In article <18288098.HdZyntMrDR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> | 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.
> `----
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20080310153345250
(1) The author has misread the document, reading a "shall" where the
document says "should". For someone supposedly with legal training,
that's a surprising mistake.
(2) There are numerous free software implementations of MP3 available.
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
