Jump to content

Talk:Office Open XML/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

RfC: Can this article say that Office Open XML is a free and open format?

There is a controversy among editors about whether or not this article (and in particular its lede) can say that OOXML is a free and open file format.

It is clear that:

  • The OOXML standard is freely available
  • The OOXML standard has passed through the ECMA and ISO standardization processes
  • Microsoft has promised not to enforce patents held by Microsoft against implementors of the standard

It is also clear that a number of organizations (with the Free Software Foundation probably being the most strident) claim that OOXML does not satisfy what they mean by saying "free and open standard".

The alternatives I see are:

  • The lede says that the standard is freely available. The article discusses what people say about its freedom and openness.
  • The lede says that the standard is free and open. The article gives sources that justify this statement.

I would like to see if we can get a sounding of opinion on this particular issue, separate from all the other discussions. If people can state their opinion below, and discuss the arguments in the next section, that would be good, I think. --Alvestrand (talk) 12:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion summary

note that this is not a poll. This section should be used only for summaries of arguments expanded upon below.
  • The issue is not a matter of opinion. With several people here with grudges about the Standardization of Office Open XML you try will win a discusion with an opinion pole rather than using real arguments. Is it that you lost the standardization vote that you now try to win a poll on wikipedia ? You haved not bought up a single argument on why Office open XML would not be free an open. No arguments , start a poll ? hAl (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by user:Lester

No, the article cannot say that 'Office Open XML' is free and open. It's a controversial subject, and although the players involved in the controversy, the ISO, the IEC and Microsoft may think they are free and completely open, the rest of the world does not think so. This is why it is important that we take the view of the mainstream media on this. We must use referernces and citations that are not from the participants of the controversy. We must stick to mainstream media references to describe the controversy. You'll find that the mainstream media references do not describe 'Open Office XML' as "free and open". Tho editor who has been opposing this view has used references from players in the controversy, which is wrong, unless it is attributed as an opinion of one of the players.--Lester 14:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Extra: Using "freely available" as a compromise also doesn't work. What's the difference with "freely available" and "available"? Available to read? That's just trivia for a standard. Do we do this for most other ISO standards? Again, if we keep to mainstream media references, and reflect the angle and meaning of those references, then we'll be right. Stay away from "free" and "freely", unless it can be demonstrated that the mainstream references generally describe it this way (which they don't).--Lester 14:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
you claiming that is it controversial does not make it so. Since the ISO/IEC 25000 standard was freely published in Q4 of 2008 and since ISO/IEC has been in controll of maintenance on the standard all real controversy has died out. Former opponents like IBM and Sun and open source implementations have implemented Office open XML. I asked you and others many times over to show me any controversy on this ISO/IEC 29500 Office Open XML standard but you have failed to come up with any reliable info on that. So agian I say that you claiming controversy on the ISO/IEC standard requires more than just words. I do not see that controversy on the ISO/IEC standard since it was published. hAl (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
WRT "freely available" and "available": "Freely available" is an OK synonym for "available without needing to pay money for it". An ISO standard that is not on the "list of freely available standards" is also "available" - anyone can buy it. But it's not freely available. Just to reply to that limited point. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by user:HAl

I will add this to your limited representation of the free and openness of this ISO/IEC standard.

  • The Office Open XML standard has been developed and was approved by the ECMA International which produces only free standards that can be used without restrictions.
  • The Office Open XML standard has been improved and has approved by the joint ISO/IEC standardization processes
  • The specification of Office Open XML is freely available to everyone from both standardization organizatios and can be downloaded for free by anyone and used for implementing any kind of Office Open XML software without restrictions.
  • The Office Open XML standard maintenance if fully controlled by standardization organization ISO/IEC JCT1 (with Ecma assisting/advising only)
  • The Microsoft patent licensing applies to everybody, it covers all possible technologies required for implementation or use of Office Open XML, is completly free and is irrevocable. It is also the same licensing used by both Microsoft and IBM for Opendocument.

