Linux.com

Exactly what about the new file format is patented?

#

the new MS office has XML format which is open, but the schemas that describe the format is patented. meaning you can't use the schemas to construct or verify that the file you have is conforming to MS office XML format.

#

This would not be a show stoper.

Create a program that read Microsoft schemas and translate it to some opensource schemas.

Ship the opensource translation. Patent the methord of translation and bill Microsoft Office users for the use of document created from the translated schemas due to Microsoft not have paided in office program source code(all opensource office suits bought the patent by default) to the general public in a useable form(ie you have the right to complie it run it distro it pass it on to friends without charging money)as what is required to obtain the licence to use document created using the translated schemas.(Nice SCO scare operation) And a simple way of getting money to write opensource apps all money goes to development. And end of Microsoft Office.

Now if each document has its own schema this could be a show stopper. All that to compad documents.

Every thing is a double sided sword you just have see how to use the blade for ones own ends.

#

From the Office 2003 XML Reference Schema Patent License: "Microsoft ***may*** have patents and/or patent applications that are necessary for you to license in order to make, sell, or distribute software programs that read or write files that comply with the Microsoft specifications for the Office Schemas." (Emphasis is mine)

Clearly Microsoft don't know. How on Earth are we supposed to? The licence steadfastly refuses to identify the invention for which you have a licence: No patent numbers (pending or otherwise). You can accept this licence all you like, but in the end Microsoft can claim that you didn't have a licence over any thing it's convenient for them to disclaim.

#

Fax this story to all your representatives in the EU<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:).

#

WE NEED SELF-SPREADING PROPAGANDA

We (supporters of free/open software) can learn from the
wide circulation of certain types of email messages such as
bogus virus warnings, get-rich-quick schemes, conspiracy
theories, and jokes. What makes them circulate? How can
we harness the same dynamics in the service of the TRUTH?
Here are some suggestions on the sorts of emails we need:


  * Could your software suddenly become ILLEGAL? (Don't get

      caught by software patents. Always choose software that

      runs on multiple platforms, so that if your operating

      system is sued from under you, you can change your OS

      and keep using your apps. Here's a list of programs

      that only run on Windows, together with their

      multi-platform equivalents...) [It would help to explain

      how patents, unlike copyrights, are infringed by

      independent reinvention, and how checking for prior art

      can result in extra penalties for willful infringement.]


  * How to avoid being sued for spreading Word macro viruses

      (Set the options so that you always save in RTF format.

      Forward this to your boss so that your whole

      organization follows suit.) [I think some caveats are

      needed about residual macros in RTF, and viruses that

      make Word look like it's saving RTF when it's really

      saving<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.doc format. And I think RTF is applicable to

      other MS Office programs, but only as an export format,

      not a working format.]


  * How to extract discounts from Microsoft / How to get

      FREE Microsoft Office licenses! (Prepare by importing

      your existing MS Office documents to OpenOffice. If you

      can't do that directly, try exporting an intermediate

      format [RTF? SVG?] from MS Office. Then demand that

      Microsoft supply licenses free of charge, with support

      paid on a per-hour or per-incident basis -- because

      that's what you can get for OpenOffice. If Microsoft

      won't play ball, retain only as many MS Office seats as

      you need to maintain your existing documents. Create

      new documents in OpenOffice format. Next time, if there

      is a next time, they'll know you mean business.) [Note:

      Promising discounts for MS Office probably gets more

      attention than directly telling people to use something

      else.]


  * FREE Word-to-PDF converter! (Import your Word document

      directly or indirectly into OpenOffice and click

      File-Export-PDF. Is the formatting less than perfect?

      Well, if you actually CREATE the document in

      OpenOffice...) [This suggestion, like the previous one,

      leverages off Microsoft's strength.]


  * Why Microsoft Office is best (It saves files in formats

      that only it understands, so that you are forever

      beholden to Microsoft if you want to read your own

      documents. It changes its file format to force other

      people to upgrade. It pollutes the WWW with proprietary

      HTML extensions that only work with IE, which only runs

      on Windows, which other people have to buy from MS. It

      doesn't matter if it's no good, because you have to use

      it because other people use it, because they have to use

      it because other people use it, because they have to use

      it because other people use it... [to terminate this

      infinite loop, press ctrl-alt-del]... Don't argue.

