Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
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@l...] > > > 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@l... subscribe: > xml-dev-subscribe@l... 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] |