I think you should not place put you poll here but should discuss relevant facts at the relavant article dealing with Free file formats and Open standards which already support the information that Office Open XML is a free and open file format. A poll is more about a populairty contest then about factual information relevant for an encyclopedic article. The information about Office Open XML being free and open is already in wikipedia so why would you want to prevent it only in this article? hAl (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Some references to show it was a controversy. Ars Technica, or ZDnet. I can supply many more known and trusted references if it is required.--Lester 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Your first reference shows only controversy on the Standardization of Office Open XML process. That information is already well documented in the relavant article. The second is about ODF support in MS Office 2007 which has nothing to do with the ISO/IEC standard. Both references actually predate the free publication of ISO/IEC 29500 and the taking over maintenance and control of the standard by ISO/IEC. If you want to cry controversy on the Standardization of Office Open XML then there is a whole article for you to feast on. However don't claim controversy on the openess of the ISO/IEC standard with references predating the free publication of that standard. hAl (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

If it is patented it cannot be "free and open". A simple contradiction of terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.111.68 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Scientus

Claim is dubious when the Wall Street Journal is reporting that the European Union is examining for potential anti-trust violations by Microsoft in its zeal to push through an unreviewed standard, along without many other events, it is incredible to claim that OOXML is "free" or "open".Scientus (talk) 17:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What I believe is that you and user:Ghettoblaster stand relatively alone in your interpretation of the facts. I believe that reasonable editors will conclude from the arguments and WP:CONSENSUS that it's unreasonable to put your interpretation into the lede of the article. When you have failed to show any willingness to consider others' arguments, and still claim the mantle of "fact" for your particular opinion, all that is left is an appeal to consensus. --Alvestrand (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I wish you tried to produce facts. You have not brought forward any fact why the ISO/IEC 29500 standard is not free and open even after tons of requests by me. Other wikipedia articles support the ISOIEC 29500 standard being free and free and open as well. You obviously have a personal grudge agianst Office Open XML from your opositing against the Standardization of Office Open XML in Norway and to add to that you work for an employer that is using a competing format. I would not think your interpretation of the facts is anywhere realistic because of this position. I find it objectionable that you, having such a personal interest in this, try to use some opinion poll scheme to get try and reverse your loss in ISO/IEC standardization process. hAl (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
I produced 36.000 occurences of the term "OOXML is not free". In specific, *recent* statements, Richard Stallman's definition of free software means, according to him, that free software can't implement OOXML. I've produced a dozen citations before, and you have dismissed them all as "the product of extremists" or "published before the OOXL standard was published by ISO". Guess what - people's opinion haven't changed. --Alvestrand (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
Alvestrand's last suggestion (above) is not bad... Rather than saying that Open Office XML is "free" from the ISO (which carries a slant), saying it is published by the ISO is much better. If we really must say it at all (I think saying it's an ISO standard says it all).--Lester 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Alvestrand

Thanks to User:Thumperward for taking responsibility for running this RfC. I'll try to make my statement here.

  • That the standard is freely available is a verifiable statement.
  • That the standard is free is not a verifiable statement, because there is no consensus what it means for a standard to be "free", and many people have presented arguments that OOXML is not.
  • That the standard is open is not a verifiable statement, because there is no consensus what it means for a standard to be "open", and many people have presented argumetns that OOXML is not.

In the particular case of Office Open XML, the charge that has been made against it is that it is in practice controlled by a single entity (Microsoft), which used its considerable influence to get standards bodies (ECMA and ISO) to accept it through their standardization process. The process generated more controversy than I have ever seen around any other standard (in comparision, the bitter fights over IPv6, IPSEC key management and the 802.11 WEP fiasco were ripples on a pond). There is no sign that any of the people who claimed that the standard is not free and open have changed their minds; rather, there is every sign that they have accepted that Microsoft won the battle to have OOXML declared an ISO standard, and have chosen to spend their energy in more useful ways than to repeat statements that are, to them, obvious.

To give one example of a person whose opinion has not changed, Richard Stallman's definition of free software means, according to him, that free software can't implement OOXML. There are 36.000 Google hits for the phrase "OOXML is not an open standard" (and another 12.700 for the phrase "OOXML is an open standard"). It goes beyond exaggeration to claim that this statement is uncontroversial.