      Microsoft Office is best -- for Microsoft!)


  * How to lose friends and alienate people! (Upgrade to MS

      Office<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... [whatever version it is], save documents in

      the new default format, and send them to your contacts

      so that they think they have to upgrade Office if they

      want to keep working with you.)

I stress that such emails must be short, sharp, alarmist,
sensationalist, thoroughly referenced, and SCRUPULOUSLY
ACCURATE. I further suggest that such emails be released
under a sort of one-sentence mini GPL like ``Copyright 2005
Fred Nerque. Forwarding, copying, translation and
modification of this message are permitted worldwide
without royalty provided this notice is preserved, and
provided that only the last modifier is named as the
copyright owner.'' The best versions will self-select by
propagating fastest.

Could I write some of this stuff? Yes, but I'm probably
not the best person for the job, because of my lack of
in-depth knowledge of OpenOffice and MS Office. I spend my
life drafting HTML documents in Emacs (thank you, RMS).
Besides, I'm not a lawyer and I'm not funny. But I'm open
to persuasion.

--- Gavin R. Putland.

#

Microsoft's "monopoly"
is actually a Windows oligopoly
made up of Microsoft and the major OEMs.

These OEMs do NOT offer CONSUMERS a non-Microsoft choice.

I suggest boycotting these companies until they do
offer a non-Microsoft choice.

#

Don't know Gateway, but HP does a great deal of GNU/Linux server stuff. I think is #1. BTW, kernel.org runs on hardware donated by them AFAIK.

#

And don't forget that they are working on Ubuntu laptops for the European market.

#

you're being unfair to the OEMs. Particularly HP who are working to get linux on their machines (in Europe anyway):

<a href="http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/23/21OPopenent_1.html" title="infoworld.com">http://www.infoworld.com/article/05/05/23/21OPope<nobr>n<wbr></nobr> ent_1.html</a infoworld.com>

However, if eg Dell is told that they will have to pay a higher fee for Windows if they also offer linux, it is understandable that they are slow to take the risk.

They are a business not a charity.

#

"They are a business not a charity."

Duh. Of course they are the business and thus the only of the only things that could penetrate their consciousness is the word 'boycott' - thus the grandparent's suggestion.

Boycott businesses that do not offer a nonwindows solution and tell them so directly via email and calls.

#

I thought anti-trust agreement stopped MS$ from punishing vender's who do not use Windows exclusively?

#

I run linux on Dell, HP, Compaq, IBM, Sony and (mostly) on white AMD/Intel boxen. For some reason the Dell machines are real dogs in the performance department. I am not sure why - maybe cheap/poorly designed motherboards? - I really dont know. Even building the kernel on Dell hardware doesn't seem to help performance much.

You'll probably get better value and performance by buying hardware from your local whitebox shop then buying a Dell or any other brandname product. You will, fer sure, get a better price.

#

What are you talking about? HP is #1 in selling Linux boxes.
don't know about Dell or Gateway. so can't comment.

#

I don't know about HP or Gateway, but Dell certainly puts no effort on providing non-Microsoft solution<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...

#

Actually, Dell did a smack-down on a vendor who provided Linux on Dell machines. It is discussed here > <a href="http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Dell-Sets-Linux-PC-Story-Straight&story_id=25756" title="newsfactor.com">http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_title<nobr>=<wbr></nobr> Dell-Sets-Linux-PC-Story-Straight&story_id=25756</a newsfactor.com>
Linux.org has a page on Dell here > <a href="http://www.linux.org/news/companies/dell.html" title="linux.org">http://www.linux.org/news/companies/dell.html</a linux.org>

#

There is nothing easier to ignore than someone sitting on the other side of the room, stating clearly in there loudest body language, "I'm ignoring you. I SAID, I'M IGNORING YOU!"

If you want to change things, you need to have a clear voice. Instead of boycotts, how about an investment company set up with the purpose of changing some other company's policies stated in its charter? Your stockholders invest money in you, and you, in turn, invest money in the company you would like to change. If there are many people that agree with you, your investment company could end up owning a sizable chunk of stock: sizable enough that your goals matter to them. If they make money, you make money, and your influence grows.

It's easier to change the direction of a large moving vehicle from the driver's seat than it is to divert it by attacking it.

Think about it.

