[Back to list] On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:13:38 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Peter Hillier-Brook <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > It's a Microsoft "standard". Draw your own conclusions regarding "open". > > > > I'd certainly suspect MS, but its authorship is insufficient reason to > > conclude that it isn't open. > > authorship is surely insufficient but why don't you take into account > these also: > - Microsoft is a company with 95% share in the office suits > - convicted for monopoly practises some years before > - continuously prosecuted for the same reason ever after > - unwilling(to put it lightly) to comply to European Union's court > rulings to make their products interoperable > - strongly(to put it lightly) opposed to an evolving open standard > for office documents > > anyway, IMHO: even if RTF is "open" under some interpretation it's not > to be used as a critical component of OS SW. You will have noticed > already that it's hard to find the license for the implementation of > RTF. Have you? Hundreds of pages of technical documentation and no > license makes me nervous and it's *THE* reason for me not to use RTF > when the licensor is a company like Microsoft and I want to help it's > main competitor. Understood. OTOH, a leading OSS product (Abiword) recommends RTF for document exchange, and that counts for something to me. Celejar -- mailmin.sourceforge.net - remote access via secure (OpenPGP) email ssuds.sourceforge.net - A Simple Sudoku Solver and Generator -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