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. As stated above, the statmeent that OOXML is "free and open" cannot be verified, and should therefore not be presented as a statement of fact in this article. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Additional comment, to hAl's jibe that I should first go and try to change Open Standard and Free file format: I don't enjoy this sort of thing. I'd much rather do something constructive. I think this is the most obvious place where Wikipedia's description doesn't match reality; let's fix this first. If it's impossible to get this one fixed, improving the other ones may be possible. If it's impossible to get this one fixed, trying to improve the other ones is a waste of time - hAl's tacticts are effectve. --Alvestrand (talk) 09:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I seem to remember being involved in the "free and open" discussion in one of its former manifestations. In my view these are PR terms and ultimately a matter of opinion. I think it would be more neutral to state that OOXML is an "International Standard" and an "Ecma standard" since those are the bare facts. Readers can research and assess the degree of freedom associated with these facts as they wish. Alexbrn (talk) 18:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
If the terms were to disappear entirely from the article, that would be OK with me. --Alvestrand (talk) 18:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to say that User:Alexbrn put it very nicely (2 posts above). The phrase "Free and Open" is a PR term, and has no place in Wikipedia. This whole issue can be easily resolved, not with technical arguments that go in circles, but by following Wikipedia rules at Wikipedia:Reliable sources, where it states that we should rely on "reliable, third-party, published sources". That instantly excludes the sources that the "free & open" proponents have been using, such as PR links to Microsoft, the ISO and the IEC, the three of whom are participants in the controversy. It's a travesty that we have not been able to enforce this simple Wikipedia rule, and that it has resulted in a year+ of edit warring.--Lester 05:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Now we're left with the curiousity of why in the opening para we go off into the weeds about one detail of ITTF's license for the text (which will differ from the license for the schemas). I think these kind of details are just wreckage from previous "free and open" spats, and would be best removed ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexbrn (talk • contribs) 10:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Right - it doesn't belong there - after reading the ISO "freely available" page, I added "with some restrictions" to the "freely available from ISO" statement. It got reverted with the comment "nonspecific", so I re-added it with specifics. I thought the "freely available" statement alone was a bit misleading, but yes, the exact text here is the result of another spat. Perhaps you can fill out the details of the ITTF schema licensing in a relevant section further down? This is the first I've heard of a separate licensing for the schemas (which I think is a good idea, given the ITTF restrictions on the text - the IETF also has this split licensing, and I think for many of the same reasons). --Alvestrand (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
It's bizarre. The first 8 references of the article are primary sources from The ISO, Microsoft and ECMA, the three players in the controversy. It is, by definition, original research. We should be able to remove non-third-party references quick smart. Just like that. No further debate. If someone wants to introduce the text again, that person is obliged to find reliable secondary source references as per WP:RS. For this reason, "free", "free & open" and "freely available" and "free to copy" should all go. It is not how the format is generally described by secondary sources.--Lester 13:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
ISO, ECMA and Microsoft are all suitable sources and citing them is not a problem if the citation verifiable. In fact, the Original research page states that editors "must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article". Stating that a standard is available for download and then providing a link that proves the assertion is about as far from OR as it is possible to get! Alexbrn (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
Specifically, WP:OR says that "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims" must come from secondary sources, while "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". "Freely available" is such a statement from the ISO page; "free" isn't. --Alvestrand (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
The trouble is the word free can be interpreted in various ways. Free from what? From restrictions? From distribution problems? From legalities? From cost? There are better words that can be used, and I think we should stay away completely from the word "free". I don't believe a half-way compromise needs to be used. We should use the most accurate wording with that is the least interpretable. And it should reflect how the file format is described by the general media (the secondary sources). Check what CNet, ZDNet, InfoWorld etc call it.--Lester 05:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Interesting because Office Open XML is free from cost, free ,from restrictions, free from distribution problems and free from legalities. hAl (talk) 23:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the text is also free from reliable sources. We can see from the above discussions that no consensus was achieved to use the text "free and open". It also fails on the reliable sources front, as it cannot be demonstrated that the format is generally described as "free and open" by the mainstream media. So the text fails on at least 2 fronts.--Lester 00:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
There is no problem getting citations from main stream media on Office Open XML for instance being an open standard (like [1]) but you yourself actually removed several of such citations. hAl (talk) 11:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Fully agree with User:Alvestrand. Different 'authorities' have different ideas of what these terms mean. This article should not fall into the trap of supporting any specific definition. The article, including the lead, should both present the actual facts, which are that some groups say it's "free and open" (or at least "freely available"), and that other groups say that it's certainly not free and open. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be even better to define what is meant with the terms in the article itself. This way there are no misunderstandings. Thelennonorth (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment by User:Thelennonorth

I would say to define free and open. Some variants of OOXML are published, freely available as in free beer, but NOT free as in free speech! Because there are all sorts of strings attached. And the open specification promess and the other stuff have legal loopholes in it. There for it's best to say it's freely available and reference a few sources that have investigated the community pro mess and stuff. The Open Specification promess has been criticized for not being a legally binding document. (It's a promess, not a contract.)

