Any action or terror movie (even the “trash” ones) teaches us all an important lesson since we are children:
Never leave “supposed dead” back, as they arise and attack you again…
Amazingly, there are people that never learned this lesson. The facts:
At the beginning of the discussion process of OpenXML at ISO, two issues appears of most debates:
1 - OpenXML overlaps ODF (ISO/IEC 26300) ?
2 - What about the IPR (Intellectual Property) issues of the specification? Is this really solved?
During the initial period of submission of contradictory, the two issues were submitted and answered (badly) by ECMA, and the six-month period for review and vote was open. The outcome of the vote, a resounding NO to OpenXML also presented us with some questions about the overlap and on IPR as comments of the votes.
Again, ECMA responded to it (again very badly) and to divert the debate, managed to eliminate these two issues of BRM (after all, explain the inexplicable is annoying even…).
My previous post, clearly shows that OpenXML is an enormous overlap with the ODF. If a member of ECMA assumes that the entity does not have the mapping of legacy and that simply “developed the new XML schema,” indirectly assumes that they never examined this issue in depth. When he says “ask it to Microsoft,” still assumes that they really rely on Microsoft and they did not have nor asked them to furnish proof of support legacy (same for deprecated or now trasitional features).
In short, without the mapping and with the confession of member of ECMA, the OpenXML is simply an overlap with ODF. If you want to understand that, read here.
If we look carefully to the BRM FAQ, we will see a very interesting answer that explains the why IPR issues could not be discussed at the BRM:
4.1 Will IPR issues be discussed at the BRM?
No. IPR issues in this process are the exclusive preserve of the ITTF. IPR decisions have previously been delegated by all the ISO and IEC members (NBs) to the CEOs of IEC and ISO, and they in turn have examined them and found no outstanding problems. NBs seeking reassurance in such matters must pursue them through other avenues than the BRM.
I think now that the ITTF should give us all a good explanation (btw, to people that was at BRM, Mr. Barta now will really need to talk with journalists !!!).
The issues of intellectual property could not be discussed in BRM and were not even discussed in many countries because the ITTF and the CEOs of ISO and IEC evaluated that and have not found any problems (and of course, they have credibility).
What happens is that the Software Freedom Law Center, an entity that provides legal support to the advancement of free software, made an analysis of the Open Specification Promisse (OSP) on the Microsoft’s OpenXML and found something very interesting:
“OpenXML cannot be safely used by any Free Software.”
What intrigue me most is the type of analysis that was made by the ITTF, and this is why I leave here two suggestions for questions to the ITTF:
1 - Why the ITTF did not found this “outstandig problem”?
2 - Where is the report with a formal analysis of the ITTF on the subject? (I assume that this report exists, since the BRM’s FAQ says that the ITTF performed the analysis).
Moreover, I have a third question to all NBs:
1 - Your NB lawyers and experts in intellectual property analyzed this problem? The OSP is legally valid in your country?
It may seem funny, but now in the straight final evaluation of OpenXML we are all being forced to examine what we look at the first on this standard, the overlap with the ODF and IPR issues.
Before closing, I would just like to write one more lesson learned in the movies of terror and action, and it involves speed:
“When you want to “run over” to kill, don’t forget to go back and make sure that it is dead…”
They did a “run over” on those two issues at the beginning and now are being persecuted by ZOMBIES!
And look, “ZOMBIES AT ISO” is a good name for a horror movie (even for a “trash” one).