| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)Posted Sep 16, 2005 15:15 UTC (Fri) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501)In reply to: Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) by kfox Parent article: Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek)
The standard is basically OOo 1.1's document format with minor chnages. It is being implemented in OOo 2 as well as in some other word processors now.
Had MS provided a good license for their format, their format might have been considered. But their license doesn't allow you much. So it could not be used as an open standard.
(Log in to post comments)
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) Posted Sep 17, 2005 5:26 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] By what law could they actually enforce a license on a file format? Also, if they could do so, why haven't they already sued the developers of OpenOffice and other projects with import filters for their file formats? I doubt that Microsoft's claims of having "intellectual property rights" over their file formats are no more true than, for example, SCO's claim to the ELF executable format.
Microsoft Challenges Massachusetts on Open-Format Plan (eWeek) Posted Sep 17, 2005 21:37 UTC (Sat) by rqosa (guest, #24136) [Link] s/no more/any more/
|
|
||||||||||||