spreading crap about OOXML interpreters burn in Hell. Microsoft could damn well stop taking credit for other peoples work on those interpreters.
Why doesnt anybody see that any of the comments coming from the Microsoft people on the topic of OXML and "openness" - always skate around the fact that it will be licensable. It may be open and available to anyone to use - but at what cost? Someone needs to demonstrate not how each one technically works - but demonstrate a) what the cost areas of each "open" format are and b) in each case what legality is imposed on those who chose each of the formats.
wonderful to see so many people not understand the real issue and miss the real problem ending up at the polar opposite conclusion from the same facts :)
PS. Microsoft's OpenXML is not open. Find the facts on the groklaw site.
I didn't hear any mention of a conversion program for any of the previous MS formats to ODF, or from OXML to ODF or any other open format. Then it may not be such a big deal, if you could do so legally, and without any type of proprietary hardware. That's what I love about the open source community though, they always find a way, regardless.
tankertuff2002 4 years ago
ACT is a lobbying arm. These are the same buggers who unethically criticised the EU's decision.
Jonathan Zuck. Again. He is /paid/ to talk for a monopoly abuser.
schestowitz 4 years ago
Jonathan Zuck, ACT. Again for Microsoft?
OOXML is an Open Format according to their own definition, haha.
podmok 4 years ago
This is idiotic. There already is an open specification- ODF. Microsoft only wants to reinvent the wheel and gain more lock-in with OOXML's upgrades.
Check "Comparison_of_OpenDocument_and_Office_Open_XML_formats" and "Comparison_of_OpenDocument_and_Office_Open_XML_licensing" in wikipedia.
kummiliim 4 years ago
Microsoft makes me soo mad. They want to get OOXML standardized only to they can make openness harder. The lady representative asked good questions. How hard is it to see that MS is the only company to be hurt by true interoperability? I honestly hope that all those that are spreading crap about OOXML interpreters burn in Hell. Microsoft could damn well stop taking credit for other peoples work on those interpreters.
BIGBOY567 4 years ago
Why doesnt anybody see that any of the comments coming from the Microsoft people on the topic of OXML and "openness" - always skate around the fact that it will be licensable. It may be open and available to anyone to use - but at what cost? Someone needs to demonstrate not how each one technically works - but demonstrate a) what the cost areas of each "open" format are and b) in each case what legality is imposed on those who chose each of the formats.
pkozlenko 4 years ago
wonderful to see so many people not understand the real issue and miss the real problem ending up at the polar opposite conclusion from the same facts :)
PS. Microsoft's OpenXML is not open. Find the facts on the groklaw site.
davygrvy 4 years ago