-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 14:38:40 -0800,
Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> In article <44it35-4n7.ln1@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Jim Richardson <warlock@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > And yet, that is precisely what IBM and Sun have been accusimg Microsoft of
>> > doing, yet THEY were doing it months before.
>>
>>
>> and again Erik wails "but they did it toooo!" as a defence for MS.
>>
>>
>> It's not a good excuse for a 2 year old having a tantrum, and it's even
>> less of one for a multinational corporation.
>
> Jim, you used to be reasonable, so stop mischaracterizing everything
> Erik says, please. He's not defending MS here. He's questioning why
> these things are considered bad when MS does them, but are perfectly
> fine when IBM and Sun do them.
>
it's not, and they're not, but Erik's slide away from discussion MS
actions, and pointing at others is what I am talking about. They should
*all* be smacked with a clueby4.
> Similarly, I want to know why it's OK for ODF to be under a patent
> license from Sun that isn't open (in the sense "open" is usually used
> here--you can use ODF, but you can't fork it, and Sun effectively had
> veto power over standardization of future versions), but it is
> unacceptable for OOXML to even be covered by patents. (Note that
> whenever Microsoft has released something under a "look but don't touch"
> license, and tried to call it open, there are a lot of complaints over
> misusing "open". Why the double standard?).
>
- From whom? it sure isn't from me. I am the one against all software
patents, when sun pulls that shit, I am opposed to it also. Just as I am
opposed to MS buying votes for OOXML in ISO.
>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFHbFpqd90bcYOAWPYRArggAKCkMEy7e0A6SDR9Mp/SRTJn5G5tPwCg2f3V
PyIWXpDBr5FT9J/Tx35EVqI=
=qsQo
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't give a damn.
|
|