Now about the Open. There is great controversy about OOXML because there are a few incompatible versions, 'breeds', variants of that format who call themselves OOXML. It's not about subsequent versions I'm talking about. No no, it's about that MS Office 2007 OOXML is different from ISO OOXML is different from ECMA OOXML. And while you can get a copy from ISO or ECMA, there is no change you can ask for a copy of the standard used in MS Office from MS. (That breed is also riddled with binary blobs.) Starting to see the problem with open? ars technica norwegian standards body controversy ooxml MS has put ooxml on a fast track and has done all sorts of stuff.

The ISO OOXML and ECMA OOXML are not very relevant because nothing currently uses that breed of OOXML. MS doesn't document the MS Office version. Thus it would be necessary to investigate a little in the matter, because this is not very easy thing to discover everything about it and put things right. The different versions problem should appear in the beginning of the article. OOXML is it open? Some variants are open in some way e.g. ECMA: for viewing, not implementing (patented stuff). But the most important variant, the MS Office one, isn't. It would be appropriate to explain that to the reader.

Thus globally it can be said that OOXML isn't open. However, it can be pretty easily reverse engineered because it's xml. (Wel except for the binary blobs then, which are very abundant in the MS Office produced files.) But the documentation that is made by this process must not be used for saying it's an open standard. If it's not official then it's still closed, proprietary. Or it could be said that any standard is open because it can be reversed engineered. This obviously isn't a valid point. Just now read somewhere that the Open Packaging convention is a legal mine field. Open? Not very much it seems now. Here are some references from blogs and if you read them, you will be able to know how to verify the statements: truth-about-microsoft-office, another one that can be easily reproduced and verified: microsoft-office-xml-formats-defective The comparison at the bottom of the article is very interesting.

Here's a very good one, discribing how 'open' MS actually is: bad-surprise-in-microsoft-office-binary Example of MSOffice2007-OOXML not open: build-in functions in spreadsheets. The names aren't in the MS documentation, they are in the documentation from ECMA. The function names are localized, but MS doesn't give the actual localized names! There for you need to buy MS Office. Don't believe me and the bloggers, then do the test they have done yourself!

This is NOT a good beginning:

The lede says that the standard is freely available. The article discusses what people say about its freedom and openness.

It is better to state things this way:

The lede says that there are variants of OOXML, some of them (ISO, ECMA) are freely available. Others are not(MS Office 2007 variant of OOXML), although they can be reverse engineered. The variants of OOXML are not open because of various problems: undocumented, patented,...

The article then discusses, in more detail the complete situation. Missing stuff, patent minefields, loopholes in open specification pro mess,...

Personal opinion: The so called interopability is a big fat fail and a step down compared to decent standards compliance! Thelennonorth (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Controversial editing during RfC