Geek Unorthodox

#

Good idea, now use it to invest in Microsoft and get them to GPL Longhorn and the next version of Office.;-)

#

Software and or services become more valuable when more people use it and thus this is the essence of Metcalfe's law. That being the case logically the reverse would be true as well. Since the population of Microsoft office users greatly out number Microsoft employees and even greater than that of Microsoft management, why not choose not to use the product thus forcing Microsoft to comply to the consumer instead of the other way around. I know that this suggestion is extremely simplistic and the profound nature of it seems like a bad cliché; however, if we really made an effort they would acquiesce so not to loose market share. If the general public made contributions annually to organizations like Open Office or to the folks at AbiWord, say in the neighborhood of 10% of what Microsoft charges for Office Professional, they could mobilize far faster and more efficiently to produce a superior product. The truth of the matter is we have become lazy and complacent. We entrust our futures to “professionals” because we are so bogged down and burned out due to the extensive frivolous tasks and mind-numbing setbacks we encounter daily that by the time we get home our opinion resonates the mantra of “it ain’t my problem – this is my time, I’m off the clock”. This mentality however has paralyzed us into being cows lead by individuals that have only their best interest in mind trying to convince us all that it is for our own good. They give us speeches riddled with double talk jargon and charge us a fortune while all along expecting us to accept it because that is simply just the way it is. If Microsoft gets away with this, we are all at fault. If copyright law keeps going in the unethical direction it is going, we are all to blame. In America ownership constitutes 9/10th ‘s of the law. Bit by bit we are getting stripped not only of our ownership, but of our freedom to choose. I imagine eventually it will come down to the level that the book that I bought last month, and turned around and sold it to the used book store will eventually be illegal. The same patents and copyrights apply to books as to software. Yet because of the greed and the money behind that greed, competition is being squashed because it is no longer convenient and might require real effort to innovate instead of operating in the mediocrity that seems to be prevalent today.

#

As much as I would like the situation to be this easy, it really isn't. Too often, when people are on the clock, it is someone else that dictates which software is or is not acceptable for use in the corporate environment.

Once that happens, it's too easy for those in the office environment to decide that when they go home, they want to use the same software since that will let them take some of that work home and not have to be in the office. Instead, they can do the same work from home and not have to worry if the result will be (look, feel, etc.) the same as if they had been in the office.

After that happens, you then have a cascading effect generated by those who want to send out files and others that want to be able to read those files, who then turn around and send them (and new files) to others and so on.

Getting those file formats opened up so that any sppropriate application could manipulate the file would be the ideal step to allow people the actual chance to make their own decisions. My fear in this situation would be the inertia factor since many who already have a system would not be very likely to change to something else. All this despite how much retraining happens when new versions of applications, such as those in Microsoft Office, are released.

#

I imagine eventually it will come down to the level that the book that I bought last month, and turned around and sold it to the used book store will eventually be illegal.

FYI, College textbook publishers are already working hard to make this a reality.

#

Very well said indeed. Accepting "status quo" is what Microsoft wants, because change for most people is frightening. I preach GNU/Linux and FOSS whenever possible to show people they DO have a choice. Microsoft's arrogance and dirty, underhanded business practices not only continue to amaze and anger me, but to drive me even further from ever being a customer of theirs again.

#

Well said and that is why I am not only a free software programmer but joined the fellowship, too.

Hopefully one day more people will understand the dangers you elaborate here. You might chose to give speeches at conferences about this topic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....

#

"we are so bogged down and burned out due to the extensive frivolous tasks and mind-numbing setbacks we encounter daily..."

I've often said that a "job" is a concept used to prevent people from doing anything important that might cause trouble for the ruling class.

"I imagine eventually it will come down to the level that the book that I bought last month, and turned around and sold it to the used book store will eventually be illegal."

Sadly, this seems to be truer with each new law passed about patents and copyrights.

#

>>>We entrust our futures to “professionals” because we are so bogged down and burned out due to the extensive frivolous tasks and mind-numbing setbacks we encounter daily that by the time we get home our opinion resonates the mantra of “it ain’t my problem – this is my time, I’m off the clock

It might come as a surprise to you but I happen to have a job which I like and enjoy.On the other hand I don't enjoy going through cryptic man pages and/or RTFM posts in order to get, the really frivolous task of writing down my ideas and work, done.In this respect I will trade my time and sanity for money. Word processing is the oldest computer application (and you can look this up!) Virtually 99,9% of everybody's word processing needs can be taken care of by using Word 2K and above.Why would anyone create such a fuss over something that meaningless only points out to the fact that he (cough,Stallman/you) doesn't have a real life

#

I think I detect some silliness here. We should get our favourite lawyer's opinion on whether the new modified EU proposals are that bad. The legislation restricts itself to 'devices', and cannot cover new file storage formats, such as ms would love.

