Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:2310442.7WmYbEhnjH@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
> ____/ Jesper Lund Stocholm on Tuesday 11 March 2008 14:20 : \____
>
>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> news:18288098.HdZyntMrDR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>
>>> BRM Resolution 23: Thou Shalt Use Patent-Encumbered MP3 with OOXML
>>>
>>> ,----[ Quote
>>>| There are two more documents from the BRM meeting available now on
>>>| Alex Brown's blog:
>>>|
>>>| [...]
>>>|
>>>| If you open the zip file and look at the document titled
>>>| PT-62A2.doc and put it next to the Resolutions document [text],
>>>| specifically Resolution 23, I think you'll find that they say, put
>>>| together, that any applications wishing interoperability with OOXML
>>>| in sound must use MP3. This is non-free, being patent-encumbered.
>>>| If you go to Audiopeg.com, it tells us, "Audio MPEG is protected by
>>>| a portfolio of patents covering a large number of countries."
>>>| Therefore, by my reading, the proposed spec can't be implemented in
>>>| free software and in a backhanded way, the GPL has just been exiled
>>>| again. What kind of standard is OOXML if the GPL, which is what
>>>| Linux is licensed under, can't freely interoperate? FOSS is a new
>>>| factor that standards bodies simply must consider. It's not like
>>>| the old, proprietary days, when it was like a club, and everybody
>>>| had similar business plans.
>>>|
>>
>> Also (I forgot to mention this in the first posting) - please note
>> that ISO/IEC 11172-3 is not MP3. It is MP2.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO/IEC_11172-3
>>
>> "MPEG-1 Audio Layer II (MP2, sometimes Musicam) is an audio codec
>> defined by ISO/IEC 11172-3. An extension exists: MPEG-2 Layer II and
>> is defined in ISO/IEC 13818-3. The file extension for files
>> containing such audio data is usually .mp2. While it has largely been
>> superseded by MP3 for PC and Internet applications, it remains a
>> dominant standard for audio broadcasting as part of the DAB digital
>> radio and DVB digital television standards"
>
> Is your name Erik?
>
> With all due respect, what motivates you to come to a Linux forum to
> spin and defend the company with whom you are partner, i.e. that which
> puts the bread on your table? I am genuinely curious. Are you
> concerned because Microsoft's CEO acknowledges that Linux, owing not
> just to licensing but also owing to elevation of standards, will rob
> Microsoft from its bread and butter (lockin)?
Basically I am just concerned that you and others keep spreading wrong
information on OOXML and also the BRM itself. Is it a problem - regardless
of my employer - that I point these wrong facts out?
> Pam's concern is focused rather equally on the fact that a .doc file
> is included. Have you heard the story about Cuba? (they were unable to
> submit to ISO, which only accepted .doc files)
well, the reason is actually very simple - ISO basically allows two
document formats and those are PDF and DOC. Since the documents in the ZIP-
file were to be discussed and presented at the BRM (and thereby possibly
edited), DOC is the only possible document format. I believe that ODF has
recently been approved in ISO as well, but I am not quite sure.
--
Jesper Lund Stocholm
http://idippedut.dk
|
|