We're in the process of discussing the controversial use of the word "free" to describe Office Open XML, which many users disagree with. However, someone has reinserted the disputed text, and it seems the edit war is back on again diff. Where's the consensus? Where's the independent reference? The ISO and Microsoft are part of the controversy, and not independent reliable sources All the above discussion results in nothing, when it is just ignored. Everyone's time is wasted when it is ignored like this.--Lester 02:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh no - here we go again. In an effort to try and get consensus around some indisputable facts here, I have edited the opening paragraph again, partly reverting the contentious text. User:hAl I think it is too simplistic to slap the word "free" on this Standard. If you look at the ITTF license for the ISO/IEC text you will see it is in fact quite restrictive; the Ecma version is much more free. The opening paragraph of this article is, I suggest, not the right place to try and tease apart the subtle and complex factors here, not least the distinction between the IPR of the text, and the IPR of its content. I have amended "free" to "free-of-charge" since this is both correct and indisputable. User:Lester - I equally think there is no call to rule-out Microsoft and ISO as sources. They are primary sources and statements attributable to them, and verifiable, are completely germane to this article. I have however removed a reference in this para to my blog giving details about the maintenance of the standard. The maintenance is a complicated detail and readers who are interested can find these details elsewhere on Wikipeda. Again, trying to summarise this complexity in the opening of this article risks being misleading and irrelevant. Alexbrn (talk) 05:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I did not slap the free on the free standard but actually changed that wording, removing the wikilinks and changing the text to "for free" which is a synonym for free of charge. The ITTF license applies to the specification. So I did not add anything about the specifcation in the wording. (the license on the spec however does not add restrictions to Office open XML as the Ecma license for the identical standard is extremly free). I did add that the Office Open XML standard can be used an implemented implemented by anyone because that is the case for allle ISO and Ecma standards. I did not find it complex. I added that the manitance and contol of the format is with ISO/IEC because apperantly many people seem ot think the standard is a Microsoft format which is no longer the case. That can best be made claer in the opening pargraph. I do not understand why you think is a detail. It is evident that seceral people refer to Microsoft in destructive edits to this article. You might not like yourself a a source but the citation was acutally an accurate source for information. hAl (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well hAl, I do agree I am an accurate source :-) However, if we start allowing blogs as sources we get into very dangerous waters indeed, and so I don't think I should be used. Generally, my take on all of this is that there is a certain faction has, over time, been trying to "brand" OOXML as somehow non-free and (your) counter-reaction has been to try and brand it as really free. I think we're doing readers a dis-service by trying to compress this kind of dispute into the head of this article. As I said, it is all too complex to be expressed in sound bites. So we cannot say "[t]he Office Open XML format can be used or implemented by anyone without restriction" ... we can't say that of any format since we can never be sure there isn't some company out there harbouring a patent which it thinks it can enforce against implementers: just look at the i4i/MSFT patent case for example. And even in the case of MSFT's legal position, there is some doubt over whether the OSP or CNS applies to revisions, and which versions of these guarantees apply to which versions of OOXML. And note that extensions have only just been brought under this regime. Complex indeed! Alexbrn (talk) 06:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have no objection to a better source then you blog post. If you can direct me to the ISO/IEC document that is more relevant for the maintenance of the format then I'll use that. You further name points delaing with an unknown future that are not really relevant in open standards. Suggesting unknown possible 3rd party patents or undefined future version as limitations. Those currently non existing but possible future issues apply to any format. Applying this kind of reasoning to Office Open XML only is very strange indeed. You can only apply the information we have and not something unknown future to the wikipedia article. All established standards organizations like ISO and IEC and W3C and Ecma and OASIS apply rules about IPR right only to members of the organization and only for the time that they are members and participating in the standardization proces. In this area the IPR licensing of Office Open XML is actually a lot freeer than regular licensing by other organizations. Because of the dual specifcation by Ecma and ISO/IEC the copright is a lot looser then with normal format and standards with Ecma copyright amongst the freeest in the world and the patent licensing by MS is an irrevocable royalty free license allowing both full and partial implementations for the standard. A royalty free license is also the most free license format only required by some standards organizations. If all possible outcomes of future unknown alternate realities determine if something is free and/or open than nothing is free and/or open. If I state in the current article "there are no restriction on use or implementing Office open XML" that is essentially correct. If you would want to add that there is an uncertain future in which there migth be restriction on anything that is currently without restrictions that would also be correct but irrelevant as an uncertain future applies to anything. hAl (talk) 09:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
hAl, according to the current ruling of the US courts there very well may be a restriction NOW in the form of the i4i patent. Essentially, I think you are right -- but the fact we are having a back-and-forth discussion about this only reinforces my sense that it is over-simplifying the matter (and over-stating its importance) to have it in the article's opening para. 82.21.97.126 Alexbrn (talk) 10:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
user:Lester is just making a blatant lie. I undid a wholesale revert by [[user:Scientus] and I immediatly removed the contested free and open text in a subsequent edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Office_Open_XML&action=historysubmit&diff=319311259&oldid=319308657 hAl (talk) 05:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)



Questions About Terms

I'm not entirely certain about what "free and open" means (I don't think anyone does). Does it mean: monetarily free to implement, free of applicable patents, free of encumbering patents which impose specific requirements for use, free to publish, or all of the above? Is this term something that can be imbued by a standards organization? Should we listen to relevant standards organizations regardless of our opinions on the definition?

It sounds to me like this standard is officially free and open and is theoretically monetarily free to implement, but there is controversy between Microsoft and its friend organizations and other free software organizations which have higher standards for "free and open".