On the other hand, somebody is now trying to do to mp3's what one company did to gif's a while back.

#

No, software patents are packeged like this:

a) technical device such as "computer" or "computer network"
b) pure software solution

b) is in the patent application to circumvent certain barriers.

Just read the patents presented on
<a href="http://webshop.ffii.org/" title="ffii.org">http://webshop.ffii.org/</a ffii.org>

#

On the other hand, somebody is now trying to do to mp3's what one company did to gif's a while back.

They're not trying -- it's already done. There has been a patent on MP3 encoding for years now, and there have been attempts to license said technology as early as <a href="http://www.chillingeffects.org/patent/notice.cgi?NoticeID=464" title="chillingeffects.org">1998</a chillingeffects.org>.

The legislation restricts itself to 'devices'

And as is the case more often than not, appending "... with a computer" to your patent application puts it in the "device" category.

#

Copy of a letter in today's Daily Telegraph:
Sir - The political parties in the European Parliament will be deciding this week on how to vote on the draft Directive on Computer Implemented Inventions (CII). There has been much scaremongering that this directive will introduce "software patents". It will not - it does not move the goalposts at all.

The proposals agreed by the Council of Ministers (the "Common Position") will merely harmonise existing arrangements into one European framework. This is welcome.

However, some groups are attempting to use this as an opportunity to cut back what is currently patentable. These harmful proposals, championed by the French MEP Michel Rocard, would put at risk vast numbers of CII patents already granted. Innovations in Europe's high-tech electronics sector would no longer be patentable. To suggest, as M Rocard does, that an invention is only an invention when it is "tangible" demonstrates a lack of understanding of how technology works today.

The ability to patent inventions gives companies the incentive to invest in research and to protect the fruits of their work from exploitation by others. This is especially true of small and medium sized enterprises, which need patents to be able to raise investment.

Roger Benson (FREng), Chairman, Parostech, Ian Bowles, SVP Operations, Clearswift, Bill Brindle, CEO, Speed-trap, Sir John Chisholm, Chief Executive, QinetiQ Ltd, Luc Defieuw, Chief Executive Officer, Alcatel UK & Ireland, Warren East, Chief Executive Officer, ARM Holdings Plc, Paddy Falls, CTO, iOra, Stuart Green, CTO, ZOO Digital Group plc, Jacqueline Hey, Managing Director, Ericsson Ltd, Brenda Hopkins, Chairman FeONIC plc, Peter J Maskell, Chairman & Managing Director, Philips Electronics UK Ltd, Dr. Tony Milbourn, Managing Director, TTP Communications PLC, Mike Parton, CEO, Marconi Corporation Plc, Benjamin P Van Every, Managing Director, Abattia Group Limited, Alan Wood CBE, Chief Executive, Siemens plc, John Woodget, Managing Director, Intel Corporation (UK) Ltd

And a copy of an email sent to me by my MEP:

Dear Mr Burgess-Parker,

Thank you for your email on software patents.It is important to make it
clear that this Directive is not intended, in any way, to open new
patent opportunities for software.Its intention is quite the opposite.It
will clarify existing EU Patent Law and provide patent inspectors with a
common framework within which to examine and if appropriate, grant
patents for genuine innovations involving digital technology.An explicit
objective of the proposal is to ensure that computer software or
business methods that do not involve new innovative concepts, making a
technical contribution, are excluded from patents.This will give the EU
a distinctive and different position from the US and Japan.

The Legal Affairs Committee of the Parliament, which leads on the
dossier, has now adopted a number of amendments, most of which improve
the effectiveness of the Directive in excluding pure software and
business methods from patentability.Important amendments safeguarding
interoperability have also been passed.These have been supported by many
open source proponents.

