Moley's Musings
I'm concerned with aspects of freedom, choice, respect, courtesy and consideration. This is obvious from my contributions. I also believe in the value of common sense.
Wednesday 28 October 2009, 7:32 PM
MS Stuffs OOXML JTC1/SC34 Maintenance Committee
I came across this article whilst researching a different topic.
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html
So it appears that Microshaft have continued to subvert the OOXML ISO processeses. What now transpires is that they have hijacked the committee and are not only stepping outside the established procedures but are also working towards amending the standard in order to make it compatible with Office 7, rather than building or amending their Office Suite to be compliant with the ISO standard. Apparently, it's only through leaks the we can find out what's happening.
This is the text of the Findings of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Nov. 5, 1999; and it makes very interesting reading. It's still remarkably relevant today, even with the advances in Open Source.
http://www.albion.com/microsoft/findings.html
This exposes M$'s tactics extremely clearly, and the EU's assault on Media player and Internet Explorer seem to be rather inadequate as most of MS's (illegal) abuses of its monopoly really do go on unchecked. Reminds me somewhat of of the iceberg, most of it is under the water. It seems that the American Judicial System is not doing very well either - not surprising, really.
Conclusion - M$ always wins and we pay. It is clear that M$ continue to establish and maintain vendor lock-in unchecked, unaccountably and only in their own interests.
http://www.robweir.com/blog/2009/10/final-ooxml-update-part-iii.html
So it appears that Microshaft have continued to subvert the OOXML ISO processeses. What now transpires is that they have hijacked the committee and are not only stepping outside the established procedures but are also working towards amending the standard in order to make it compatible with Office 7, rather than building or amending their Office Suite to be compliant with the ISO standard. Apparently, it's only through leaks the we can find out what's happening.
This is the text of the Findings of Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson, Nov. 5, 1999; and it makes very interesting reading. It's still remarkably relevant today, even with the advances in Open Source.
http://www.albion.com/microsoft/findings.html
This exposes M$'s tactics extremely clearly, and the EU's assault on Media player and Internet Explorer seem to be rather inadequate as most of MS's (illegal) abuses of its monopoly really do go on unchecked. Reminds me somewhat of of the iceberg, most of it is under the water. It seems that the American Judicial System is not doing very well either - not surprising, really.
Conclusion - M$ always wins and we pay. It is clear that M$ continue to establish and maintain vendor lock-in unchecked, unaccountably and only in their own interests.
Thursday 22 October 2009, 12:16 AM
Is Psystar the new SCO?
I have been reading about the case of Apple versus Psystar on the Groklaw site (www.groklaw.net), which is a serious site strongly leaning towards the defence of Open Source. For those of you who don't know, Psystar manufacture and sell knock-off OS X computers, contrary to the licence of OS X. This case also references the Verner versus Autodesk ruling which, I gather, is subject to appeal and likely to be overturned.
The crux of the matter is that if Psystar win, the guts will apparently be knocked out of the GPL licence and Apple software will become more expensive to cover it's losses, both as a result of the consequent ability to be freely copied and redistributed without any restrictions, if I understand correctly.
This raises the question of Psystars's motives, being a relatively small company and, indeed, how they are managing to finance all this litigation, and whether, like SCO, this is really an attack on the GPL licence masquerading as a contrived dispute with Apple who, conveniently, will also be damaged.
The case appears complex (what else would you expect) and I do not profess to understand it all, neither do I understand why all software licences, e.g. Microsoft, will not be affected.
Is anyone else following this case and do they have a better understanding of what is happening? Are Psystar really a stalking horse?
Meantime, I note that although SCO is bankrupt and dear Darl has been 'eliminated', the litigation is still ongoing.
The crux of the matter is that if Psystar win, the guts will apparently be knocked out of the GPL licence and Apple software will become more expensive to cover it's losses, both as a result of the consequent ability to be freely copied and redistributed without any restrictions, if I understand correctly.
This raises the question of Psystars's motives, being a relatively small company and, indeed, how they are managing to finance all this litigation, and whether, like SCO, this is really an attack on the GPL licence masquerading as a contrived dispute with Apple who, conveniently, will also be damaged.
The case appears complex (what else would you expect) and I do not profess to understand it all, neither do I understand why all software licences, e.g. Microsoft, will not be affected.
Is anyone else following this case and do they have a better understanding of what is happening? Are Psystar really a stalking horse?
Meantime, I note that although SCO is bankrupt and dear Darl has been 'eliminated', the litigation is still ongoing.
