On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:23:20 +0300 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 6/28/07, Celejar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Thu, 28 Jun 2007 10:13:38 +0300 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > [...] > > > 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.
> > if you are referring to link #2 in your original post then keep in I'm also referring to the (current?) documentation, which states: > Rich Text Format > > Rich Text Format, or RTF, is a file format that contains all the formatting > information about your file, and which can be read by almost all word > processors. This is the format you should use if you need to send a file to > someone who doesn't use AbiWord. 'Rich Text Format for old apps' is an older > version of RTF, but applications have to be very old to need it. You should > use normal RTF unless you know that you need to use the older version. > mind two things: > 1) it was made in 2003 - ODF was not around at the time IIUC, it was around, although it wasn't formally adopted as an OASIS standard until 2005. After all, the thread I cite in that note refers to OASIS / XML. > 2) he (Dom Lachowicz) seems to be the type of guy that I use this > phrase to describe: "technical matters are far more important than > legal ones". > So he sees things from that very specific point of view. That's good > if you want "the damn thing[1] to just work" but it's bad if you want > "the damn thing to serve the community for a long time". The times > have changed and we can't ignore legal issues any more. If microsoft > offers no clear/solid commitment regarding what we can and what we can > not do with their specifications then we should be searching for > alternatives as soon as possible. In between you may use the spec as > long as you don't get very dependent to its usage because some day you > may very well read some threats in the press about the hundreds of > patents/terms/IP rights or whatever Microsoft thinks your usage > violates Thanks, I understand your points. > > [1] a way to exchange documents with us much people as possible 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]