In the final vote, we will continue to support amendments that will
deliver a balanced outcome that encourages European innovation and
competitiveness, while safeguarding the position of software
developers.We are especially concerned to protect innovative companies,
especially small firms using digital technology to produce original
technical solutions.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Bradbourn OBE MEP

#

This paper is over 10 years old, but it is just as relevant today: <a href="http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-patents.html" title="mit.edu">http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/against-software-pa<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ents.html</a mit.edu> .

This poster speaks of how patents are being used: to block competition, not to innovate.
<a href="http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=40668&cid=98829" title="newsforge.com">http://www.newsforge.com/comments.pl?sid=40668&ci<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> =98829</a newsforge.com>

"Thank you for your email on software patents.It is important to make it
clear that this Directive is not intended, in any way, to open new
patent opportunities for software."

My understanding is that current law allows no software patents whatsoever, but that this bill, if not ammended would allow many software patents. Software patents have not been necessary to allow investments into software or hardware. There was no shortage of software companies during the last two decades. Even in geographical areas with software patent protections, the numbers of software patents and challenges were much smaller than they are quickly becoming today.

How was it that so much innovation flourished with so few patents? The reason was that many, many programmer/inventors were able to focus on coming up with solutions, and every time they did, they were able to profit from their efforts. These inventors did not need to worry about being sued or taxed out of existance. They did not have to worry that the innovations they were coming up with were not being patented by someone else.

In the past, there was no need nor way to copy since, after all, most companies kept their code private. Today we have innovation at an even greater pace (too great a pace apparently) and a lot more code available for all to lean on, yet at this very time software patents are becoming a weapon of choice by companies that cannot innovate fast enough so as to quell the furious rate of open source innovations and fend off the smaller startups that are encroaching.

I find it difficult to imagine how a representative can explain to a constituency that somehow putting a heavy throttle on innovation is good for the consumer and good for the economy. On the other hand, I clearly understand that this is good for a minority of the citizenry, as it allows those that currently have much, to protect what they have because others will have to sit restless on the sidelines unable to contribute. Less competition means more for those at the top today.

All software is protected today because there is no law that forces software developers to reveal their code. Additionally, the developers can reveal code at their choosing under almost any imaginable licensing terms, and in fact many do so quite happily (usually, in return for kind).

Then come representatives introducing software patents so that a small group can lay claim to everyone else's thoughts. I would think I would be immune if my eyes did not stray and I came up with programs all by my self, but alas, this would not be so with software patents.

Supposedly patents existed to encourage investements, yet clearly they are not needed. It seems they are being introduced in order to save a weaker portion of our technology members from extinction or at least from having as much control as they have enjoyed in the past. These investors who cannot figure out how to invest wisely in today's changing world would resort to laws to chain the more fleet-footed foes via the very representatives of the people who are ultimately being so hurt. This does wonders for the future. How did the representatives figure out this was in their own best interests and in the best interests of their constituents?

Restrict people's freedom to work and earn based on their talents and daily problem-solving skills simply in order to save a dying monarchy. Beautiful.

If all of this is not clear enough, maybe it would help for me to be even a little more forward. Open source allows power to move closer to the individual. There are many more people that can get into the game without high capital startup costs. This is good for small businesses (consultants as well as their clients). The nature and low costs of collaboration and distribution over the Internet, and the large group of willing participants (including many PHD's), allow for this. Naturally, this puts larger players that can't adapt but which have remained in power by virtue of some of the powers their sheer size has afforded them in the past in danger (and likely today to be reduced in size somewhat). Modifying the law to allow software to be patentable, except under the most critically peer-reviewed ways to find the very small number that possibly merit worthy of some patent protection, is artificially damming back this natural flow of power to the people in order to preserve the status quo.

A last note.. as stated with the links above and shown by happenings, software patents have not been a necessary tool. It is almost impossible to get the "inventive step" analysis right. To get it right, at most tens of patents per year would be given anything but a trivial amount of government protection if any (something that clearly, to date, the patent offices have been incapable of doing and are logistically unable to do.. at least by themselves). Why so few merit-worthy patents? Because there is very little chance that if one tiny group of individuals can invent something, that the rest of the world cannot invent it and usually quicker (once the need arises or attention is diverted in that direction<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..if in fact some hadn't already come up with it but perhaps did not need to or have the time to publish). Even if thousands found the invention wonderful, there would still be many who would be able to do similar. So why put a chokehold on the community that is so capable together to give amazing protections to these very few?

