On Tue, 11 Mar 2008 15:23:21 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> ____/ 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 While it has largely been superseded by MP3 for PC and Internet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)?
>
> 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)
What a moron.......
Schestowitz lays another egg.
--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/
|
|