I think that we should describe the controversy in the OOXML article and instead of using general statements like "free and open", we should use more specific terms like "free of charge" or "free to implement" or "openly specified" or "maintained by an open standards organization". In general, we should abstain from using potentially controversial terms outside of section which specifically discuss the controversy, but that shouldn't prevent us from saying that the standard is free and open in certain (more easily verified) ways. Quantumelfmage (talk) 20:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you hit the point exactly on its head. Please add your view to the summary list above! --Alvestrand (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
The arbitrary higher standards of of free software organization would not allows any current standards to be called free and open. For basic standards like XML and HTML, which are widely regarded and considered as free and open, the licensing requirements have been actually much lower. The opinions of certain free software organizatio0n were put forward during the standardization proces of OOXML to try and influence the voting in the standards organizxation. For example Alvestrand has just added the opinion of Richard Stallman of the FSF on the MS OSP licensing for Office Open XML that was put forward during the standardization proces for OOXML. Unfortunatly almost at the same time Stallman introduced his views on this kind of royalty free licensing IBM copied the MS license and applied it to OpenDocument (and other formats) and Microsoft also added that license to Opendocument since participating in the standardization proces. In reality Stallmans view oposses all licensing of patents (and patents in generall) and is thus incompatible with all current standardization organizations licensing requirement.
Almost all opinion/critisism around Office Open XML stems from the standardization period in which there was a considerable effort to avoid OOXML being approved by ISO/IEC members. After the standardization proces and the subsequent publication of the ISO/IEC standard the critisims died out and the opponnents like IBM and Sun/OpenOffice.org have created oss implementations using Office Open XML. user:Alvestrand was an activie participant on the losing site of that standardization process and he seems unable to accept the reality that has emerged after the standaridization proces in which many have adopted Office Open XML in their prodcuts including oss implementations. hAl (talk) 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
More personal attacks. --Nigelj (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to thank User:Quantumelfmage, a new user to this debate, for commenting and suggesting ways to move it forward. I think it's quite a good suggestion to describe the controversy, rather than inserting ambiguous terms like "free" and "open". The major newspapers of the world have endless references which could be used as citations to describe the controversy (rather than relying on Microsoft and ISO references about themselves).--Lester 00:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I rarely agree with Stallman about much of anything. The point here is that he's a well known participant in the debate, his views are stable, and they're well documented. As for hAl's opinion about IBM's licenses, and subsequent attitude of former opponent - that's his interpretation. --Alvestrand (talk) 06:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the "free and open" phrase that was rejected at the RfC just comes back in other forms. Now we say the free-of-charge format can be used by anyone without restriction. What garbage! Supported by ISO, ECMA and Microsoft citations, of course. The article is completely out of hand.==Lester 07:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Apparently the normal term of an RFC is 30 days, so it's still a couple of weeks until we can draw any conclusions. We should faithfully report that Microsoft claims that the format can be used by anyone, and that ECMA says the same thing (I doubt ISO has procedures in place to say any such things), and that Stallman has a different opinion. Neither viewpoint is "garbage" in and of itself, but neither viewpoint, in and of itself, can claim to be the truth. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
You suggested that "free file format" should not be used be it was not defined what free actually ment. As that short terminologie cannot be used be cause its characteristics are not defined properly then it is only logical to replace it with all relevant actual characteristic (that are supported by citations) from Office open XML that show in what ways the format is free. The wikipedia reader can then decide whether or not the format is actually a free file format. The format is an approved standard by two international standard organization. There is no denying that the format specification is availalbe free of charge to anyone. There is no denying the format specification is controlled and maintained by ISO/IEC, there is no denying that Microsoft provided a free and irrevocale technology license to anyone, a license which is in fact identical to the technology licensing used by Microsoft and IBM for the OpenDocument format. And the info is not even that complete. Things that could still be added (because they are not even in the article): The freedom to copy Ecma specification as much as you want. The OSP applying to all future version that MS participates in. The OSP license applying to partial implementations. hAl (talk) 16:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Madness It just doesn't stop!!!--Lester 06:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

When using "free" or "open", I think it is useful to distinguish whether copyright, copy prices, patents, patent licenses, implementations, or implementation licenses are meant. And then it is conventional with "free" to say whether you mean as in beer or as in liberty. And with "open" there are multiple laws or regulations which define "open standard" in various different ways, and multiple different academic definitions (eg Krechmer's). Furthermore, the copyrights for OOXML are different when in its form of IS29500:2008 and when in its form as ECMA 376 2nd Edition. Otherwise we get these odd circular conversations where one person says "It is free because you don't have to pay for a private copy" and another person says "It is only free if you can release software under a Free license" and it becomes a shouting match trying to give equivoval terms fixed meanings. So IS29500 certainly meets some meanings of free and open in some areas, but not in others. I suggest using terms like "for no cost" instead of "free" as in beer for prices or licenses, and a term like copyleft instead of free as in liberty for derived software. Rick Jelliffe (talk) 16:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Office_Open_XML/Archive_14&oldid=333483698"