[Other types of patents usually do not provoke as much uproar because there is a much smaller pool of inventors in those areas as the costs are usually non-trivial or involve a larger variety of skills (mechanical talents, or knowledge of (and acces to) a wide variety of materials and lab techniques, for example). In effect, each patent puts a "strangle-hold" on a much smaller number of inventors.. and ulitmately also affecting a much smaller number of consumers.]

I do hope if any software patents are allowed that the community finds ways around any that patent holders attempt to use to restrict this progress of science; however, it is entirely likely that these software patents will simultaneously be abused to put many small companies out of business, as these smaller entities cannot defend themselves well against the current onslaught of patents and large portfolios being amassed by a relatively few.

You can use any portion of this reply to send to your MEP or any other (if you don't want to go to the trouble to redo and assuming you agree), but please let me know: hozelda-at-yahoo.c.o.m. [the email only has letters and @ and . as appropriate/expected]

#

See

<a href="http://noepatents.ffii.org/" title="ffii.org">http://noepatents.ffii.org/</a ffii.org>

And please don't forget that software patenting is a transatlantic problem, there is US reform discussion, so pleased get involved.

<a href="http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl" title="ffii.org">http://lists.ffii.org/mailman/listinfo/us-parl</a ffii.org>

We need a similar movement like in Europe in the United States. You can take a lot of our experience, propaganda stuff, analysis, etc.

#

the above link is broken.
The right one is:
<a href="http://noepatents.eu.org/index.php/NO_Software_Patents" title="eu.org">http://noepatents.eu.org/index.php/NO_Software_Pa<nobr>t<wbr></nobr> ents</a eu.org>

#

" Leaked internal documents in 1998 said that Microsoft considered the free software GNU/Linux operating system (referred to therein as "Linux") as the principal competitor to Windows, and spoke of using patents and secret file formats to hold us back. "

I would love to see these memos - if anybody has link please post.

I know that all this IP stuff was invented and brought up by them -

what worms - lets not make a better product - lets just get our competition outlawed.

I will never buy another microsoft product again - whether I am breaking the law or not.

Everybody should boycott microsoft - people you don't need windows - get off of it now!!

#

The documents that the article refers to are known as the Halloween Documents. This is as a result of the date of release of the first document in 1998.
Copies of the documents and comments can be found at the OSI site <a href="http://www.opensource.org/halloween/" title="opensource.org">http://www.opensource.org/halloween/</a opensource.org>

#

<a href="http://www.opensource.org/halloween/" title="opensource.org">http://www.opensource.org/halloween/</a opensource.org>

#

"I will never buy another microsoft product again - whether I am breaking the law or not."

That's the problem. All the people I try to convince to use OpenOffice.org and its non-proprietary file formats reply to me :

--"Look, I've never bought a Microsoft program. This is the way I punish them for being so greedy!"

The point is these people still have to save their documents with their illegally-used Microsoft products in 'doc' format. That is a proprietary format. Then, when they send their files to collaborators, they oblige them to use Microsoft products... with the effect of spreading the monopoly.

NO !!! Do not use Microsoft products AT ALL. Only publish files with STANDARD formats, like HTML, RTF. Or, at least, use formats that are not closed, like PS, PDF...

This is the only solution to the Microsoft plague.

To show you this is possible, I dumped Microsoft products in 2000. I have not used Microsoft programs for anything but driving the mass spectrometers that I use because the mass spectrometer manufacturers all have their computer systems running MS-Windows (unfortunately). I used to develop a MS-Windows mass spectrometry software, and now develop one on Debian GNU/Linux (<a href="http://www.polyxmass.org/" title="polyxmass.org">http://www.polyxmass.org/</a polyxmass.org>). It is more powerful and runs smoothier !

Sincerely,

Filippo Rusconi, PhD
Scientist at CNRS, France.

#

To show you this is possible, I dumped Microsoft products in 2000. I have not used Microsoft programs for anything but driving the mass spectrometers that I use because the mass spectrometer manufacturers all have their computer systems running MS-Windows (unfortunately). I used to develop a MS-Windows mass spectrometry software, and now develop one on Debian GNU/Linux (<a href="http://www.polyxmass.org/" title="polyxmass.org">http://www.polyxmass.org/</a polyxmass.org>). It is more powerful and runs smoothier !

