On Sun, Dec 1, 2013 at 12:22 PM, Italo Vignoli <italo.vignoli@gmail.com> wrote:
On 01/12/13 17:55, Robinson Tryon wrote:
In the case of OOXML, "Microsoft published the specs for XML file
formats in 2003 and licensed them to competitors" may be correct, but
I feel like that sentence is a bit misleading for ODF or other non-MS
XML document formats. Perhaps just dropping the sentence altogether
might be preferable.
The statement is not correct, by the way, because the format is not
licensed but is free to use based on a statement provided in 2008 at the
time of OOXML standardization.
Right -- in the case of OOXML, my understanding is that their "open
specification promise"[1] is tantamount to a (rather permissive)
license.
--R
[1] http://www.microsoft.com/openspecifications/en/us/programs/osp/default.aspx
--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: marketing+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
Context
Privacy Policy |
Impressum (Legal Info) |
Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (
MPLv2).
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our
trademark policy.