Absolutely! I used W2k until 2002 when I switched to Mandrake but kept one old computers under W98 "just in case". The "case" never happened. Two years ago a became 100% GNU/Linux - and never missed Windows. I had one application which was only Win32 and I ran it under Wine. Recently I switched to Debian Sarge GNU/Linux and only run free software. I have never been happier - feels like Nirvana and no amount of money out there could ever, EVER, get me back to proprietary software.

I look at some of my friends who still use Windows with sincere pity. They have no idea how much better life can be!

About your mass spectrometers: have you checked with Debian (15000+packages) and the Free Software Foundation's Directory of Free Software to see if there is not a free application which could run your computers?

#

About your mass spectrometers: have you checked with Debian (15000+packages) and the Free Software Foundation's Directory of Free Software to see if there is not a free application which could run your computers?

Well in fact, I could certainly run the computers that drive the spectrometers with Debian GNU/Linux (rather standard PCs). But the real problem is having the programs to actually perform the IN/OUT communications with the electronics of the mass spec. The commnunication protocols are not documented.

Cheers,

Filippo

#

"I will never buy another microsoft product again - whether I am breaking the law or not."

Well don't illegally violate their license, that's no worse than violating the GPL.

And still supports their marketshare anyway, even if you didn't buy the license.

It's a lose\lose scenario.

I say people shouldn't install Windows illegally, just for the sake of not installing Windows.

#

The importance of this matter cannot be overestimated where Europe is concerned. I have written to several MEP's from my country (Belgium) to clarify the matter to them repeatedly, but I seriously doubt they read any of my letters (except one MEP that not only agreed to vote NO, but also wasn't too high and mighty to reply himself, and not his assistant(s))
You can have a guess who will get my vote next time there are European elections...
That said, I have no confidence whatsoever in the European Commission, they couldn't care less about what the Parliament thinks, or even what the European citizens think. If they ever wanted to restore some faith in Europe and it's institutions, this would be a fantastic opportunity. Say NO to patents.

Forgive me if I don't hold my breath...

#

I've heard of a fork of the GNU, called Linux. Lots of people seem pretty impressed with it, and I've been minded to try it. However, if someone could point me toward the original, I'd like to also see the differences in how the GNU does things, as opposed to Linux.

#

To oversimplify, Linux is the kernel (the heart of the OS), GNU are the tools around it. In order to get some recognition, Linux should be called GNU/Linux. If you are looking for a GNU OS without Linux, search for GNU HURD.

#

I think what the parent poster wants to know is, what's the difference? There is none, because the GNU isn't giving direction to their own project. Nobody calls it Free/OpenBSD: it's a fork, and now it has its own identity.

The HURD is possibly a great idea, but then, so is a working kernel, which the HURD is not. Its hardware support, and functionality, are so limited that it's a theoretical toy rather that useful program. Minix had the same status, and Linux was written to replace it.

If the GNU wants to be a nebulous might-have-been, that's fine, but don't brand hard-working projects with the GNU's lack of focus. If they make some tough decisions, and put in some serious work, the HURD could work, and the GNU could be revived, but Linux distros have taken the GNU toolset, said 'thank you very much', and gone their own direction.

The GPL doesn't even require that they say 'thank you very much'.

Geek Unorthodox

#

I think the term "dead" when referring to the GNU project is a bit strong.

The GNU project was [and still is] about creating free software under GPL/LGPL terms.

An additional drive was also to have that free software melded with a microkernel to produce a working alternative to the GNU/Linux combination. This effort continues and links are provided below for those interested in the current state of play.

Those GNU software projects exist today and are an integral part of all GNU/Linux or if you prefer "Linux" distributions. An example would be gcc which has justed moved up to version 4
<a href="http://gcc.gnu.org/" title="gnu.org">http://gcc.gnu.org/</a gnu.org>
feel free to visit gnu.org if you want more examples.

Some links follow about the state of play of a GNU/microkernel mix - an example extract from the first link [not researched in detail by myself] is:

"There aren't enough HURD developers to develop the HURD and GNU-Mach, so GNU-Mach has bin stagnating. It has old Linux 2.0 drivers only, the OSKit port is more or less dead, so no chance at getting Linux 2.2 and FreeBSD drivers into the GNU-Mach. L4 has a functioning port of Linux 2.4 drivers. Also the L4 community is active and the HURD developers wouldn't be stuck maintaining an old microkernel like they are with Mach"

<a href="http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9615" title="osnews.com">http://www.osnews.com/comment.php?news_id=9615</a osnews.com>
<a href="http://www.ip-wars.net/story/2005/3/30/04249/9813" title="ip-wars.net">http://www.ip-wars.net/story/2005/3/30/04249/9813</a ip-wars.net>
<a href="http://kerneltrap.org/node/4658" title="kerneltrap.org">http://kerneltrap.org/node/4658</a kerneltrap.org>
<a href="http://portal.wikinerds.org/gnu-hurd-l4-first-program" title="wikinerds.org">http://portal.wikinerds.org/gnu-hurd-l4-first-pro<nobr>g<wbr></nobr> ram</a wikinerds.org>
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-l4.html" title="gnu.org">http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd-l4.html</a gnu.org>

personally I like alternatives, and if these guys can offer one based on the GNU software [I know and appreciate] coupled with a microkernel - then I'll likely use it. I like and admire the Linux kernel, and hope it has a long life - I'll be even happier having another GPL kernel alternative to use with my GNU commands.

Don't knock alternatives - it's that desire for another way which created an alternative to proprietary Unix and Windows in the first place.

Keep up the good work GNU project, Linux Kernel team, GNU Hurd team.

#

Even if that Microsoft's patent claim is true, why not create a converter under their 'license', so that anybody (if they really want to) would be using this converter to convert into something more usable by the rest of program writers? I even wonder if this could be a converter library...

#

I googled for "Microsoft Office xml intitle:patent", and there's some info in one of blogs (particularly in comments):

<a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/06/02/424517.aspx" title="msdn.com">http://blogs.msdn.com/brian_jones/archive/2005/06<nobr>/<wbr></nobr> 02/424517.aspx</a msdn.com>

As well as there is a faq, where is a question conserning open source development:

<a href="http://www.microsoft.com/Office/xml/faq.mspx" title="microsoft.com">http://www.microsoft.com/Office/xml/faq.mspx</a microsoft.com>

However, the most interesting document for me was "Possible prior art for Microsoft XML patent found":

<a href="http://www.ip.com/resource/articles/xmlPriorArt.pdf" title="ip.com">http://www.ip.com/resource/articles/xmlPriorArt.p<nobr>d<wbr></nobr> f</a ip.com>

Also, googling for "Microsoft Office xml intitle:patent intitle:number" gave me this link:

<a href="http://xml.coverpages.org/EP1376387unofficial.html" title="coverpages.org">http://xml.coverpages.org/EP1376387unofficial.htm<nobr>l<wbr></nobr> </a coverpages.org>

However, I'm not sure if this is really that patent, or some other. One thing to wonder is that it's 'european' and 'unofficial'...

#

I guess we'll just need to be as ambitious and competitive as we have been, and take care of business.

I started Linux in 1999, and most of the news about it was just like this. Microsoft is trying X to kill it, etc. It's now 2005 and Linux is still going strong.

I think that as long as we press forward, work around their attacks and do what we've been doing, we'll succeed. As we have been for years and years.

The fact that they're taking us this seriously is cause for pride, not for concern.

In summery: No worries. We'll work around this problem too.

And yeah, some people don't like RMS for political reasons. (As if it helps to get this political about computer software anyway.) But he's as much a part of our team as Linus, Redhat, IBM, Linux users, BSD users or the awesome people making FireFox. When I see post to this making fun of him saying "GNU\Linux", it's just plain silly.

#

It seems to me that this might be easy to work around.

All we really have to do is create a dynamically linked, Non-GPL\LGPL license that handles the files.

It might be a little tricky to find a license that is both Free Software and Microsoft compable, and if there isn't, we can just use something close.

It's not fully GPL, but for the vast majority of pragmatic users this isn't a problem. I'm using closed source NVidia drivers right now. No big deal to me.

Really, the people most likely to care that the library isn't completely free source are the people least likely to handle Microsoft documents. I mean... Think about it. If you really want only free software, all this means is that Microsoft doesn't let you use their close sourced software. If you're gonna use Microsoft software, obviously it isn't a big deal to have a little non-GPL.

This solution isn't perfect-perfect, but it would basically nullify any damage to the progress of free software in the marketplace and in the world, and the only people it would bother probably aren't using MS-Word anyway.

#